PDA

View Full Version : Bradshaw's feet are a mess, BJ gone and Ware is average at best...........



FBomb
04-27-2012, 09:53 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

elismom
04-27-2012, 09:55 AM
I agree with this. It was a necessary pick.

I get the pt your making but its a bit much on the AB bashing.

JR is a god at drafting and until otherwise I suggest everyoen hush hush

nygpolishpunk
04-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Wilson is quicker than Bradshaw, mind you. I'm excited to see what this kid shows. He's definitely going to see a lot of carries this season and may start a few games. When was the last time Bradshaw played through a whole season? He's a work horse, sure, but we need insurance and an eventual replacement.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 09:58 AM
I agree with this. It was a necessary pick. I get the pt your making but its a bit much on the AB bashing. JR is a god at drafting and until otherwise I suggest everyoen hush hush</P>


I didn't bash AB....I pointed out that he probably isn't going to be around much longer with his bad feet. I mentioned his fumbling and blocking problems because it's being used against Wilson.</P>


</P>

FBomb
04-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Wilson is quicker than Bradshaw, mind you. I'm excited to see what this kid shows. He's definitely going to see a lot of carries this season and may start a few games. When was the last time Bradshaw played through a whole season? He's a work horse, sure, but we need insurance and an eventual replacement.
</P>


this</P>

BurnerNYG
04-27-2012, 10:00 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>+1 I don't consider myself a rocket scientist but I don't think I need to be one to understand the logic of this pick and as far as questioning Reese....I have not comment for that, just a smh gesture.

gumby742
04-27-2012, 10:01 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.

nygpolishpunk
04-27-2012, 10:02 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.That's probably why they drafted a shifty guy like Wilson that can make something out of nothing. A complement to AB, not a contrast.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 10:03 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>

nygpolishpunk
04-27-2012, 10:07 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</p>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</p>
I was hoping for o-line help at 32 too but all the guys I wanted were gone at that point. Any other o-lineman would have been a bit of a reach at that point, that's not something Reese does.

BurnerNYG
04-27-2012, 10:10 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year.* It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything?* o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.

G-Man67
04-27-2012, 10:12 AM
nobody has a crystal ball, so all any of us can do is look at our drafting history ... a drafting historythat created the Super Bowl 46 champs</P>


and trust Jerry</P>


now, if peeps want to have fun with what ifs, well that's fine ... but to go, OMG, we blew it ! ... well that's crazy talk</P>

buddy33
04-27-2012, 10:13 AM
Also, in the salary cap world Reese just drafted 2 very speedy RB's and they will be cost the team much less in a year or two.

CDN_G-FAN
04-27-2012, 10:14 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


</P>


Do fans realize that Bradshaw, for the most part, doesn't practice during the week so he can play during games?</P>


why would anyone think that's a sustainable situation?</P>


even if it seemed like the biggest head scratcher in the world, you'd think reese has earned enough trust for fans to think that maybe reese is catching something they're missing.</P>


but to have it be close to the BPA AND a position of need, its amazing that fans question this move.</P>

hungrrrry
04-27-2012, 10:15 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year.* It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.bradshaw and jacobs were terribly slow so I am saying BS to this post. The Olineman can't wait forever for twinkle toes to get to the hole. Bradshaw had no speed due to his feet trouble...with an injection of speed we may see our Oline is quite sufficient.

B&RWarrior
04-27-2012, 10:17 AM
Wilson is quicker than Bradshaw, mind you. I'm excited to see what this kid shows. He's definitely going to see a lot of carries this season and may start a few games. When was the last time Bradshaw played through a whole season? He's a work horse, sure, but we need insurance and an eventual replacement.
</P>


Bradshaw spot is secure. The battle is between Scott and Wilson for the #2 role. </P>

thomsoad
04-27-2012, 10:18 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

I dont have a problem with the pick personally.

This is what I think the gripe is...and feel free to correct me if you think im wrong.

This is the first time in the Reese era that it seems we picked out of necessity outside of value. Now I know he was Reeses #2 RB. But I think we are all use to getting 4th round RB "sleeper" picks at that position.

I think thats the beef some fans are having... it just doesnt feel like we got the "steal of the draft" this year.

B&RWarrior
04-27-2012, 10:19 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


And it won't matter this year if the run blocking doesn't improve.</P>

FBomb
04-27-2012, 10:24 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


I dont have a problem with the pick personally. This is what I think the gripe is...and feel free to correct me if you think im wrong. This is the first time in the Reese era that it seems we picked out of necessity outside of value. Now I know he was Reeses #2 RB. But I think we are all use to getting 4th round RB "sleeper" picks at that position. I think thats the beef some fans are having... it just doesnt feel like we got the "steal of the draft" this year.</P>


That may be a very valid point......but it doen't make thier complaining any less silly. It just makes them spoiled. maybe there WASN'T a steal in the ist round at 32 this year. Maybe that steal comes later or even not at all.</P>

CDN_G-FAN
04-27-2012, 10:29 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


I dont have a problem with the pick personally. This is what I think the gripe is...and feel free to correct me if you think im wrong. This is the first time in the Reese era that it seems we picked out of necessity outside of value. Now I know he was Reeses #2 RB. But I think we are all use to getting 4th round RB "sleeper" picks at that position. I think thats the beef some fans are having... it just doesnt feel like we got the "steal of the draft" this year.</P>


reese went into this draft commenting that in the 32nd place there were alot of options, which i think translates to by the time you get to 32, valueof one pick vs. the next gets very muddled.</P>


i don't know if we can say that he picked for need anymore than when he chose Nicks a few years ago.</P>


time will tell if this was a need pick or clearly the BPA.</P>


History with Reeseso far has shown that even when we've filled a need, its also been very close to the BPA for our 1st round choices.</P>


</P>

craigjr007
04-27-2012, 10:29 AM
lets be honest...i love the sound of wilson and scott

GiantPride27
04-27-2012, 10:33 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

He fits the Giants of today better than a Big BJ type running back. He's better out of the backfield than any NYG RB on the roster. He will be a nice security blanket for Eli in the flats.

People keep saying we need a big goal line back to replace BJ. Im sorry but i loved BJ but he sucked on the goal line. Bradshaw and Tiki were both better Goal line backs than Jacobs. He was to slow to the hole an needed to build up momentum to push the pile.

Wilson can go from 0-60 is a flash and cut through the line and runs with the toughness and power of a big guy

JMFP2
04-27-2012, 10:33 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


</P>


Reese (and Ross) nailed this pick, in my opinion.</P>


No doubt, Bradshaw has been a great back.</P>


But the dude CAN'T EVEN PRACTICE on a weekly basis. He's been a great back for the Giants, but he' not Jim Brown.</P>


The offensive line has had it's share of issues run blocking......but a running back who is unable to practice during the week is not going to improve the effort.</P>


I posted this elsewhere, but I'll put it up here, too. This articleis about what drafting in the first round is all about....The writing is on the wall.</P>


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-25/sports/ct-spt-0426-bowen-bears-nfl-draft--20120425_1_nfl-draft-nfl-calendar-vets</P>

thomsoad
04-27-2012, 10:41 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


I dont have a problem with the pick personally. This is what I think the gripe is...and feel free to correct me if you think im wrong. This is the first time in the Reese era that it seems we picked out of necessity outside of value. Now I know he was Reeses #2 RB. But I think we are all use to getting 4th round RB "sleeper" picks at that position. I think thats the beef some fans are having... it just doesnt feel like we got the "steal of the draft" this year.</P>


reese went into this draft commenting that in the 32nd place there were alot of options, which i think translates to by the time you get to 32, value*of one pick vs. the next gets very muddled.</P>


i don't know if we can say that he picked for need anymore than when he chose Nicks a few years ago.</P>


time will tell if this was a need pick or clearly the BPA.</P>


History with Reese*so far has shown that even when we've filled a need, its also been very close to the BPA for our 1st round choices.</P>


*</P>

Everything you just said is completely true. As I said... i think its just more of a feel. I totally trust Reese. But even I have to admit I didnt hear too much about this kid as a 1st rounder. Just doesnt have that "JPP/Prince" feel to it.

GameTime
04-27-2012, 10:43 AM
Doesn't matter who the Giants chose for their first pick or any other pick. There will be whiners and cryers every step of the way. </P>


Non of these players are a "cant mis"s. Some have much higher potential of course but we will all see who makes the grade in the NFL from this draft in the coming seasons. </P>


</P>


Sit back, relax, and dont get your panties in a bunch. Some picks will pan out and others wont. Happens every season to every team.......past, present, and future. </P>

dezzzR
04-27-2012, 10:57 AM
Thread title just rolls of the tongue.

Reese loves back flips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLUHG2mWhEQ



I like the pick. Looks strong for his size. Very shifty, has good speed and can catch.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCng8f1Zig">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCng8f1Zig
</a>

gumby742
04-27-2012, 10:59 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


</P>


if our oline has issues because they don't open up holes, drafting a RB in the first round is essentially a wasted pick. if they think they can address the oline later in the draft, then it all make sense. But the probability of finding a good lineman earlier in the draft is better then waiting for the later rounds.</P>

giantsforce
04-27-2012, 11:01 AM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</p>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</p>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </p>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</p>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</p>I think you are right on to something here. We do not know how bad Bradshaw is hurting and if he will last the entire season now that BJ is gone. Reese had to do something about that and drafting at 32 he did not have much of a choice. Wilson may have not been his 1st choice but overall is not a bad move. It seems that he is very shifty and speedy and this is something that the Giants did not have but need with the O-line we currently have. Also, he seems to be a great returner which will help our offense big time. I saw some comments from posters here saying "I hope that Reese did not draft a returner" Well, I think they underestimate the value of a returner greatly with this statement. I guess drafting a returner like Hester in the 1st round would be out of the question, right?
Bottom line is we have to wait and see how Wilson develops. Hopefully, he will not turn out to be a bust like the last 1st round RB we drafted.

JMFP2
04-27-2012, 11:01 AM
Compare Wilson physically with other running backs.....he's similar to MJD and Ray Rice.</P>


Also, similar to my favorite Giant running back..... the legendaryJoe Morris.</P>

gumby742
04-27-2012, 11:02 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>

ANON837
04-27-2012, 11:02 AM
Too many people are acting as if the draft is over. There are 6 other rounds to go. I'm not doing back flips over the pick but I don't hate it either. They needed a RB and they got one. But they also need a TE and some OL help. We'll see what happens with the rest of the draft. I can remember many of us not liking the JPP pick. Look how that turned out. Let's wait a bit before we starting burning Giants jerseys.

gumby742
04-27-2012, 11:04 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.bradshaw and jacobs were terribly slow so I am saying BS to this post. The Olineman can't wait forever for twinkle toes to get to the hole. Bradshaw had no speed due to his feet trouble...with an injection of speed we may see our Oline is quite sufficient.</P>


Not sure if we were watching the same game, but our backs were stopped in the backfield a whole bunch of times, only to fall forward for 1 yard. There was nothing there for them. There's a reason why we struggled on 3rd and short. No push.</P>

blueomaha
04-27-2012, 11:10 AM
+1...Reese's pieces...

Brandon jacobs
04-27-2012, 11:10 AM
remember, Football is a business and these are people who work and live football. the Tish and Mara families aren't stupid to bring in lousy judges of talent or needs.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 11:11 AM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


</P>


So, which impacto-lineman would you have picked at 32?</P>

dezzzR
04-27-2012, 11:22 AM
IN REESE WE TRUST
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">According
to STATS, David Wilson gained 990 yards last season after making
contact with a defender, best in NCAA (from Adam Schefter)</span></h6>

ANON837
04-27-2012, 11:27 AM
IN REESE WE TRUST
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">According
to STATS, David Wilson gained 990 yards last season after making
contact with a defender, best in NCAA (from Adam Schefter)</span></h6>
+1 I'll take that.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 11:55 AM
IN REESE WE TRUST

<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft="{" type?:1}?><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft="{" type?:3}?>According to STATS, David Wilson gained 990 yards last season after making contact with a defender, best in NCAA (from Adam Schefter)</SPAN></H6>



+1 I'll take that.</P>


</P>


+2</P>

JMFP2
04-27-2012, 12:07 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


I'm not going to excuse the offensive line....there were definitely issues there.</P>


But the running game was not explosive, and alot of that is on the running backs.</P>


Part of it is on the play calling as well (e.g. delayed draws that even my 8 year old son could anticipate)</P>


You've got to address all the elements....but Running Back was a huge part of it.</P>


There were plenty of plays that were there that Bradshaw bounced out of....I attribute that to lack of practice. You can't just sit on the sidelines all weak and then expect to mesh on game day.</P>


As far as Jacobs is concerned, he didn't get enough carries to develop momentum, and often, the play calls didn't complement his skill set. People based Jacobs about "losing a step", "twinkle toes", etc. I didn't really feel that way, but there were plenty of game were he didn't look like the young Jacobs that would just truck people. I think alot of that was due to his contract status....Jacobs wasn't going to injure himself when his status was up in the air. Can't really blame him for abandoning that crushing style given what happened to guys like Steve Smith.</P>


With Wilson, you get....</P>


1) A player that can practice. I don't think this can be underestimated.</P>


2) A kid with the physical style of MJD/Ray Rice.... he's short, but strong....he can leverage down for short yardage inside. He hits the hole in a flash....he is tremendous after contact (another poster cited that he was at the top of the NCAA after contatc). Take a look at his legs....they are like pistons.</P>


3) A kid with breakaway speed.....if the hole is not there, he's got the gear to bounce outside and gain the edge. </P>


4) Youth.....he's not a retread back (which is what I was afraid might have been the "solution" after Jacobs left).</P>


5) Proven production.....1700 yards on an NCAA schedule....ACC player of the year. This isn't a "wish and prayer" type kid (aka Da'Rel Scott). This is a dude that's done it.</P>

rick5292
04-27-2012, 12:08 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.

Very true...and that is why I was wondering why we passed up on <em id="yui_3_4_1_2_1335542935712_5367">Cordy Glenn.
[/i]

JMFP2
04-27-2012, 12:11 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


And it won't matter this year if the run blocking doesn't improve.</P>


</P>


I'm pretty convinced OL is very high on the priority list.</P>

BurnerNYG
04-27-2012, 12:26 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year.* It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything?* o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft a*good*player for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32.* Probability.* The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding.* Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you* have back there.* </P>


*</P>It's not like Wilson was the 5th or 6th rb selected, he was the third. Our team is stacked with talent and the way I see it, Reese is just playing the recycle game. I believe the longer a group plays together, the better they'll become as a cohesive group. Take our Superbowl 42 group as an example...it took time for them to gel. We have players that can get the job done and our running game did get better as the season progressed. San Fran just has a helluva D which is capable of shutting any run game down. Jacobs and Bradshaw lack that top end speed that we now have with Wilson and Scott. Let's just see how things pan out.

Martin
04-27-2012, 12:32 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

Yeah! the people who question JR are crazy.

I see this new improved team much better than last year. Once we run the ball the Giants
will dominate!!!

BigBlue1971
04-27-2012, 12:44 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


</P>


</P>


i agree!</P>


watching vids of this guy indicates he doesnt mind contact and collisions! </P>


thats in addition to his shiftness and speed!</P>


i love the pick!</P>

gumby742
04-27-2012, 01:10 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


</P>


So, which impacto-lineman would you have picked at 32?</P>


</P>


I don't know enough to even pretend I know. But I think that it would have made more sense to draft the best olinemen available before adding a RB with poor vision. Martin? Glenn? I'm tired of getting no push when it's 3rd and 1 and we have to opunt.</P>


I think the part the killed it for me the most wasthe fact that Wilson has poor vision. To me, that's the most important trait. Not speed. Not big play ability. Just findthe holeso you can get 3-4 yards. I don't need 60 yards in one carry. Had they said Wilson had great vision, but had average speed, but would be able to get the tough yards, i would have been much happier with the pick</P>

FBomb
04-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


</P>


So, which impacto-lineman would you have picked at 32?</P>


</P>


I don't know enough to even pretend I know. But I think that it would have made more sense to draft the best olinemen available before adding a RB with poor vision. Martin? Glenn? I'm tired of getting no push when it's 3rd and 1 and we have to opunt.</P>


I think the part the killed it for me the most wasthe fact that Wilson has poor vision. To me, that's the most important trait. Not speed. Not big play ability. Just findthe holeso you can get 3-4 yards. I don't need 60 yards in one carry. Had they said Wilson had great vision, but had average speed, but would be able to get the tough yards, i would have been much happier with the pick</P>


</P>


Like I said in another thread...IMO the Giants took the next best RB on the board. A need and a guy that would not have been there next round for us. We have an excellent chance at filling the holes on the line in later rounds. </P>


Losing BJ and Bradshaw's injury issues make this a good pick. Not to mention he's a return specialist. </P>


</P>

gumby742
04-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


I'm not going to excuse the offensive line....there were definitely issues there.</P>


But the running game was not explosive, and alot of that is on the running backs.</P>


Part of it is on the play calling as well (e.g. delayed draws that even my 8 year old son could anticipate)</P>


You've got to address all the elements....but Running Back was a huge part of it.</P>


There were plenty of plays that were there that Bradshaw bounced out of....I attribute that to lack of practice. You can't just sit on the sidelines all weak and then expect to mesh on game day.</P>


As far as Jacobs is concerned, he didn't get enough carries to develop momentum, and often, the play calls didn't complement his skill set. People based Jacobs about "losing a step", "twinkle toes", etc. I didn't really feel that way, but there were plenty of game were he didn't look like the young Jacobs that would just truck people. I think alot of that was due to his contract status....Jacobs wasn't going to injure himself when his status was up in the air. Can't really blame him for abandoning that crushing style given what happened to guys like Steve Smith.</P>


With Wilson, you get....</P>


1) A player that can practice. I don't think this can be underestimated.</P>


2) A kid with the physical style of MJD/Ray Rice.... he's short, but strong....he can leverage down for short yardage inside. He hits the hole in a flash....he is tremendous after contact (another poster cited that he was at the top of the NCAA after contatc). Take a look at his legs....they are like pistons.</P>


3) A kid with breakaway speed.....if the hole is not there, he's got the gear to bounce outside and gain the edge. </P>


4) Youth.....he's not a retread back (which is what I was afraid might have been the "solution" after Jacobs left).</P>


5) Proven production.....1700 yards on an NCAA schedule....ACC player of the year. This isn't a "wish and prayer" type kid (aka Da'Rel Scott). This is a dude that's done it.</P>


</P>


Dunno. I think part of the problem is that I place practically no value in RBs. I can see how Wilson can come in and turn a -1 yard loss into a 60 yard TD run. But I'm more concerned with gaining a consistent 3-4 yards. I want to be able to convert 3rd and 1s. This is just my opinion, but runs of -1, -2, 1, 0, -2, 80 is far worse then 5, 4, 6, 5, 4,5. You need a good oline to do the latter.</P>

gumby742
04-27-2012, 01:19 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


</P>


So, which impacto-lineman would you have picked at 32?</P>


</P>


I don't know enough to even pretend I know. But I think that it would have made more sense to draft the best olinemen available before adding a RB with poor vision. Martin? Glenn? I'm tired of getting no push when it's 3rd and 1 and we have to opunt.</P>


I think the part the killed it for me the most wasthe fact that Wilson has poor vision. To me, that's the most important trait. Not speed. Not big play ability. Just findthe holeso you can get 3-4 yards. I don't need 60 yards in one carry. Had they said Wilson had great vision, but had average speed, but would be able to get the tough yards, i would have been much happier with the pick</P>


</P>


Like I said in another thread...IMO the Giants took the next best RB on the board. A need and a guy that would not have been there next round for us. We have an excellent chance at filling the holes on the line in later rounds. </P>


Losing BJ and Bradshaw's injury issues make this a good pick. Not to mention he's a return specialist. </P>


</P>


</P>


yeah all this is just conjecture and we're just discussing.. I'm not saying, this is a bad pick and i don't think others are either, save a few. Just that it doesn't make sense, especially when our oline is hurting. If our oline comes together, all is well.</P>


I'm just not jumping up and down in excitement about it. I might have been cool with trading up and grabbing DeCastro though, since he fell quite a bit.</P>

CLR
04-27-2012, 01:20 PM
The only thing I don't like about this pick is that it wasn't Doug Martin, Dang Bucks snuck in there and snagged him.
Other than that I love this pick.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 01:23 PM
Bradhaw and Jacobs didn't exactly have lanes to run through last year. It wouldn't have mattered who we had back there.</P>


wtf does that have to do with anything? o-line needs to be addressed but not at 32.</P>


Right, if you're not gonna draft a blue chip player for the Oline that can start from day one then you mind as well draft one in the later rounds. We have guys who played together and won a championship. They might actually play better as a cohesive group this year with Beatty coming back and old man McKenzie gone.</P>


And my counter argument is that if you can't draft agoodplayer for the oline at 32, then unless you think you can fill it in the later rounds, you're better off not drafting a RB either at 32. Probability. The higher the draft pick, the higher chance of the player succeeding. Why spend a high draft pick on a RB when your success rate is lower for an olinemen in the later rounds. Unless, again you're sure you can fill the holes in the later rounds.</P>


If you're not opening holes, it won't matter who you have back there. </P>


</P>


</P>


So, which impacto-lineman would you have picked at 32?</P>


</P>


I don't know enough to even pretend I know. But I think that it would have made more sense to draft the best olinemen available before adding a RB with poor vision. Martin? Glenn? I'm tired of getting no push when it's 3rd and 1 and we have to opunt.</P>


I think the part the killed it for me the most wasthe fact that Wilson has poor vision. To me, that's the most important trait. Not speed. Not big play ability. Just findthe holeso you can get 3-4 yards. I don't need 60 yards in one carry. Had they said Wilson had great vision, but had average speed, but would be able to get the tough yards, i would have been much happier with the pick</P>


</P>


Like I said in another thread...IMO the Giants took the next best RB on the board. A need and a guy that would not have been there next round for us. We have an excellent chance at filling the holes on the line in later rounds. </P>


Losing BJ and Bradshaw's injury issues make this a good pick. Not to mention he's a return specialist. </P>


</P>


</P>


yeah all this is just conjecture and we're just discussing.. I'm not saying, this is a bad pick and i don't think others are either, save a few. Just that it doesn't make sense, especially when our oline is hurting. If our oline comes together, all is well.</P>


I'm just not jumping up and down in excitement about it. I might have been cool with trading up and grabbing DeCastro though, since he fell quite a bit.</P>


</P>


To be fair....I have NEVER jumped up and down in excitement with ANY Reese picks.....he has NEVER gone the way I thought we should have.......but I have learned not to question him.</P>


And there are more than a "few" who hate this pick.</P>

nycsportzfan
04-27-2012, 01:25 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P> I didn't care for the value, personally.. We've found tons of RB's who played extremely well for us in rds outside of 1, with guys like Tiki Barber, Derrick Ward, Bradon Jacobs, and Ahmad Bradshaw coming to mind.. U got tons of RB's still out there that very well could be the most productive back in this class, and usually reaching for a prospect at a positon because its a need, isn't the best philosophy.. That said, i'm intrigued to see what the kid can do, and he has some tools

FBomb
04-27-2012, 01:48 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


I didn't care for the value, personally.. We've found tons of RB's who played extremely well for us in rds outside of 1, with guys like Tiki Barber, Derrick Ward, Bradon Jacobs, and Ahmad Bradshaw coming to mind.. U got tons of RB's still out there that very well could be the most productive back in this class, and usually reaching for a prospect at a positon because its a need, isn't the best philosophy.. That said, i'm intrigued to see what the kid can do, and he has some tools</P>


Yeah....this was mainly meant for posters who are hating on the pick.</P>

BlueBlooded1979
04-27-2012, 02:30 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

Picking for need is a good way to become the Browns. There is no way that this kid was the BPA unless this draft has horrible value rounds 2-7. The pick reeks of desperation and panic.

The report on this kid is that he won't survive 25 carries a game. You honestly think there isn't a guy in round 4 that can do that ??

Believing in anyone blindly is foolish. Look at the next 10 picks in the second round and you will find at least 2 guys you like better.

FBomb
04-27-2012, 02:38 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first. </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


Picking for need is a good way to become the Browns. There is no way that this kid was the BPA unless this draft has horrible value rounds 2-7. The pick reeks of desperation and panic. The report on this kid is that he won't survive 25 carries a game. You honestly think there isn't a guy in round 4 that can do that ?? Believing in anyone blindly is foolish. Look at the next 10 picks in the second round and you will find at least 2 guys you like better.</P>


lol.....Reese is a better GM than Heckert could ever hope to be, so your point is moot.</P>


Secondly, how is it "believing in blindly" to choose the opinion of a proven GM over the opinions of fans on a message board? Sorry, Reese wins that argement every time......but you go ahead and believe you know better than he does. He's proven smarter people wrong.</P>


As for the next 10 picks....it really doesn't matter who I or anyone else likes better.....just Jerry. he makes the call.</P>

sharick88
04-27-2012, 02:41 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>

Picking for need is a good way to become the Browns. There is no way that this kid was the BPA unless this draft has horrible value rounds 2-7. The pick reeks of desperation and panic.

The report on this kid is that he won't survive 25 carries a game. You honestly think there isn't a guy in round 4 that can do that ??

Believing in anyone blindly is foolish. Look at the next 10 picks in the second round and you will find at least 2 guys you like better.

Since there's no way this kid was the BPA at 32, please tell me who was?

sharick88
04-27-2012, 02:42 PM
......how ANYONE could think taking Wilson was a BAD idea just blows my mind!!</P>


Seriously, with AB's feet problems, how much longer will he last??</P>


Secondly, AB had fumble problems and couldn't pass block at first.* </P>


We drafted Bradshaw 2 last night, who is a kick returner and can catch out of the backfield.</P>


Lastly, questioning Reese at this point is pissing in the wind.</P>


Picking for need is a good way to become the Browns. There is no way that this kid was the BPA unless this draft has horrible value rounds 2-7. The pick reeks of desperation and panic. The report on this kid is that he won't survive 25 carries a game. You honestly think there isn't a guy in round 4 that can do that ?? Believing in anyone blindly is foolish. Look at the next 10 picks in the second round and you will find at least 2 guys you like better.</P>


lol.....Reese is a better GM than Heckert could ever hope to be, so your point is moot.</P>


Secondly, how is it "believing in blindly" to choose the opinion of a proven GM over the opinions of fans on a message board?* Sorry, Reese wins that argement every time......but you go ahead and believe you know better than he does.* He's proven smarter people wrong.</P>


As for the next 10 picks....it really doesn't matter who I or anyone else likes better.....just Jerry.* he makes the call.</P>
2 super bowl wins in 5 years tells me that reese knows what he is doing

DIPSET_ALL_DAY
04-27-2012, 02:46 PM
Yeah, someone needs to wash Bradshaw's feet.

Diamondring
04-27-2012, 03:34 PM
People need to realize that there are going to be other picks so Reese can address other needs.

OX1
04-27-2012, 04:48 PM
[

He fits the Giants of today better than a Big BJ type running back. He's better out of the backfield than any NYG RB on the roster. He will be a nice security blanket for Eli in the flats.

People keep saying we need a big goal line back to replace BJ. Im sorry but i loved BJ but he sucked on the goal line.

The recent BJ was just not compatible with our current line. Great with a hole once in a while, but Wilson could turn those same once in a while holes into 50 yards. If Bennett at least equals Ballard and we find something even close to MH, this O will be ROCKIN!!!!!!!!!!!! God help the league if we fix our line too, even slightly