PDA

View Full Version : Reese's Biggest Area of Concern His Biggest Weakness



Red Dog
06-22-2013, 09:06 AM
I can understand Reese making an attempt to sign fullbacks as anybody would most likely be a temp fill in for the injured Hynoski, but what is significant are attempts to sign linebackers, such as Bishop, when the money isn't there and where temps are not needed due to injuries.

Reese's one weakness perhaps may be his inability to score linebackers in the draft. Granted other needs create positional draft choices as well, but this LB'r unit hasn't been top dog for a number of years. Or, a second weakness is hanging on to certain draft choices too long.

When was the last time the Giants had a great line backing crop? There hasn't been any Taylor's, Huff's, Carson's, Armstead's etc.

TCHOF
06-22-2013, 09:11 AM
What an original thread!

Mercury
06-22-2013, 10:18 AM
If you throw enough poo at it, something will eventually stick.

Diamondring
06-22-2013, 10:59 AM
Maybe there reasons why he was unable to get good quality lbs.

jomo
06-22-2013, 11:06 AM
Maybe there reasons why he was unable to get good quality lbs.I think he simply doesn't value them as highly in today's NFL where pass rushing DE's and DB's are more important. We are also a 4-3 team where tackes are made more by DL than LB.

I think it is a planned decision even though I desagree with it. Still, to the OP point, we do in fact draft LB's and in the end they are all below average or worse. (example Sintim)

poppa smurph
06-22-2013, 12:18 PM
I think he simply doesn't value them as highly in today's NFL where pass rushing DE's and DB's are more important. We are also a 4-3 team where tackes are made more by DL than LB.

I think it is a planned decision even though I desagree with it. Still, to the OP point, we do in fact draft LB's and in the end they are all below average or worse. (example Sintim)Sintim was the highest drafted LB with Reese at the helm too, wasn't he?
It's almost like Reese is snake-bit when it comes down to using a high pick on a LB now lol.

Gimaniac
06-22-2013, 12:44 PM
Why do you assume the linebackers we have now are bad? Are there really free agents out there that are better than we have now?

We've had a lot of turnover at LB this past year, while there are no obvious studs, we may be OK there.

I'm more concerened about our corners.

Toadofsteel
06-22-2013, 12:52 PM
Why do you assume the linebackers we have now are bad? Are there really free agents out there that are better than we have now?

We've had a lot of turnover at LB this past year, while there are no obvious studs, we may be OK there.

I'm more concerened about our corners.

I just hope that if Webster starts off badly again, he gets pulled from the CB2 spot for Ross. Ross wasn't that great by any means, but 2011 ross was better than 2012 webster.

Diamondring
06-22-2013, 01:07 PM
I think he simply doesn't value them as highly in today's NFL where pass rushing DE's and DB's are more important. We are also a 4-3 team where tackes are made more by DL than LB.

I think it is a planned decision even though I desagree with it. Still, to the OP point, we do in fact draft LB's and in the end they are all below average or worse. (example Sintim)I think he does not value lbs not cause of the set the Giants uses but because the type of offenses the team faces. There are other reasons we don't look at as well.

FishinTheSalt
06-22-2013, 01:20 PM
I think he simply doesn't value them as highly in today's NFL where pass rushing DE's and DB's are more important. We are also a 4-3 team where tackes are made more by DL than LB.

I think it is a planned decision even though I desagree with it. Still, to the OP point, we do in fact draft LB's and in the end they are all below average or worse. (example Sintim)

If it's an issue of how Reese values them, it's a mistake to think the position is less important than any other. It would be nice to have a guy who could shed blockers and still make the tackle or even the occasional sack. Trying to get pressure on the qb with just 4 dl guys all the time is going to fail far more than it's successful as was evident this past season. You aren't going to find guys that are both smart and physical in the bargain bin.

RoanokeFan
06-22-2013, 01:29 PM
:
I think he simply doesn't value them as highly in today's NFL where pass rushing DE's and DB's are more important. We are also a 4-3 team where tackes are made more by DL than LB. I think it is a planned decision even though I desagree with it. Still, to the OP point, we do in fact draft LB's and in the end they are all below average or worse. (example Sintim) +1

Sovereign
06-22-2013, 03:49 PM
If it's an issue of how Reese values them, it's a mistake to think the position is less important than any other. It would be nice to have a guy who could shed blockers and still make the tackle or even the occasional sack. Trying to get pressure on the qb with just 4 dl guys all the time is going to fail far more than it's successful as was evident this past season. You aren't going to find guys that are both smart and physical in the bargain bin.

The Giants won two Super Bowls with 2 crap LB corps. It's hilarious to think that all positions are created equal.

FishinTheSalt
06-22-2013, 04:20 PM
The Giants won two Super Bowls with 2 crap LB corps. It's hilarious to think that all positions are created equal.

Not sayin the positions are equal. I get your point. Just saying it would be nice to have a real playmaker at the position for a change instead of average.

JesseJames
06-22-2013, 05:17 PM
I'm thinking that in order for the team to satisfy the LBer cravings of us fans they will have to switch to a 3/4 defense

BlueBlooded1979
06-22-2013, 05:53 PM
Not sayin the positions are equal. I get your point. Just saying it would be nice to have a real playmaker at the position for a change instead of average.

To fortify that postion you need to give up something somewhere else and probably from the defense since they have more of the cap space occupied right now. You want to give up a good player at CB or DL to bring in a good player at LB ? Given the resources available Reese has done well to find guys with potential upside and minimal risk.

Drez
06-22-2013, 05:56 PM
I just hope that if Webster starts off badly again, he gets pulled from the CB2 spot for Ross. Ross wasn't that great by any means, but 2011 ross was better than 2012 webster.Not by much. At least with Webby you have at least some hope that he'll play well.

Drez
06-22-2013, 05:58 PM
Not sayin the positions are equal. I get your point. Just saying it would be nice to have a real playmaker at the position for a change instead of average.Who could we have signed that would have been a play maker? There might have been one guy we could have drafted this year that might have proven a difference maker at LB, but other than that, where are these play makers in FA at LB of which you speak?

JesseJames
06-22-2013, 06:05 PM
I'm sure the Giants would love for their LBers to play better but I don't think they are willing to spend a lot of money to have it..at least thats the way it looks to me

Diamondring
06-22-2013, 06:24 PM
There are many waays to build a team so why just look at one position cause Giants were based on having great lbs in the past?

FishinTheSalt
06-22-2013, 06:35 PM
Who could we have signed that would have been a play maker? There might have been one guy we could have drafted this year that might have proven a difference maker at LB, but other than that, where are these play makers in FA at LB of which you speak?

Nobody I can think of. I just miss guys like pierce and arrington in their prime. They added value to the defense. Refering to the posters who said reese doesnt value the position. I just think reese would love to groom a stud linebacker. I just dont think hes found a worthy prospect yet.

B&RWarrior
06-22-2013, 08:22 PM
Why do you assume the linebackers we have now are bad? Are there really free agents out there that are better than we have now?

We've had a lot of turnover at LB this past year, while there are no obvious studs, we may be OK there.

I'm more concerened about our corners.

I think it's the combination of LB and CBs that scare me. Our LBs are unproven in coverage, combine that with a secondary with no KP and a questionable C-Web, Hosely, and Stevie Brown and are ability to cover receivers is a big question mark.

Gimaniac
06-23-2013, 01:38 AM
I think it's the combination of LB and CBs that scare me. Our LBs are unproven in coverage, combine that with a secondary with no KP and a questionable C-Web, Hosely, and Stevie Brown and are ability to cover receivers is a big question mark.

I agree about Hosely and C-Web but Stevie Brown has already made me forget about KP who never really was the same after he blew his knee.

Drez
06-23-2013, 02:14 AM
I agree about Hosely and C-Web but Stevie Brown has already made me forget about KP who never really was the same after he blew his knee.Sure, Brown had a lot of picks, but he was actually often poor in coverage. IIRC, we allowed a full 7 points less per game when KP was playing than when he was not. KP's problem wasn't that he wasn't the same after the knee, but rather that we couldn't count on him being on the field because of the knee. When he was on the field, he was a difference maker.

TCHOF
06-23-2013, 09:03 AM
Sure, Brown had a lot of picks, but he was actually often poor in coverage. IIRC, we allowed a full 7 points less per game when KP was playing than when he was not. KP's problem wasn't that he wasn't the same after the knee, but rather that we couldn't count on him being on the field because of the knee. When he was on the field, he was a difference maker.

+1

Our defense was not the same when KP was not on the field.

Gimaniac
06-23-2013, 09:49 AM
Sure, Brown had a lot of picks, but he was actually often poor in coverage. IIRC, we allowed a full 7 points less per game when KP was playing than when he was not. KP's problem wasn't that he wasn't the same after the knee, but rather that we couldn't count on him being on the field because of the knee. When he was on the field, he was a difference maker.

KP was a big part of our last superbowl run, no doubt, but his career was essentially over after that.

Stevie Brown was put into the starting role without a lot of prep and single-handedly kept us from being a 6-10 team. Add 2 forced fumbles and 76 tackles to his 8 INTs and I find it kind of hard to critique his coverage skills on a team where no one looked good in coverage.

I think the onus is on the coaching to figure out how to capitalize on the talent that we do have rather than the front office plugging holes on a system that was not working last year.

JesseJames
06-23-2013, 11:51 AM
KP was a big part of our last superbowl run, no doubt, but his career was essentially over after that.

Stevie Brown was put into the starting role without a lot of prep and single-handedly kept us from being a 6-10 team. Add 2 forced fumbles and 76 tackles to his 8 INTs and I find it kind of hard to critique his coverage skills on a team where no one looked good in coverage.

I think the onus is on the coaching to figure out how to capitalize on the talent that we do have rather than the front office plugging holes on a system that was not working last year.

very well said...

B&RWarrior
06-23-2013, 11:53 AM
Sure, Brown had a lot of picks, but he was actually often poor in coverage. IIRC, we allowed a full 7 points less per game when KP was playing than when he was not. KP's problem wasn't that he wasn't the same after the knee, but rather that we couldn't count on him being on the field because of the knee. When he was on the field, he was a difference maker.

YES! ***In my Ed McMahon voice.

B&RWarrior
06-23-2013, 12:05 PM
KP was a big part of our last superbowl run, no doubt, but his career was essentially over after that.

Stevie Brown was put into the starting role without a lot of prep and single-handedly kept us from being a 6-10 team. Add 2 forced fumbles and 76 tackles to his 8 INTs and I find it kind of hard to critique his coverage skills on a team where no one looked good in coverage.

I think the onus is on the coaching to figure out how to capitalize on the talent that we do have rather than the front office plugging holes on a system that was not working last year.

Stevie Brown caught a lot of interceptions that hit him in the numbers. He was also out of position on a multitude of plays. He's been with 2 other teams and never impressed. I am reserving judgment. I can blame last years mishaps on learning a new system. The rubber meets the road this year.

Prince looked good in coverage. C-web got burned but he was never in the wrong spot. HIs mistakes weren't mental. rather he just didn't have the ability to make the play, for whatever reason, but the majority of time he was where he was supposed to be. Hosely was a rookie. It took 3 years for C-Web to show us something.
.
KP's career wasn't over at any point. He's got a degenerative knee condition that only get's worse. We just couldn't invest money in to a player with such a high risk knee condition. His play on the field never fell off.

Can C-Web return to form? Can Hosely show improvement in his 2nd year? Can Stevie show improvement in coverage? These are the biggest questions.

joemorrisforprez
06-23-2013, 12:46 PM
I can understand Reese making an attempt to sign fullbacks as anybody would most likely be a temp fill in for the injured Hynoski, but what is significant are attempts to sign linebackers, such as Bishop, when the money isn't there and where temps are not needed due to injuries.

Reese's one weakness perhaps may be his inability to score linebackers in the draft. Granted other needs create positional draft choices as well, but this LB'r unit hasn't been top dog for a number of years. Or, a second weakness is hanging on to certain draft choices too long.

When was the last time the Giants had a great line backing crop? There hasn't been any Taylor's, Huff's, Carson's, Armstead's etc.

Here are the common arguments by the large anti-linebacker contingent on this board.

1) Defense begins and ends with the defensive line. To those folks, pass plays should end with a sack by the defensive end, and running plays should end with the running back getting stuffed by the defensive tackle. Our linebackers will magically become faster, stronger, and more aggressive if/when our defensive line improves.

2) The draft didn't produce any good linebackers. Apparently, today's college linebackers cannot cover tight ends, tackle running backs, and pursue mobile QBs.

3) The game has changed, and the linebacker position is now unimportant.....by that logic, a crappy player is just the same as a good player if the position they are playing is linebacker.

4) Stop arguing about this topic. Anti-linebackers don't want to hear opinions that differ from their own.

Imgrate
06-23-2013, 03:13 PM
To fortify that postion you need to give up something somewhere else and probably from the defense since they have more of the cap space occupied right now. You want to give up a good player at CB or DL to bring in a good player at LB ? Given the resources available Reese has done well to find guys with potential upside and minimal risk. Been saying this for years

B&RWarrior
06-23-2013, 03:16 PM
To fortify that postion you need to give up something somewhere else and probably from the defense since they have more of the cap space occupied right now. You want to give up a good player at CB or DL to bring in a good player at LB ? Given the resources available Reese has done well to find guys with potential upside and minimal risk.

not really you just have to draft one

Buddy333
06-23-2013, 03:46 PM
A this talk about Brown. Think Hill has the bigger upside.

TrueBlue@NYC
06-24-2013, 02:03 PM
not really you just have to draft one

Even in the draft it's a tradeoff. Using a premium pick on a Lber means your not using on something else.

For example, if this season he used either of the first two picks on a LBer, then they either don't get Pugh, or they don't get hankerson.

Year before, it would have been Wilson or Randle that they skip on.

Every team has a position or two that they have to rely on finding "diamonds in the rough" in order to succeed. It's actually one of the biggest things that separate the top teams from the bottom.