PDA

View Full Version : Do we even need a quality RB anymore?



giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 01:21 AM
does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?

the colts won their SB with RHodes, not Edge or their other guy. NE won theirs with K.Faulk but also had Marooney help get them there.

Im just throwing this out there, if we were to cut both bshaw and bj, and used the 10 mil on other aspects of the team, and signed a decent RB and drafted one, would our run game be worse than last season? would our offense be worse than last season?

seems to me, with eli, we dont need to place so much focus on the run game, esp. at 10 mil a year. dont get me wrong, i love both our rb's, but they either need to restructure, BOTH OF EM, or we cut one and restructure the other and draft one I guess.

I'd rather have 3 stud wr's and a stud TE than have 2 stud WR's and 2 overpaid RB

I think if we pass to setup the run, and use the run when teams go all out to defend the pass, we could be just as successful with Andre Brown, D.Ware, and D.Scott as we'd be with Jacobs and Bradshaw. And we'd save like 10 mil in cap room.

We only avg. like 3.2 ypc last season and the pass game and DL were enough to win us a SB...I also think Eli could handle more responsibilty, I mean he practically carried the offense all season. And even tho our run game sucked, we still had what, like 15-18 rushing td's between AB and BJ??

If we were to use the money allotted to BJ and AB, we could make Osi happy, resign MM, get a quality TE...

edit- we'd save 10 mil to the cap for this season, I would guess releasing them or trading them would clear up 20 mil easily bc we'd be off the hook of both their contracts...

SweetZombieJesus
02-18-2012, 01:47 AM
Balance is always the key. If we become completely one-dimensional then Eli is going to get pounded like he did in SF all the time. And if we have an injury to one or more WRs/TEs, things go downhill very quickly.

Nice to know Eli can do what he did, but let's not make a habit of it.

Not to mention all the good things that come with a running game -- time of possession, ball security, and it wears out the defense.

giantyankee1976
02-18-2012, 01:54 AM
BALANCE

I love Power Running with the deep passes as options.

Good running forces Defenses to play honest and yet if this Team could get that balance, opponents are forced to pick their poison.

The Gun or the Knife ?

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 02:12 AM
i'm not saying we stop running, not by any means. still would like balance, i'm just saying, the way we move the ball and score is now thru eli, not our run game which had been the case until 2008.

its elis offense now. thats why i dont think we need all this money tied up to rb. we could get a couple of solid, effecient rb's at half the price we're paying our guys now.

plus, if we evolved into a more heavy pass oriented offense, teams will have to respect that and play the pass, leaving running lanes open. i think we could plug in any avg. rb and he could put up the numbers our run game put up last season, at the least.

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 02:14 AM
Balance is always the key.* If we become completely one-dimensional then Eli is going to get pounded like he did in SF all the time.* And if we have an injury to one or more WRs/TEs, things go downhill very quickly.

Nice to know Eli can do what he did, but let's not make a habit of it.

Not to mention all the good things that come with a running game -- time of possession, ball security, and it wears out the defense.


again, im not saying we deviate from what we did last season. which was to run, not to move the ball or score necessarily (we had like 2 runs of 20 yds all season) but run to continue the TOP and keep the defense honest. we were running the ball consistently with little to no success. and our offense still killed it.
we could plug any two backs into that type of offense and get the same production, at the least.

THE_New_York_Giants
02-18-2012, 02:16 AM
We need a running back who can run a draw correctly out of the shot gun. I know the blocking was horrendous, but every time we ran out of the shotgun the RB's had terrible execution to go with the terrible blocking. It was always a wasted play.

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 02:17 AM
if ur a team like SF, Baltimore, Washington, etc. etc. it'd make sense to invest heavily into the rb position bc the rbs are heavily depended on for the success of the offense.

we dont have an offense like that, we depend virtually solely on eli.

forget which analyst said it but i believe it was mayock who said we're at our best when we run the ball even if its not effective, but run the ball to establish we'll run all game even if its not necessarily working. that still forces the d to account for the run game.

remember, we had THE WORST RUN GAME LAST SEASON, and our offense was successful as ****. we could plug any two rb's into that role and get the same production at the least.

NYGRealityCheck
02-18-2012, 02:28 AM
Although for the regular season the Giants had the last ranked rushing offense, they did turn it up in the playoffs and won the Superbowl.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/seasontype/3

The Giants had the No. 1 ranked rushing offense in the Playoffs over the Patriots by 141 yards. Yea yea they both played more games than any other playoff team so we just can't just go by totals. So... how about 116.5 yards/game in the playoffs and 4.2 yards per attempt? Vast improvement over the regular season numbers...

PRFan
02-18-2012, 02:29 AM
Um...Patriots had good backs on their Superbowl wins. You can say it costs them on both games against the giants having subpar RBs...
Antowain Smith Ran for 1,157 yards on their first SB (2001).
Corey Dillon ran for 1,635 in their third SB (2004).
The Colts won with Rhode running for 641 and Addai for 1,081 and they ran 113, 77 in the SB respectively (2006).

Flip Empty
02-18-2012, 02:29 AM
Even in a pass-first offense, it helps to have a RB who can block well and make catches out of the backfield. Bradshaw can do both those things. I just don't think cutting him would be a good idea. Not with how well he works with Eli.

NYGRealityCheck
02-18-2012, 02:30 AM
Um...Patriots had good backs on their Superbowl wins. You can say it costs them on both games against the giants having subpar RBs...
Antowain Smith Ran for 1,157 yards on their first SB (2001).
Corey Dillon ran for 1,635 in their third SB (2004).
The Colts won with Rhode running for 641 and Addai for 1,081 and they ran 113, 77 in the SB respectively (2006).

L. Maroney wasn't a subpar RB in 2007.

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 02:40 AM
corey dillon was a beast in cinc. and in ne when they won it. but every one of those other rb's were pretty much dime a dozen guys.

i doubt they were making much money, and why would they? they weren't the necessary players for their team success, it was the qb.

thats all im saying, if we're gonna pay what we pay eli, and he deserves every penny, maybe we shouldnt be invested so heavily into the rb position...thats all im really saying i guess. that we could be virtually the same offense if we had ur workman, everyday type rb...

Flip Empty
02-18-2012, 04:43 AM
The threat of a run can be just as important as the run itself. Downgrade the position and opposing defenses will lock in on the pass all game, every game.

Remember that the Giants won't be playing so many awful secondaries every season. They have the AFC North to contend with this year, for example.

myles2424
02-18-2012, 04:46 AM
Geez, some people on here talk like A stud LB wouldn't make a difference on this team & now RBs don't matter anymore......this offseason can't be over quick enough

Flip Empty
02-18-2012, 04:57 AM
Geez, some people on here talk like A stud LB wouldn't make a difference on this team & now RBs don't matter anymore......this offseason can't be over quick enough
I'm waiting for the "we don't need a defense since Eli can match scores with anyone" argument.

LT_was_good
02-18-2012, 09:56 AM
Actually I would prefer cheap, young RBs with the extra money going into the offensive line. Look what Derrick Ward did for us with a great line.

BillTheGreek
02-18-2012, 11:04 AM
Balance is the key ! But its hard to get what you wish for .........when you do this , thats when you start winning Games.

bflo23
02-18-2012, 11:17 AM
does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?

the colts won their SB with RHodes, not Edge or their other guy. NE won theirs with K.Faulk but also had Marooney help get them there.

How about the Giants style? How did the "Patriots" style do against the Giants in the Super Bowl TWICE? And how many super bowls did Peyton Manning win with his colts style? 1 in 14 seasons.

Giants WON with quality RBs so why use a Colts/Patriots style that isn't as successful?

lawl
02-18-2012, 11:52 AM
I think A legitimate pass catching back would be huge for us

Toadofsteel
02-18-2012, 12:24 PM
If there's a good RB in the draft anywhere we can draft him and maybe cut BJ. Or, if BJ agrees to restructure to damn near league minimum, we can keep him.

Diamondring
02-18-2012, 12:36 PM
Why you made this thread like the backs did nothing to help the receivers andi out? They were a big part of the offense and still may be quality backs. We know that the backs can't do it on their own so they need help.

JDE123
02-18-2012, 01:34 PM
L. Maroney wasn't a subpar RB in 2007.
He certainly wasn't great. He broke a few (very few) big runs, but most of the time it was the "Ron Dayne: run into the back of the closest blocker and fall down" style of running. They had pretty good team rushing stats that year only because the opposing defense was focused on stopping what was perhaps the greatest passing attack ever.


corey dillon was a beast in cinc. and in ne when they won it. but every one of those other rb's were pretty much dime a dozen guys.
This is spot on. Dillon was great in 2004. In 2001 and 2003 the Patriots threw a lot of screens and short passes to make up for the fact that they had a "running back by committee" staffed with a bunch of guys no one's ever heard of.

I think the difference is more about balance between the offense and defence than between the passing and running games. Combine the '04 Patriots defense with the Giants current passing attack and they could with the Super Bowl with one of us at running back.

Also, in order for a Colt/NE style of offense to be effective we would need to see "Playoff Eli" show up every week. I think we might, but I wouldn't wager the entire season on it.

gmen0820
02-18-2012, 02:02 PM
I think previous to this year, a claim on this board would just be ridiculous beyond belief. However, fast forward a year, and we have definitely shown that we have a QB who can essentially carry a team by throwing the ball, and we have WRs who can make huge plays (and we might get Smith back, who can add a lot of consistency as well). We have already shown we can win playing this style of ball.

Only problem with the idea of cutting both Bradshaw and Jacobs is that it really takes a respected chunk out of the locker room. Too much change.

I agree with the concept, but don't think there is much we can do about it to make it happen, without in a way risking the locker room.

chasjay
02-18-2012, 02:04 PM
There are some RB's that are serviceable and would come cheaper than ours, but I'm against the OP's scenario. First, I think with a little better line play we could get more RB production and not force so much load onto Eli. I'm happy that he can handle it, I'd rather we be able to pick our situations, in the air and on the ground. One real big factor is in the gamble that these "other" RB's could offer the pass protection we're getting from our guys. That helps Eli do what he does as well.

I like our RB's, contracts and all.

gmen0820
02-18-2012, 02:10 PM
does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?

the colts won their SB with RHodes, not Edge or their other guy. NE won theirs with K.Faulk but also had Marooney help get them there.

How about the Giants style? How did the "Patriots" style do against the Giants in the Super Bowl TWICE? And how many super bowls did Peyton Manning win with his colts style? 1 in 14 seasons.

Giants WON with quality RBs so why use a Colts/Patriots style that isn't as successful?


We won with the 32nd ranked rush offense this year. It's more of a testament to the change in the NFL offense.

NE was an old school offense in terms of formation, two tight ends, and when they needed to push the ball to get big plays when it mattered in the SB, they couldn't.

Our team was successful because when we needed big plays at the end to win games, we made them. More importantly, we had the components on offense to make them.

And plus, we are in a position where it is much easier to follow the new style of offense in the NFL (we have great WRs, a great QB, and an OL that can pass protect just as well as it can run block).

gmen0820
02-18-2012, 02:12 PM
Geez, some people on here talk like A stud LB wouldn't make a difference on this team & now RBs don't matter anymore......this offseason can't be over quick enough
I'm waiting for the "we don't need a defense since Eli can match scores with anyone" argument.You should be waiting for the "we won a Super Bowl because of great defensive performances week in and week out along with our offenses ability to come up huge when it was really needed" argument.

gmen0820
02-18-2012, 02:15 PM
Actually I would prefer cheap, young RBs with the extra money going into the offensive line.* Look what Derrick Ward did for us with a great line.
+1

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 02:53 PM
I think previous to this year, a claim on this board would just be ridiculous beyond belief. However, fast forward a year, and we have definitely shown that we have a QB who can essentially carry a team by throwing the ball, and we have WRs who can make huge plays (and we might get Smith back, who can add a lot of consistency as well). We have already shown we can win playing this style of ball.

Only problem with the idea of cutting both Bradshaw and Jacobs is that it really takes a respected chunk out of the locker room. Too much change.

I agree with the concept, but don't think there is much we can do about it to make it happen, without in a way risking the locker room.

this is a good point. im not saying i dislike the giants oldschool way or that i dislike our current rb's.

i'm just saying that as evident by last season, whether bc of injury or just lack of plays made, we won bc of our passing game. our run game was horrible, yet we still had like 18 rushing td's bc the pass opened it up.

im just saying, why invest near 10 mil into the rb for a season, near 25-30 mil overall, when they aren't getting it done, and their getting it done isnt necessary to our success?

we could honestly, imo, have won with andre brown, dj ware, and d/scott running the ball...how could they have done worse than the last ranked run offense?

and this doesnt mean i dont want to run the ball, quite the opposite. we still should run the ball, but as evident of last season, we werent continually running bc of success, but bc to keep a balanced offense. if we're running merely to keep balance and not to provide big plays, why have so much money tied into the rb?

i'd rather have 3 stud wr's, a stud te, and a good OL, than 2 stud wr's, 2 overpaid unneeded rb's and avg te and ol...just my take. i have to assume reese is also considering this as he said we will see a different team next season.

like i said, maybe we should keep the rb who is willing to restructure, and cut the other one...dunno. just throwing this thought out here

gmen0820
02-18-2012, 03:05 PM
I think previous to this year, a claim on this board would just be ridiculous beyond belief. However, fast forward a year, and we have definitely shown that we have a QB who can essentially carry a team by throwing the ball, and we have WRs who can make huge plays (and we might get Smith back, who can add a lot of consistency as well). We have already shown we can win playing this style of ball.

Only problem with the idea of cutting both Bradshaw and Jacobs is that it really takes a respected chunk out of the locker room. Too much change.

I agree with the concept, but don't think there is much we can do about it to make it happen, without in a way risking the locker room.

this is a good point. im not saying i dislike the giants oldschool way or that i dislike our current rb's.

i'm just saying that as evident by last season, whether bc of injury or just lack of plays made, we won bc of our passing game. our run game was horrible, yet we still had like 18 rushing td's bc the pass opened it up.

im just saying, why invest near 10 mil into the rb for a season, near 25-30 mil overall, when they aren't getting it done, and their getting it done isnt necessary to our success?

we could honestly, imo, have won with andre brown, dj ware, and d/scott running the ball...how could they have done worse than the last ranked run offense?

and this doesnt mean i dont want to run the ball, quite the opposite. we still should run the ball, but as evident of last season, we werent continually running bc of success, but bc to keep a balanced offense. if we're running merely to keep balance and not to provide big plays, why have so much money tied into the rb?

i'd rather have 3 stud wr's, a stud te, and a good OL, than 2 stud wr's, 2 overpaid unneeded rb's and avg te and ol...just my take. i have to assume reese is also considering this as he said we will see a different team next season.

like i said, maybe we should keep the rb who is willing to restructure, and cut the other one...dunno. just throwing this thought out hereI think between Bradshaw and Jacobs the backfield will tie up about 6-6.5 million (Bradshaw has a 4.5 mil CH and Jacobs will probably restructure to a 1.5-2 mil CH).

Still a little bit much, but I don't think the Giants will be able to justify giving Bradshaw a pay cut, I mean when he is healthy, and practices, he can be very effective (can he stay healthy though?).

Jacobs will have to take a cut or get cut, simply put. I do agree that the way we play on offense, or did last year, our RBs should be closer to 4 million OVERALL but they got good deals at good times.

I love Andre Brown though, I thought he'd make it over Ware, and personally I think he will make it next year. I knew how much that achilles would effect him, and in 2010, I got flamed for saying we would cut him (because of the achilles noticeably hurting his speed/agility).

I am not the biggest believer in Jacobs, I think he can be pretty good when our OL is opening up holes, but that just does not consistently happen. The only thing that scares me away from cutting him is that I think he is loved by his teammates, and I don't want to mess with the team chemistry which is just so good right now.

Toadofsteel
02-18-2012, 03:37 PM
I think previous to this year, a claim on this board would just be ridiculous beyond belief. However, fast forward a year, and we have definitely shown that we have a QB who can essentially carry a team by throwing the ball, and we have WRs who can make huge plays (and we might get Smith back, who can add a lot of consistency as well). We have already shown we can win playing this style of ball.

Only problem with the idea of cutting both Bradshaw and Jacobs is that it really takes a respected chunk out of the locker room. Too much change.

I agree with the concept, but don't think there is much we can do about it to make it happen, without in a way risking the locker room.

this is a good point. im not saying i dislike the giants oldschool way or that i dislike our current rb's.

i'm just saying that as evident by last season, whether bc of injury or just lack of plays made, we won bc of our passing game. our run game was horrible, yet we still had like 18 rushing td's bc the pass opened it up.

im just saying, why invest near 10 mil into the rb for a season, near 25-30 mil overall, when they aren't getting it done, and their getting it done isnt necessary to our success?

we could honestly, imo, have won with andre brown, dj ware, and d/scott running the ball...how could they have done worse than the last ranked run offense?

and this doesnt mean i dont want to run the ball, quite the opposite. we still should run the ball, but as evident of last season, we werent continually running bc of success, but bc to keep a balanced offense. if we're running merely to keep balance and not to provide big plays, why have so much money tied into the rb?

i'd rather have 3 stud wr's, a stud te, and a good OL, than 2 stud wr's, 2 overpaid unneeded rb's and avg te and ol...just my take. i have to assume reese is also considering this as he said we will see a different team next season.

like i said, maybe we should keep the rb who is willing to restructure, and cut the other one...dunno. just throwing this thought out hereI think between Bradshaw and Jacobs the backfield will tie up about 6-6.5 million (Bradshaw has a 4.5 mil CH and Jacobs will probably restructure to a 1.5-2 mil CH).

Still a little bit much, but I don't think the Giants will be able to justify giving Bradshaw a pay cut, I mean when he is healthy, and practices, he can be very effective (can he stay healthy though?).

Jacobs will have to take a cut or get cut, simply put. I do agree that the way we play on offense, or did last year, our RBs should be closer to 4 million OVERALL but they got good deals at good times.

I love Andre Brown though, I thought he'd make it over Ware, and personally I think he will make it next year. I knew how much that achilles would effect him, and in 2010, I got flamed for saying we would cut him (because of the achilles noticeably hurting his speed/agility).

I am not the biggest believer in Jacobs, I think he can be pretty good when our OL is opening up holes, but that just does not consistently happen. The only thing that scares me away from cutting him is that I think he is loved by his teammates, and I don't want to mess with the team chemistry which is just so good right now.

I agree with you on Jacobs. Not to mention that his mere presence on the team boosts bradshaw's numbers. When they're both healthy and can be rotated in and out, it makes it harder for a run D to adapt to one of the two running games. Much in the way the pass rush works, platooning players keeps their energy up as they can rest a little more, and can keep a playbook simpler (for the individual players) while presenting more varied looks to the other team.

pica01
02-18-2012, 03:46 PM
I have to wonder how long you've followed the Giants to ask this question.The Giants run the ball.And play great defense.That always been our philosophy and it has served us well.And this run started when,guess what,we began to sucessfully run the ball again and play great defense.Now,we do have the best passing offense in Giant history and you want to abandon the balanced run -pass philosophy?Bradshaw's contract is very reasonable at about 4 million/yr.If Jacobs can live with 1.5 million next yr we can probably live without going after a bigtime RB this offseason, considering our cap problems.But,let them go?Really?I know you just threw it out there but this pass missed as bad as Brady's first pass.Intentional grounding.

Voldamort
02-18-2012, 03:55 PM
Balance is always the key.* If we become completely one-dimensional then Eli is going to get pounded like he did in SF all the time.* And if we have an injury to one or more WRs/TEs, things go downhill very quickly.

Nice to know Eli can do what he did, but let's not make a habit of it.

Not to mention all the good things that come with a running game -- time of possession, ball security, and it wears out the defense.
Equal parts Beer CORONA and Vodka Grey Goose!

JDE123
02-18-2012, 04:12 PM
Is it fair that we give quarterbacks a pass for anything negative as long as they "perform in the clutch", yet we still think of a rushing attack that out performed teams like Baltimore and New Orleans in the post-season as "the worst in the league"?

rEaS
02-18-2012, 04:40 PM
does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?

the colts won their SB with RHodes, not Edge or their other guy. NE won theirs with K.Faulk but also had Marooney help get them there.

Im just throwing this out there, if we were to cut both bshaw and bj, and used the 10 mil on other aspects of the team, and signed a decent RB and drafted one, would our run game be worse than last season? would our offense be worse than last season?

seems to me, with eli, we dont need to place so much focus on the run game, esp. at 10 mil a year. dont get me wrong, i love both our rb's, but they either need to restructure, BOTH OF EM, or we cut one and restructure the other and draft one I guess.

I'd rather have 3 stud wr's and a stud TE than have 2 stud WR's and 2 overpaid RB

I think if we pass to setup the run, and use the run when teams go all out to defend the pass, we could be just as successful with Andre Brown, D.Ware, and D.Scott as we'd be with Jacobs and Bradshaw. And we'd save like 10 mil in cap room.

We only avg. like 3.2 ypc last season and the pass game and DL were enough to win us a SB...I also think Eli could handle more responsibilty, I mean he practically carried the offense all season. And even tho our run game sucked, we still had what, like 15-18 rushing td's between AB and BJ??

If we were to use the money allotted to BJ and AB, we could make Osi happy, resign MM, get a quality TE...

edit- we'd save 10 mil to the cap for this season, I would guess releasing them or trading them would clear up 20 mil easily bc we'd be off the hook of both their contracts...

but then what happens when eli gets hurt (knock on wood) then we have the same indy situation.. we could probably run an offense like indy's was.. but it would be risking TOO much.. balance is always needed and we know that we have the QB to win it all.. even without making the offense all about him..

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 06:22 PM
let me ask those who didnt bother to read the post or thread evidently and made baseless assumptions...

does having less paid, and thus probably a little less effective (which is actually just a concession on my part bc I don't know that random drafted rb would do worse than having the worst ranked run game) mean we suddenly have to avert from being balanced?

i fail to see how having jacobs and bradshaw makes us balanced, but if we were to get less paid, workerhorse type rb's, that means we have to abandon balance? that doesn't add up to me, and I've continually repeated this sentiment and I guess people just gloss over it; we ran the ball continually last season, not bc it was effective, but to keep balance. we had the worst ranked run game, but still continually rushed the ball 20+ times a game.

the offense was highly effective, even with the worst ranked run game, bc the balance opened up the pass attack. SO, WHY NOT PAY MUCH MUCH LESS TO THE RB POSITION IF THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO DO? how could the run game have been worse if andre brown, dj ware, and d.scott were the rb's instead of bradshaw and jacobs? the only difference would be, we would have saved like 8 mil to the cap, and like 30 mil overall bc the contracts of bradshaw and jacobs adds up to around that mark.

that's why i'm suggesting we offer both rb's the opportunity to remain on the team, but on reduced pay. if one or both decide no, then we cut them and move on, draft a rb and add one in FA that isn't nearly as much money as the ones we have now.

i'm merely throwing this idea out there, thats all. i actually love bradshaw, who is 25, and jacobs, who is 29. both have years of good play ahead of them (if they can remain healthy). BUT, if we're only getting production out of them that we could just as easily get from lesser paid, more workhorse type rb's, why not do that and open up money to give to osi, re-sign MM, beef up the OL, and get a stud te?? thats all i'm saying.

its odd how some of the posters are like "do u know what giants football is? why would we not run the ball anymore" or "hey, lets just not pay the defense bc eli can outscore the other team, right"...i am not saying abandon what giants football is, i'm saying we could do giants football for much cheaper out of the rb position.

if we draft a lamar miller (i believe thats the UM rb) or the VT rb whose projected the #2 best rb of the draft, I think we may get our answer. if we get a rb in the top 3 rounds, just saying, it may be because we are going to go a diff. direction at rb...that doesn't mean we abandon our balance attack, it just means we use a balanced attack with much cheaper rb's.

JesseJames
02-18-2012, 06:28 PM
does anybody feel that the problems with our running game for most of last year was due to our O line not having enough time playing together. I mean Baas was still trying to get comfortable with the offense and so was Booth at LG. Our running game was miserable but when these O linemen started playing better together our running game improved dramatically. So maybe the backs weren't the problem after all..

Flip Empty
02-18-2012, 06:33 PM
That's exactly what the problem was. Late in the year the line found some consistency and the running game came back.

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 06:42 PM
i agree we did better when the OL did better. but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL.

if having an OL open holes is what a rb needs, well wouldn't any rb do well then? wouldn't it make sense then to invest more in the OL to get guys who can open up holes as opposed to invest in the rb's who need holes to be effective?

it'd be like saying "oh well when the wr is wide open, the qb can complete the pass" or "when the DE comes through unblocked, he can get sacks" ya know what I mean? you usually pay top dollar to the guys who can complete passes in tight coverage (eli) or DE's who can beat double teams to get sacks (Tuck or JPP)

so why would we pay top dollar for rb's who are only successful when holes are wide open?

Roosevelt
02-18-2012, 06:51 PM
let me ask those who didnt bother to read the post or thread evidently and made baseless assumptions...

does having less paid, and thus probably a little less effective (which is actually just a concession on my part bc I don't know that random drafted rb would do worse than having the worst ranked run game) mean we suddenly have to avert from being balanced?

i fail to see how having jacobs and bradshaw makes us balanced, but if we were to get less paid, workerhorse type rb's, that means we have to abandon balance? that doesn't add up to me, and I've continually repeated this sentiment and I guess people just gloss over it; we ran the ball continually last season, not bc it was effective, but to keep balance. we had the worst ranked run game, but still continually rushed the ball 20+ times a game.

the offense was highly effective, even with the worst ranked run game, bc the balance opened up the pass attack. SO, WHY NOT PAY MUCH MUCH LESS TO THE RB POSITION IF THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO DO? how could the run game have been worse if andre brown, dj ware, and d.scott were the rb's instead of bradshaw and jacobs? the only difference would be, we would have saved like 8 mil to the cap, and like 30 mil overall bc the contracts of bradshaw and jacobs adds up to around that mark.

that's why i'm suggesting we offer both rb's the opportunity to remain on the team, but on reduced pay. if one or both decide no, then we cut them and move on, draft a rb and add one in FA that isn't nearly as much money as the ones we have now.

i'm merely throwing this idea out there, thats all. i actually love bradshaw, who is 25, and jacobs, who is 29. both have years of good play ahead of them (if they can remain healthy). BUT, if we're only getting production out of them that we could just as easily get from lesser paid, more workhorse type rb's, why not do that and open up money to give to osi, re-sign MM, beef up the OL, and get a stud te?? thats all i'm saying.

its odd how some of the posters are like "do u know what giants football is? why would we not run the ball anymore" or "hey, lets just not pay the defense bc eli can outscore the other team, right"...i am not saying abandon what giants football is, i'm saying we could do giants football for much cheaper out of the rb position.

if we draft a lamar miller (i believe thats the UM rb) or the VT rb whose projected the #2 best rb of the draft, I think we may get our answer. if we get a rb in the top 3 rounds, just saying, it may be because we are going to go a diff. direction at rb...that doesn't mean we abandon our balance attack, it just means we use a balanced attack with much cheaper rb's.


The problem wasn't our running backs. Besides, you need to consider their other responsibilities.

Do you really want to put someone back there with less experience to pick-up the blitz?

Likewise, when a RB needs to chip, isn't nice to have someone like Jacobs to deliver?

Then of course you have to consider their ability to protect the ball. We have 2 guys that don't fumble often.

Another consideration is inclement weather like wind, which can be a game changer in our stadium.

But with said, I think we need to play to our strengths and if it's our passing game, then I'd love to see us open up our run game by utilizing the pass - instead of the opposite, which is what we've always done.

Diamondring
02-18-2012, 07:45 PM
i agree we did better when the OL did better. but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL.

if having an OL open holes is what a rb needs, well wouldn't any rb do well then? wouldn't it make sense then to invest more in the OL to get guys who can open up holes as opposed to invest in the rb's who need holes to be effective?

it'd be like saying "oh well when the wr is wide open, the qb can complete the pass" or "when the DE comes through unblocked, he can get sacks" ya know what I mean? you usually pay top dollar to the guys who can complete passes in tight coverage (eli) or DE's who can beat double teams to get sacks (Tuck or JPP)

so why would we pay top dollar for rb's who are only successful when holes are wide open?Holes that are wide open? Man Giants O-line made no holes what so ever a lot of times man. No rb is going to do good without decent blocking. Who said that the blocking needs to be outstanding? The only O-line I see that was dominant was the Dallas O-line in the 90s and the Broncos in that same era. Yet they were not unstoppable though.

JDE123
02-18-2012, 08:53 PM
let me ask those who didnt bother to read the
post or thread evidently and made baseless assumptions...

does having less paid, and thus probably a little less effective (which
is actually just a concession on my part bc I don't know that random
drafted rb would do worse than having the worst ranked run game) mean we
suddenly have to avert from being balanced?

i fail to see how having jacobs and bradshaw makes us balanced, but if
we were to get less paid, workerhorse type rb's, that means we have to
abandon balance? that doesn't add up to me, and I've continually
repeated this sentiment and I guess people just gloss over it; we ran
the ball continually last season, not bc it was effective, but to keep
balance. we had the worst ranked run game, but still continually rushed
the ball 20+ times a game.

the offense was highly effective, even with the worst ranked run game,
bc the balance opened up the pass attack. SO, WHY NOT PAY MUCH MUCH LESS
TO THE RB POSITION IF THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO DO? how could the run
game have been worse if andre brown, dj ware, and d.scott were the rb's
instead of bradshaw and jacobs? the only difference would be, we would
have saved like 8 mil to the cap, and like 30 mil overall bc the
contracts of bradshaw and jacobs adds up to around that mark.

that's why i'm suggesting we offer both rb's the opportunity to remain
on the team, but on reduced pay. if one or both decide no, then we cut
them and move on, draft a rb and add one in FA that isn't nearly as much
money as the ones we have now.

i'm merely throwing this idea out there, thats all. i actually love
bradshaw, who is 25, and jacobs, who is 29. both have years of good play
ahead of them (if they can remain healthy). BUT, if we're only getting
production out of them that we could just as easily get from lesser
paid, more workhorse type rb's, why not do that and open up money to
give to osi, re-sign MM, beef up the OL, and get a stud te?? thats all
i'm saying.

its odd how some of the posters are like "do u know what giants football
is? why would we not run the ball anymore" or "hey, lets just not pay
the defense bc eli can outscore the other team, right"...i am not saying
abandon what giants football is, i'm saying we could do giants football
for much cheaper out of the rb position.

if we draft a lamar miller (i believe thats the UM rb) or the VT rb
whose projected the #2 best rb of the draft, I think we may get our
answer. if we get a rb in the top 3 rounds, just saying, it may be
because we are going to go a diff. direction at rb...that doesn't mean
we abandon our balance attack, it just means we use a balanced attack
with much cheaper rb's.

I think people thought you wanted to abandon "Giants football" because the first sentence of your original post was:



does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?




There's no way either agrees to a pay cut,with Bradshaw having just
signed a deal and Jacobs about to hit the market. I'm all for saving $8
million, but whoever you bring in better play just as well as Ahmad and
BJ did in the playoffs.

pica01
02-18-2012, 09:19 PM
Do you read the posts?Bradshaw is as cheap as they come at 4 million a year as our #1.And I'm only bringing Jacobs back at 1,1.5 mill at most.To put in perspective how cheap Bradshaw already is,the 4 year deal he signed is for about the same money Kevin Boss got from the Raiders over 4 years.A 2nd round pick would probably cost us more,although the new CBA did change the rookie contract pay scale.Jacobs will restructure considerably lower or get cut,but Bradshaw's underpaid already,if anything.Now,his ankles and feet being held together by screws are a different story.If we had a suitable replacement,the Giants might feel we've gotten all we can from him.But we don't.

bflo23
02-18-2012, 09:32 PM
i agree we did better when the OL did better. but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL.

if having an OL open holes is what a rb needs, well wouldn't any rb do well then? wouldn't it make sense then to invest more in the OL to get guys who can open up holes as opposed to invest in the rb's who need holes to be effective?

it'd be like saying "oh well when the wr is wide open, the qb can complete the pass" or "when the DE comes through unblocked, he can get sacks" ya know what I mean? you usually pay top dollar to the guys who can complete passes in tight coverage (eli) or DE's who can beat double teams to get sacks (Tuck or JPP)

so why would we pay top dollar for rb's who are only successful when holes are wide open?

I think you are dismissing what a good running game brings.

"but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL."....... I disagree. Even the best RBs still need a somewhat decent line to make things happen. And just because an OL open holes, a good RB is still far better than just "any RB".... "Any RB" is slower and will go down to the first defender touch to touch him. Bradshaw can juke, bounce off defenders or even run over defenders. Don't you remember his 2010 season when had +1200 rushing yards? To assume that any RB can play the position is pretty foolish. Not all RBs are made the same. Giants need to improve their line and then they will be one of the top rushing teams like they were in 2010.

And don't you think that having a solid running game helps Eli because defenses have to play up and defend against the run especially on fake handoffs.

pica01
02-18-2012, 09:32 PM
GF420-We didn't start winning till the Ol came together and we started running the ball effectively.The last 6 games we averaged well over 4 yards per and 125 per game.We didn't win a SB averaging 3.2 ypc.We won because we no longer averaged 3.2 ypc.Comeon now.

giantsfan420
02-18-2012, 10:56 PM
i agree we did better when the OL did better. but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL.

if having an OL open holes is what a rb needs, well wouldn't any rb do well then? wouldn't it make sense then to invest more in the OL to get guys who can open up holes as opposed to invest in the rb's who need holes to be effective?

it'd be like saying "oh well when the wr is wide open, the qb can complete the pass" or "when the DE comes through unblocked, he can get sacks" ya know what I mean? you usually pay top dollar to the guys who can complete passes in tight coverage (eli) or DE's who can beat double teams to get sacks (Tuck or JPP)

so why would we pay top dollar for rb's who are only successful when holes are wide open?

I think you are dismissing what a good running game brings.

"but the rb's who get paid well can make things happen w/ or w/o a good OL."....... I disagree. Even the best RBs still need a somewhat decent line to make things happen. And just because an OL open holes, a good RB is still far better than just "any RB".... "Any RB" is slower and will go down to the first defender touch to touch him. Bradshaw can juke, bounce off defenders or even run over defenders. Don't you remember his 2010 season when had +1200 rushing yards? To assume that any RB can play the position is pretty foolish. Not all RBs are made the same. Giants need to improve their line and then they will be one of the top rushing teams like they were in 2010.

And don't you think that having a solid running game helps Eli because defenses have to play up and defend against the run especially on fake handoffs.


our run game sucked in 2010 too, not as bad as last year. each season since 2008 its gotten progressively worse.

and jde-yeah i guess i should have reworded it, i didnt mean to go to the Indy/NE offensive scheme I meant go the way they get rb's on the cheap and kind of just rotate backs each season.

i understand jacobs is awesome at chip blocking, and bradshaw great at that juke step move. again, don't misconstrue this as me saying i hate jacobs or bradshaw, they're both right up there with my fav all time giant players.

but i'm more interested in the management of money going to the rb position. 10 mil to the rb position is lunacy, especially when we succeeded with the last ranked run game. yes the run game picked it up in the playoff run, but i honestly believe it was bc opposing defenses made it their point to try and defend the pass as opposed the run.
that's what happened vs the jets, dallas and then the falcons tried their best to do so until our run game picked it up and forced them to defend that in the 2nd quarter and we jumped out on them.
i dont think the run game got going bc of the ol or rb as much as it was the pass was just opening up defenses and giving us more running lanes.

while we did better running the ball, it wasn't like the run game was dominant and opened up the pass game, it was still the pass game that opened up the run. on our first 2 drives vs GB, we continually had 3rd and 10's, 8's, 15's, longs and eli bailed us out.
vs SF, again, had 3rd and longs over and over, eli bailed us out. but when SF was able to focus on the passing game, our run game did nothing. even vs NE, it was the passing game that opened up the run.

thats how i suspect it will be from here on out, the pass will open up the run. and if thats the case, do we need to invest heavily into the rb position? i could understand paying a lot to the rb position if we relied heavily on them to force the d to defend us in ways that opens up our pass game, but that didn't happen last season or playoffs.

now we may lose MM bc we're overpaying our rb's. we could still get SS for cheap, but still, we'll have to re-sign nicks and cruz, and it ain't gonna be cheap. i dunno i see the points of views about keeping jacobs/bradshaw and i def. want to too, but i'd rather they take a pay cut to be honest. they should make avg. salary bc thats the production they give us.

i'd hate to see us have to let go of more pieces like osi, mm, maybe eventually nicks or cruz, to not be able to get a stud te or OL bc we're paying too much on the rb.

we're in cap trouble right now, and the one position i can see we're invested in too highly that doesn't warrant it is the rb position. just my opinion tho. rolle and canty are overpaid too, but people have said they want them restructured or cut, so i mean i'd rather keep those two, and just figure out a new way to go about it at the rb position.

Voldamort
02-18-2012, 11:08 PM
IT WOULD TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF OF ELI if they had a back that was feared!

pica01
02-18-2012, 11:25 PM
This is the last time I'm gonna say it.The RB position isn't 10 mill.Bradshaw is 4 million and Jacobs will only be back if he'll accept a cut to maybe 1.5 million.he may be a cap casualty,but not Bradshaw.Guys like Kareem Mac,Ross,Jacobs,TT and even a Rolle might need to accept a salary cut.WE ARE NOT OVERPAYING OUR RB'S.

pica01
02-18-2012, 11:46 PM
One last thing.It's amazing to me that nobody even gave Tiki a look.Although 36,he was a very low mileage 36.I guess he not only burnt the Giants bridge,he burnt all NFL bridges.No risk,high reward and nobody even brought him into preseason camp.Say what you want about his personality,he was a great RB.Was anyone else here surprized by the complete lack of interest?

bflo23
02-18-2012, 11:50 PM
our run game sucked in 2010 too, not as bad as last year. each season since 2008 its gotten progressively worse.

and jde-yeah i guess i should have reworded it, i didnt mean to go to the Indy/NE offensive scheme I meant go the way they get rb's on the cheap and kind of just rotate backs each season.

i understand jacobs is awesome at chip blocking, and bradshaw great at that juke step move. again, don't misconstrue this as me saying i hate jacobs or bradshaw, they're both right up there with my fav all time giant players.

but i'm more interested in the management of money going to the rb position. 10 mil to the rb position is lunacy, especially when we succeeded with the last ranked run game. yes the run game picked it up in the playoff run, but i honestly believe it was bc opposing defenses made it their point to try and defend the pass as opposed the run.
that's what happened vs the jets, dallas and then the falcons tried their best to do so until our run game picked it up and forced them to defend that in the 2nd quarter and we jumped out on them.
i dont think the run game got going bc of the ol or rb as much as it was the pass was just opening up defenses and giving us more running lanes.

while we did better running the ball, it wasn't like the run game was dominant and opened up the pass game, it was still the pass game that opened up the run. on our first 2 drives vs GB, we continually had 3rd and 10's, 8's, 15's, longs and eli bailed us out.
vs SF, again, had 3rd and longs over and over, eli bailed us out. but when SF was able to focus on the passing game, our run game did nothing. even vs NE, it was the passing game that opened up the run.

thats how i suspect it will be from here on out, the pass will open up the run. and if thats the case, do we need to invest heavily into the rb position? i could understand paying a lot to the rb position if we relied heavily on them to force the d to defend us in ways that opens up our pass game, but that didn't happen last season or playoffs.

now we may lose MM bc we're overpaying our rb's. we could still get SS for cheap, but still, we'll have to re-sign nicks and cruz, and it ain't gonna be cheap. i dunno i see the points of views about keeping jacobs/bradshaw and i def. want to too, but i'd rather they take a pay cut to be honest. they should make avg. salary bc thats the production they give us.

i'd hate to see us have to let go of more pieces like osi, mm, maybe eventually nicks or cruz, to not be able to get a stud te or OL bc we're paying too much on the rb.

we're in cap trouble right now, and the one position i can see we're invested in too highly that doesn't warrant it is the rb position. just my opinion tho. rolle and canty are overpaid too, but people have said they want them restructured or cut, so i mean i'd rather keep those two, and just figure out a new way to go about it at the rb position.

Did you just say the Giants running game sucked in 2010? Giants had the 6th ranked rushing offense in the entire NFL as they got nearly 140 rushing yards per game and had 4.6 yards per rush. Bradshaw had 1235 rushing yards and 4.5 yards per rush. Brandon Jacobs had over 800 rushing yards, ONLY 5.6 YARDS per rush and 9 TDs.

6th ranked out of 32 teams isn't a good running game??

pica01
02-18-2012, 11:56 PM
I guess there's never one last thing with me.Another thought on Tiki.His twin,Ronde,is still playing and If he doesn't retire,can play somewhere next year if he wants.I guess NFL GM's see Tiki as the evil twin.And he doesn't even have the evil twin fumanchu.Just a really big mouth.

Diamondring
02-19-2012, 12:03 AM
I guess there's never one last thing with me.Another thought on Tiki.His twin,Ronde,is still playing and If he doesn't retire,can play somewhere next year if he wants.I guess NFL GM's see Tiki as the evil twin.And he doesn't even have the evil twin fumanchu.Just a really big mouth.Um no no Tiki. Too old for rb and he isn't in rb shape. Db position is way different than a rb.

giantsfan420
02-19-2012, 01:04 AM
*our run game sucked in 2010 too, not as bad as last year. each season since 2008 its gotten progressively worse.

and jde-yeah i guess i should have reworded it, i didnt mean to go to the Indy/NE offensive scheme I meant go the way they get rb's on the cheap and kind of just rotate backs each season.

i understand jacobs is awesome at chip blocking, and bradshaw great at that juke step move. again, don't misconstrue this as me saying i hate jacobs or bradshaw, they're both right up there with my fav all time giant players.

but i'm more interested in the management of money going to the rb position. 10 mil to the rb position is lunacy, especially when we succeeded with the last ranked run game. yes the run game picked it up in the playoff run, but i honestly believe it was bc opposing defenses made it their point to try and defend the pass as opposed the run.
that's what happened vs the jets, dallas and then the falcons tried their best to do so until our run game picked it up and forced them to defend that in the 2nd quarter and we jumped out on them.
i dont think the run game got going bc of the ol or rb as much as it was the pass was just opening up defenses and giving us more running lanes.

while we did better running the ball, it wasn't like the run game was dominant and opened up the pass game, it was still the pass game that opened up the run. on our first 2 drives vs GB, we continually had 3rd and 10's, 8's, 15's, longs and eli bailed us out.
vs SF, again, had 3rd and longs over and over, eli bailed us out. but when SF was able to focus on the passing game, our run game did nothing. even vs NE, it was the passing game that opened up the run.

thats how i suspect it will be from here on out, the pass will open up the run. and if thats the case, do we need to invest heavily into the rb position? i could understand paying a lot to the rb position if we relied heavily on them to force the d to defend us in ways that opens up our pass game, but that didn't happen last season or playoffs.

now we may lose MM bc we're overpaying our rb's. we could still get SS for cheap, but still, we'll have to re-sign nicks and cruz, and it ain't gonna be cheap. i dunno i see the points of views about keeping jacobs/bradshaw and i def. want to too, but i'd rather they take a pay cut to be honest. they should make avg. salary bc thats the production they give us.

i'd hate to see us have to let go of more pieces like osi, mm, maybe eventually nicks or cruz, to not be able to get a stud te or OL bc we're paying too much on the rb.

we're in cap trouble right now, and the one position i can see we're invested in too highly that doesn't warrant it is the rb position. just my opinion tho. rolle and canty are overpaid too, but people have said they want them restructured or cut, so i mean i'd rather keep those two, and just figure out a new way to go about it at the rb position.

Did you just say the Giants running game sucked in 2010? Giants had the 6th ranked rushing offense in the entire NFL as they got nearly 140 rushing yards per game and had 4.6 yards per rush. Bradshaw had 1235 rushing yards and 4.5 yards per rush. Brandon Jacobs had over 800 rushing yards, ONLY 5.6 YARDS per rush and 9 TDs.

6th ranked out of 32 teams isn't a good running game??


oh my bad. i confused it with the 2009 season ur totally right. oops.

but to the poster who says it isn't 10 mil, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE ARE COMMITTED 10 MIL TO THE SALARY CAP.

if jacobs restructures GREAT, if not, he'll prob be cut.
last season it was 10 mil maybe even more. was our run game worth 10 mil last season?

jacobs going from 7 mil or whatever it is to 1.5 mil is a DRASTIC pay cut...i'd assume he'd just as well want to be cut, which may still hurt our cap i dunno what his contract is guaranteed.

5 mil is about what we should be paying our rb's tho so hopefully we get to that.

giantsfan420
02-19-2012, 01:06 AM
This is the last time I'm gonna say it.The RB position isn't 10 mill.Bradshaw is 4 million and Jacobs will only be back if he'll accept a cut to maybe 1.5 million.he may be a cap casualty,but not Bradshaw.Guys like Kareem Mac,Ross,Jacobs,TT and even a Rolle might need to accept a salary cut.WE ARE NOT OVERPAYING OUR RB'S.

KMac, Ross, TT are FA's. Canty and Rolle should take a paycut, canty makes more than anyone on our DL, which is prob why osi is pissed, and rolle is a good to great player, but nowhere near the 7 or 9 mil he'll make this season

appodictic
02-19-2012, 12:18 PM
The difference though was we ran well in the last few weeks and in the playoffs which helped control the clock.

FBomb
02-19-2012, 12:51 PM
We were 7-7 before the running game got going. Balance.

sc_markt
02-19-2012, 08:32 PM
does anyone feel we could go the Colt/NE style of getting an avg RB with how our passing game is now our main component?

the colts won their SB with RHodes, not Edge or their other guy. NE won theirs with K.Faulk but also had Marooney help get them there.

Im just throwing this out there, if we were to cut both bshaw and bj, and used the 10 mil on other aspects of the team, and signed a decent RB and drafted one, would our run game be worse than last season? would our offense be worse than last season?

seems to me, with eli, we dont need to place so much focus on the run game, esp. at 10 mil a year. dont get me wrong, i love both our rb's, but they either need to restructure, BOTH OF EM, or we cut one and restructure the other and draft one I guess.

I'd rather have 3 stud wr's and a stud TE than have 2 stud WR's and 2 overpaid RB

I think if we pass to setup the run, and use the run when teams go all out to defend the pass, we could be just as successful with Andre Brown, D.Ware, and D.Scott as we'd be with Jacobs and Bradshaw. And we'd save like 10 mil in cap room.

We only avg. like 3.2 ypc last season and the pass game and DL were enough to win us a SB...I also think Eli could handle more responsibilty, I mean he practically carried the offense all season. And even tho our run game sucked, we still had what, like 15-18 rushing td's between AB and BJ??

If we were to use the money allotted to BJ and AB, we could make Osi happy, resign MM, get a quality TE...

edit- we'd save 10 mil to the cap for this season, I would guess releasing them or trading them would clear up 20 mil easily bc we'd be off the hook of both their contracts...

I think we DEFINITELY need a quality running game.

I prefer a good running game because it eats up the clock giving our D time to rest and keeps their offense on the sidelines playing spectator. Ideally, I'd like both a good running game AND a good passing game (along with a monster D)...

JJC7301
02-19-2012, 11:41 PM
I'm more interested in improving the o-line, either through the draft or maybe these guys just need more time together.

I think next year's starting o-line is going to be Diehl, Boothe, Baas, Snee, and Brewer. From what I've read, the Giants are VERY high on Brewer and even though McKenzie probably has 1 or 2 more years in him, I think the Giants are going to move on.

Beatty may start over Diehl in the beginning of the season, but I just don't think he's good enough.

They'll probably go with Diehl / Beatty one more season and then address the LT position in '13. At least that's how I'd handle it if I were JR.