+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 171
  1. #121
    All-Pro TCHOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Drez View Post
    The one thing I didn't like was Baas' restructure this year. To me it just seemed like throwing good money after bad.
    How's that?

  2. #122
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,341
    Quote Originally Posted by TCHOF View Post
    How's that?
    He hasn't played very well at all and already had a very high cap number. This restructure, by creating more dead money, just makes it all the harder to move on from him if his poor play continues.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
    I also find it annoying but it is what it is.
    and yet he criticized Eli when he became GM even though he knows deep down Eli lets him get away with a terrible o line.

  4. #124
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Audubon, New Jersey
    Posts
    19,280
    Preface: I don't know what's been covered in this thread, so this post might be repeating/piggy-backing off of what others have already said.

    Investing in a position will make that position stronger. Stronger positions make a football team better.

    That's the logical framework which this thread rests upon, and it's water-tight, no question.

    You need to ask yourself however, would investing in the OL be the best improvement to the football team? I've spent the better part of this offseason trying to convince posters that Eli can excel with a sub-par line, if his skill position players are reaching their potential. Last year, we finally saw a full year of a solid LT (traditionally the most important line component), to which we even rewarded him with a new contract. Our OL was improved in sack numbers, and pressures (credit: PFF), from 2011.

    Is it unreasonable to ask Eli to play to 2011 potential again? Of course not. I'm not willing to say Eli is in a decline, and with the money he will be reeling in the next couple of years, I hope for damn sure he isn't. We're actually giving Eli more help than 2011, so he's in a better position to succeed than that year. We're looking to extend Cruz's contract, we locked up his LT for five years, Nicks will certainly be extended at some point, we took a WR second round last year -- point being, we're not putting it all in Eli's hands, or more accurately, to the extent we did in 2011.

    As I previously mentioned, investing in any positional group would strengthen the team, but to varying extent. If we invest in a backup QB, our QB group will be greater -- but that's going to the extreme, so if we invest in LBers, we'll have a better LB corps, and that will strengthen our defense. If we invest in our DL, that will strengthen our defense as well.

    I feel I've aptly demonstrated that Eli, with a healthy Cruz/Nicks, can overshadow line deficiencies, but honestly, I could care less if Eli hits twenty pro years. I want championships, and while I understand that Eli is a big part in our success equation, I do ultimately conclude it's a team game.

    So if the value is there, Warmack for instance, I wouldn't be upset if they pulled the trigger. Yet with modern day passing games, I would be more at ease if we chose to invest in our secondary, or our defensive line and let Eli's prime, and all the other offensive talent we've assembled handle themselves.

  5. #125
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,341
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    Preface: I don't know what's been covered in this thread, so this post might be repeating/piggy-backing off of what others have already said.

    Investing in a position will make that position stronger. Stronger positions make a football team better.

    That's the logical framework which this thread rests upon, and it's water-tight, no question.

    You need to ask yourself however, would investing in the OL be the best improvement to the football team? I've spent the better part of this offseason trying to convince posters that Eli can excel with a sub-par line, if his skill position players are reaching their potential. Last year, we finally saw a full year of a solid LT (traditionally the most important line component), to which we even rewarded him with a new contract. Our OL was improved in sack numbers, and pressures (credit: PFF), from 2011.

    Is it unreasonable to ask Eli to play to 2011 potential again? Of course not. I'm not willing to say Eli is in a decline, and with the money he will be reeling in the next couple of years, I hope for damn sure he isn't. We're actually giving Eli more help than 2011, so he's in a better position to succeed than that year. We're looking to extend Cruz's contract, we locked up his LT for five years, Nicks will certainly be extended at some point, we took a WR second round last year -- point being, we're not putting it all in Eli's hands, or more accurately, to the extent we did in 2011.

    As I previously mentioned, investing in any positional group would strengthen the team, but to varying extent. If we invest in a backup QB, our QB group will be greater -- but that's going to the extreme, so if we invest in LBers, we'll have a better LB corps, and that will strengthen our defense. If we invest in our DL, that will strengthen our defense as well.

    I feel I've aptly demonstrated that Eli, with a healthy Cruz/Nicks, can overshadow line deficiencies, but honestly, I could care less if Eli hits twenty pro years. I want championships, and while I understand that Eli is a big part in our success equation, I do ultimately conclude it's a team game.

    So if the value is there, Warmack for instance, I wouldn't be upset if they pulled the trigger. Yet with modern day passing games, I would be more at ease if we chose to invest in our secondary, or our defensive line and let Eli's prime, and all the other offensive talent we've assembled handle themselves.
    I don't care if we have a stud OL, I just want an average to good OL.

  6. #126
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,729
    not many teams in the league have outstanding olines .there are a good amount of mediocre to average ones and a few that are a little above average. the giants before these last few years were forutnate to have a solid working o-line for a long amount of time. but due to age of said o-line they have had to try and rebuild it these last few years. i don't think it's easy as some people think to build an oline. it takes time to find the right guys and for all them to gel together to form one solid unit.

  7. #127
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Audubon, New Jersey
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Drez View Post
    I don't care if we have a stud OL, I just want an average to good OL.
    So what are the levels? Average-Good-Stud?

  8. #128
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,341
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    So what are the levels? Average-Good-Stud?
    The levels would be, better than we have fielded the past two seasons, but not necessarily all world, either.

  9. #129
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Audubon, New Jersey
    Posts
    19,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Drez View Post
    The levels would be, better than we have fielded the past two seasons, but not necessarily all world, either.
    That's pretty vague though, how much improvement would you like to see? All things being equal, with Beatty/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Diehl we are fielding essentially the same line, too which I'd say from a scale of 1-10 would be ~3.5.

    Of course average would be a 5-6. Good would be 7-8, and then the rest being stud.

    Those are just my numbers though. If you think our line was lower, or better, that's fine.

  10. #130
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,341
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    That's pretty vague though, how much improvement would you like to see? All things being equal, with Beatty/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Diehl we are fielding essentially the same line, too which I'd say from a scale of 1-10 would be ~3.5.

    Of course average would be a 5-6. Good would be 7-8, and then the rest being stud.

    Those are just my numbers though. If you think our line was lower, or better, that's fine.
    Yeah, I'd say our line right now is around a 4 or so, or more specifically, LT: 7
    LG:4.5-5
    C:3
    RG: 4
    RT: If Diehl is starting, 2, if not it's a complete ?

    That averages out to be 4.2. There is the possibility that Snee may return a little closer to his old self, which even with Diehl starting could bring our line up to about a 5. However, Boothe is only on a 1 year deal and Snee's '14 is voidable. We definitely need to think about replacements at L/RG and potentially RT, saying Brewer can't step up to the plate. We're pot committed on Baas for the time being, so our only hope there is that he can get better when he's healthy.

    To answer your question, I'd like to see our line to be around a 6 or so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts