+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: In light of draft, giving up Tuck was questionable

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by PUGH72 View Post
    tru, and i don't believe it's going to be kennard or moore either. Maybe some more safety or CB blitzes to generate pressure off the edge.
    The thing I think we will miss from Tuck was his ability to stunt. It is a trait that a lot of fans ignore but Tuck was masterful at it. I am concerned about our passrush tho.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Mookskingdom View Post
    I said from day 1 letting Tuck go was a bad call, supposedly he only wanted 2yrs 8mil from us, I think that would've been a steal. Shocked and disappointed we said no to that, people can talk about his "decline" all they want.. there still aren't many 4-3 DEs in the league that are better than Tuck and none of them could be had anywhere near that price range.

    Also very disappointed we didn't take Kareem Martin in the 3rd round when we had the chance.
    Tuck may have only wanted 2 years/$8 million, but he wasn't worth it at this point in his career. Tuck spent 2011 and 2012 complaining about how he sucked and spent most of 2013 doing more talking than producing until the last 6 games. And the fact that Beason was able to come in and pretty much supplant Tuck as a leader on the defense speaks volumes. The Giants made the right move letting Tuck walk.

    But I do agree with you about Kareem Martin and I was disappointed that the Giants didn't draft him when they had the chance. Hopefully, Bromley will be able to step in and produce since they plan to work him into the rotation.
    One of these teams is not like the others


  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,631
    As much as we love tuck oakland is overpaying him and I dont blame him for going.

  4. #24
    outside from 3-4 games, tuck was the same tuck from 2012 and the reg season in 2011. both reg seasons he was pretty damn bad in.

    great, all time giant. would have been glad to keep him for cheap. but at this stage, he really is nothing more than a run defending DE. and, we got that with Ayers. further, Ayers at least could give us a player ascending and trying to reach his prime whereas those days are lonnnnnggggg gone for Tuck.

    if nothing else, Kiwi could give us what TUck has given us in the reg season '11, and 2012 on (tuck was a beast that '11 postseason as well as a few games in '13 to be fair). again, in a contract year, tuck went the first 7 or 8 weeks with like 1.5 sacks iirc. it wasnt until those back up qbs that tuck started to regain some momentum and a higher level of play. but vs the tougher competition, again, tuck was virtually invisible...i dunno wtf oakland was thinking. 11 mil for Tuck? i cant see it.

  5. #25
    and i dont get this reasoning by some.

    so, if we still had tuck, the concerns on the DL go away? or, you'd feel more confident having Tuck?

    i would feel as bad or even worse were tuck to still be on the team and we had to give him 8 mil for 2 yrs to do so.

    theres no way ayers or kiwi couldnt match what tuck offered, which really is nothing more than a run defending DE. and ayers is one of the best run defending DE's. so, really its a wash. Tuck could not get to the QB even with his sack numbers last yr. they were almost all a result of play break downs or the QB working his way into Tuck. I mean, he may have had 2 or 3 sacks where he just straight up beat his man 1v1 and got to the QB within 2.5 seconds...almost all were "coverage" sacks, or QBs just practically running into him. i dont want to sound like im ragging on him. but he was damn invisible for like 11 of the 16 games.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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