NFL.com: Ex-coach Ben McAdoo sees Giants winning NFC East (M.E.T.)

[BleedBNG]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:08 PM, RVAskins said:

Mcdoo - "And Washington is Washington, right?"

 

 

 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

@BleedBNG Louis Riddick is one of the National guys who has begun to caught onto the fact things are different around here. I appreciate that we have been mediocre the last few years and frustration begins to set in, but we are far closer to being a really good team than a really bad team. It’s fairly obvious to me. But for some, the noise, media, and overall teasers over the years color your view. And can’t say I blame them, I just happen to care way more about the then and now since that’s what will have bearing on our performance this year. In addition, I think the Scott and Kirk (especially Kirk) fiascos were overblown. I am absolutely convinced this is the most talented Redskins team to suit up in Snyder’s tenure.

[HardcoreZorn]

Also, that Jerry Brewer article has a lot of fair points and overall a fair assessment. But can’t help but laugh how three years ago all of the chatter was about not investing in the lines, football is won up front, stop going flashy, etc. and now it’s all about playing it safe and not going for the homerun. Pick a stance and stick with it people. For me, I’m totally cool with this approach since I begged for it for years. If we fail this year, the next regime will be coming into a MUCH better situation than Gruden inherited. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

In addition, I think the Scott and Kirk (especially Kirk) fiascos were overblown. I am absolutely convinced this is the most talented Redskins team to suit up in Snyder’s tenure.

 

 

I'm the opposite, kinda...I think the Scot fiasco was overblown, and the Cousins fiasco was not. No way in hell does a competent front office allow a franchise QB throwing for over 4,000 yds a season three years in a row just...walk...and get absolutely nothing in return. And after paying the guy $44M for two years. That just doesn't happen. The Scot fiasco would probably paint Allen and Snyder in a more favorable light if everything during Scot's time here came to light...more a gut feeling based on facts than anything, though. But the Scot fiasco seems more a PR blunder coupled with a poor decision to leak a story right after firing a guy who apparently needed to be let go...but probably nothing more than that.

[TSO]

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Also, that Jerry Brewer article has a lot of fair points and overall a fair assessment. But can’t help but laugh how three years ago all of the chatter was about not investing in the lines, football is won up front, stop going flashy, etc. and now it’s all about playing it safe and not going for the homerun. Pick a stance and stick with it people. For me, I’m totally cool with this approach since I begged for it for years. If we fail this year, the next regime will be coming into a MUCH better situation than Gruden inherited. 

 

It’s called situational awareness, contextual understanding, and flexibility even when it comes to sound principles. 

 

“Pick a stance and stick with it” can lead to plenty of issues related to stubbornness and arrogance. Like not realizing how close you are as a team and getting slightly more aggressive to give yourselves the best shot to contend. 

 

This nuance has been attempted to be explained to you a thousand times to no avail. It’s unfortunate you continue to present it as something more than what is being asked for, as if we’re asking to throw out all of those sound principles and just go nuts in FA or something. And where would we like that aggressiveness to increase? On the lines. What was your point about “flashy” again? 

 

What’s even more unfortunate is that those people who were calling for these things you mentioned were labeled back then as “negative” by your type (when you stop grouping and labeling others, I will), but now that the FO is applying some of it those people get no credit and instead of listening to them, their positions are demeaned, condescended, attacked, etc... 

 

Maybe they knew a little bit about what they were talking about, huh? 

 

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm the opposite, kinda...I think the Scot fiasco was overblown, and the Cousins fiasco was not. No way in hell does a competent front office allow a franchise QB throwing for over 4,000 yds a season three years in a row just...walk...and get absolutely nothing in return. And after paying the guy $44M for two years. That just doesn't happen. The Scot fiasco would probably paint Allen and Snyder in a more favorable light if everything during Scot's time here came to light...more a gut feeling based on facts than anything, though. But the Scot fiasco seems more a PR blunder coupled with a poor decision to leak a story right after firing a guy who apparently needed to be let go...but probably nothing more than that.

 

Agree about the QB stuff. Can’t believe I’m saying that to you, lol. Boy, you’re so negative. Bruce Allen doesn’t deserve this.  

 

As for Scot, the fiasco for me was more about not replacing the position. I believe it was like that for many, as well. It wasn’t just about how ugly it all was, which was yet another implication of an FO too often involved in factionalism/division versus team-centric goals, it was that they reverted back to an unorthodox organizational structure that had failed them time and again for Dan’s entire tenure, basically. 

 

Had they immediately elevated Kyle Smith or Eric Schaffer to the position, or maybe brought in someone else qualified... I know I would’ve been satisfied. If I’m going to praise them when they made the move to bring someone in and give him the GM position with final say over personnel, I’m not going to contradict myself and suddenly be fine with that when they revert back. 

[HardcoreZorn]

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm the opposite, kinda...I think the Scot fiasco was overblown, and the Cousins fiasco was not. No way in hell does a competent front office allow a franchise QB throwing for over 4,000 yds a season three years in a row just...walk...and get absolutely nothing in return. And after paying the guy $44M for two years. That just doesn't happen. The Scot fiasco would probably paint Allen and Snyder in a more favorable light if everything during Scot's time here came to light...more a gut feeling based on facts than anything, though. But the Scot fiasco seems more a PR blunder coupled with a poor decision to leak a story right after firing a guy who apparently needed to be let go...but probably nothing more than that.

I should clear that up a bit and say that yes, the end result was inexcusable. I was beating the drum pretty hard (before I began posting here) to trade Kirk before the 2017 season. There were mistakes made along the way for sure, especially with the benefit of hindsight. I’m more referring to the media and segment of the fan base that insinuates we should have bent over and payed the first fully guaranteed contract in NFL history to a good but not great QB. And that innocent ole Kirk was betrayed by the Redskins and didn’t play a role in the relationship coming to an end. That’s just my take though, and certainly realize I’m in the minority.

[Skinsinparadise]

39 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I should clear that up a bit and say that yes, the end result was inexcusable. I was beating the drum pretty hard (before I began posting here) to trade Kirk before the 2017 season. There were mistakes made along the way for sure, especially with the benefit of hindsight. I’m more referring to the media and segment of the fan base that insinuates we should have bent over and payed the first fully guaranteed contract in NFL history to a good but not great QB. And that innocent ole Kirk was betrayed by the Redskins and didn’t play a role in the relationship coming to an end. That’s just my take though, and certainly realize I’m in the minority.

 

I've seen your position on Kirk a bunch of times and haven't seen you counter hit these points -- maybe you have and I missed it. If so sorry but I don't recall you addressing them.  

 

1.  You keep referring to Kirk's counter offer in 2016 from the FO's low ball offer as the kicker.   That's the whole guaranteed offer drill.

 

However, the FO according to multiple reporters just ignored the counter offer and stopped the negotiation.   Multiple reporters said Kirk would have taken an offer with high guarantees but it didn't have to be all guaranteed.  No one described it as I recall as a take it or leave it offer -- if anything some beat guys labeled it the opposite way where Kirk was a bit surprised and even a little put off that the FO didn't bother to counter offer.  When Scot referred to the FO making mistakes on the contract, I'd bet money that's what he is referring to.

 

2.  The demeanor and tone of the negotiation from Bruce was cited by multiple reporters as the KEY reason for why it went sour.  And no by that they don't mean that Kirk was simply hurt by the low ball offer but otherwise had no issues with Bruce.  But it was the douche behavior behind the scenes with him coupled with what he witnessed as to Bruce with others.   He didn't like or trust him according to multiple sources.  And it wasn't purely about money as the way you present your point about the negotiation.   Heck Eric Schaffer was front and center in the negotiation and we didn't hear a peep about any acrimony involving him.  Surprise, surprise -- Schaffer is famous for having really good people skills and is considered a nice guy.

 

I don't think it was an accident that it was Jay and Dan who called Kirk after they made the deal for Alex and nothing from Bruce.  

 

3.  You keep complementing them about the comp picks they have as part of your macro take about how this FO rocks and people don't give them proper credit.

 

Yet, most of these comp picks are late rounders.  Only high comp pick is Kirk, the third rounder.  How does it flow to say yeah they should have gotten more for him while at the same time be giddy about a job well done with the comp picks?  Is it you just like their comp pick (nice job to get a 6th rounder for so and so) moves besides the third rounder they got for Kirk?

[HardcoreZorn]

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

It’s called situational awareness, contextual understanding, and flexibility even when it comes to sound principles. 

 

“Pick a stance and stick with it” can lead to plenty of issues related to stubbornness and arrogance. Like not realizing how close you are as a team and getting slightly more aggressive to give yourselves the best shot to contend. 

All I’m saying is that a very large majority of fans over the years screamed to have a process and plan in place that stayed away from paying other teams’ players huge amounts of money on the open market and to utilize the draft as the pipeline of the organization. Teams like the Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Packers were continually cited as examples of organizations that we should try to emulate. Now the flavor of the month is to spend big since it’s lead to some recent success for teams like the Vikings, Jaguars, Rams etc. There are many ways to go about building a team, but I personally called for this style of building a team for years. And just as you aren’t going to revert back to accepting a piss poor FO structure, I’m not going to suddenly complain we aren’t utilizing free agency enough. Next year if the Steelers win it and Vikes, Rams, Jags don’t live up to expectations there will be a gazillion and one articles praising the stay out of FA approach. I personally believe this way lends itself to sustainable success and creates the best culture, which is paramount in football. Once the lines are built, the team shows it’s close to a SB, sure, swing for the fences and sign an Andrew Norwell in FA and draft the highest upside. We aren’t quite there yet.

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

This nuance has been attempted to be explained to you a thousand times to no avail. It’s unfortunate you continue to present it as something more than what is being asked for, as if we’re asking to throw out all of those sound principles and just go nuts in FA or something. And where would we like that aggressiveness to increase? On the lines. What was your point about “flashy” again? 

Really? A thousand times? With my 200 some posts lol. I’m not a black and white person by any stretch of the imagination so that’s just a wrong impression on your part, probably because you never were able to wrap your head around the fact that I appreciate some of what’s going on around here and don’t slam Bruce Allen for everything which is a popular, let’s call it “the cool kids” stance. I too, want separation of duties and responsibilities, and for a Kyle Smith to be elevated to GM. Also not sure why you are taking this so directly as I was mostly referring to the media, and in particular Jerry Brewers article which is echoed by some on here. The lines are pretty well covered so is spending 14M or whatever on a Norwell or 11 on Richardson the best allocation of money? When we will soon have to pay premium dollar to keep Smith and Scherff?

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

What’s even more unfortunate is that those people who were calling for these things you mentioned were labeled back then as “negative” by your type (when you stop grouping and labeling others, I will), but now that the FO is applying some of it those people get no credit and instead of listening to them, their positions are demeaned, condescended, attacked, etc... 

Just not even sure what this means. Not sure what label I put on anybody but the only thing I can think of is you took “people” far too literally and grouped yourself in with it. I just find it somewhat amusing that the narrative is now switching and that was really my only point. Clearly you took it more as a personal attack.

 

 

[TheShredder]

I don't expect the Eagles to miss a step.  Most of their top players didn't even play in the Super Bowl. They'll be odds on favorites and motivated with confidence.  Getting into the playoff picture for the other 3 teams is the real story.  I got Dallas last.  You could logically say that the other playoff team from the East would be between the Skins and Giants with whomever is lucky with roster health taking getting the edge. 

 

Giants former coach is still getting paid by the Giants for a few years.  He's not likely to say anything different then he did and probably keeps that tone while getting paid millions to be a fat slob. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I saw some Brewer mentions here so I just checked out his article.  I agree with almost all of it except the trenches part but I do agree with the wondering about Payne versus James/Edmunds for a team that is starving for some more elite players -- I guess we will see how that plays out.  So that's a tough one for me since I value D line over the other positions but I had a better feeling about James/Edmunds in the draft than I did Payne.  But I don't hate the Payne pick. I like him.

 

As for the rest of his stuff, I've made similar points on different threads.  I agree with him about the draft.  It's good that they are approaching things with a bent towards the draft.  But like him, I am not in the camp that its 98% of the drill and the rest of it is a minor side show.  The other stuff matters too IMO.    

 

I said a long time ago during the Vinny era that I don't hate going for big FAs.  What I do hate is going for blatantly the wrong FAs -- overpaying for guys like Randle El and Archuleta as if they are stars even though they weren't.  Paying big for guys like Haynesworth who were proven head cases.  Overpaying for aging players, etc.  What I really hated the most was trading away draft picks for veterans.  So for me the Vinny issue was about choosing the wrong players and trading picks.

 

Brewer nails it here perfectly IMO.  Teams like the Eagles are willing to wheel and deal and have guts about how they go about things and they are creative AND they are good at drafting, too.  The Giants who just about everyone seems to think has more talent than the Redskins -- in my view that perception is mostly colored by the FAs they have acquired in recent years to complement their homegrown guys.  The Giants turned around a bad defense in one fell swoop in one off season.  Look at the Jags terrible defense all of a sudden have this monster d line.  When was the last time the Redskins did that?  Ironically it was in 2004 after the Marcus Washington, Griffin, Springs signings -- 3 marquee defensive FAs.  London Fletcher was arguably the best player on the defense for a good 5 years or so -- great FA acqiustion.

 

This argument often turns to dramatic extremes -- does that mean dude you want Cerrato back, or another Haynesworth or you don't believe in the draft or you must think this way because you don't like Bruce or whatever straw man is in play in many of the rebuttals I often encounter when I make this case.

 

The reality is I've been consistent on this point.  Yeah I care more about the draft than FA.  And I too went through a phase (albeit a very short one) where I wondered about the use of FA.  But through most of my time posting, I've been pro FA if its used wisely.  And I know some seem to think its almost impossible to use FA well because of all the failures here -- but yeah you can do it right.  It's like the draft -- you will have failures -- but you will have plenty of successes, too.

 

And to Brewer's point its not just about not swinging for the fences in FA.  It's about a general conservative approach -- and from what at least beat guys say that's Bruce's touch on things especially as for FAs.  Some like to combine Bruce and Jay as one unit who are on the same page -- but the dude who has been nailing behind the scenes goings on a lot for 2 years running now is Chris Russell who said Jay and Bruce really butted heads about FA this year in particular.

 

And there is some smoke that Jay wanted Edmunds.  So some of the lets have some more courage point that Brewer is putting forth -- if you buy into what some insider types say, Jay is on the same page with that concept with the breaks being put on by Bruce.  It's one of a number reasons of why I'd like to see Bruce reassigned.  From what I've seen for example from Kyle Smith (granted its just intuition on my end from watching him) my gut is he'd have more balls running the team than Bruce.

 

And I do agree with Brewer that the FO has figured out how to raise the floor -- this approach will save them from likely hitting some of the low bottoms they've had it the past.  But what I wonder about is the ceiling.  And yeah I really don't know if this is the breakout season on that front -- my take is maybe yes, maybe no.  But if the answer is no, I do think this approach has to be abandoned.  That means yeah you can use the draft.  And you can sign some marquee FAs.  One thing doesn't exclude the other.  Many good teams are good at BOTH. 

 

And as for hey the media is brainwashing people stuff.  I've made many of Brewer's points way before he did.  I've joked before wondering if some of the media guys get some of their ideas from reading this board. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-are-building-the-way-fans-have-always-wanted-but-its-taking-forever/2018/07/26/6636d0e6-90ea-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.c11220a6e275

In other words, Washington has a way of doing business that almost ensures it won’t embarrass itself and post 3-13 seasons, but it has played things so carefully that there’s little potential for a dominant team. When you look at that 24-23-1 record since 2015, the results bear out the theory.

In essence, the once-imprudent organization has overcorrected. It doesn’t take as many chances. It doesn’t go after as many splashy, high-profile acquisitions. The approach has resulted in building better depth, but the team lacks enough top-end, star talent to compete at the highest level.

It’s easy to feel good about the players on this roster. It’s impossible to feel great about them. The Redskins don’t have major holes, but they don’t have seven or eight consistent difference-makers like most of the contenders. If all goes according to plan, they could be a wild-card team. But if there are any negative deviations from what the front office has forecast, there isn’t enough star power to compensate.

[MisterPinstripe]

I'm of the mind that to build a dominant team you start by building the lines, which we have done. We have done a good job drafting and brought in a lot of talent. I'm at the point where next year we can start splurging more as we have a strong core to build upon. Brewers article doesn't make much sense to me, building the lines is the right way to go. We drafted a potentially explosive talent in Guice, and have built this team as people have been calling for. 

 

I feel his article is a year too soon, if they keep doing what they have the last couple of years. This team had not much talent at all, it's taken years to build that back up. Look at our team and see how many guys we drafted and developed, huge improvement and an important step.

[HTTRDynasty]

How many top 5 play-makers do the Eagles have?  Only Ertz IMO. Maybe Malcolm Jenkins on defense. What made the Eagles special last year was how great they were in the trenches. They have the #1 ranked OL and DL, according to PFF, going into 2018. 

 

The Giants have a bunch of flashy play-makers, but their trenches are below average (they have a terrible pass rush DL). That will be their downfall. 

 

I’ll take a top OL and DL over a bunch of top playmakers with suspect line play. 

 

Keep building the trenches. 

[HardcoreZorn]

13 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've seen your position on Kirk a bunch of times and haven't seen you counter hit these points -- maybe you have and I missed it. If so sorry but I don't recall you addressing them.  

 

1.  You keep referring to Kirk's counter offer in 2016 from the FO's low ball offer as the kicker.   That's the whole guaranteed offer drill.

 

However, the FO according to multiple reporters just ignored the counter offer and stopped the negotiation.   Multiple reporters said Kirk would have taken an offer with high guarantees but it didn't have to be all guaranteed.  No one described it as I recall as a take it or leave it offer -- if anything some beat guys labeled it the opposite way where Kirk was a bit surprised and even a little put off that the FO didn't bother to counter offer.  When Scot referred to the FO making mistakes on the contract, I'd bet money that's what he is referring to.

 

2.  The demeanor and tone of the negotiation from Bruce was cited by multiple reporters as the KEY reason for why it went sour.  And no by that they don't mean that Kirk was simply hurt by the low ball offer but otherwise had no issues with Bruce.  But it was the douche behavior behind the scenes with him coupled with what he witnessed as to Bruce with others.   He didn't like or trust him according to multiple sources.  And it wasn't purely about money as the way you present your point about the negotiation.   Heck Eric Schaffer was front and center in the negotiation and we didn't hear a peep about any acrimony involving him.  Surprise, surprise -- Schaffer is famous for having really good people skills and is considered a nice guy.

I’m serious when I say I don’t have the energy to delve into another huge Kirk debate that inevitably nobody will fully grasp my position on the matter. I will just reaffirm that I think there were a ton of moving parts and components that are hardly touched on which include, but not limited to, ballooning QB contracts right around the same time Kirks rookie deal being up, Kirk’s inconsistency early on in his career, Gruden’s QB friendly system and the question of paying top dollar to any QB, being drafted behind Griffin who was revered as the franchise savior (and was for one year), Dan being a complete buffoon and walking past Cousins in the locker room on his way to greet Griffin after Cousins stepped in admirably against the Browns, Kirk being so process driven and wanting to control his own destiny, the Shannys leaving bc ownership prioritized Griffin and enabled him, Kirk and his agent taking advantage of said QB market and treating the franchise tag unlike any player had to date (since hey, 20 million dollars is enough for a lifetime so what’s really worst case scenario if we don’t lock in long term?), Kirk wanting to be a trailblazer and change how NFL contracts work, Kirk folding like a house of cards in 2016 when there was an opportunity to go to the playoffs, thus leading to an understandable position by the organization of “is he really even worth that amount of money?” I could literally go on and on and on. It’s a seriously complex situation and there seems to me to be plenty of evidence out there that suggests far more went into the relationship ending than Bruce’s attitude. I have never once claimed Bruce handled the situation perfectly or didn’t play his part. I just believe it’s far more than “Bruce is a meanie dumbass who screwed it all up.” Again, I realize I’m out on an island on this, but that’s my gut and sticking with it. 

Quote

3.  You keep complementing them about the comp picks they have as part of your macro take about how this FO rocks and people don't give them proper credit.

 

Yet, most of these comp picks are late rounders.  Only high comp pick is Kirk, the third rounder.  How does it flow to say yeah they should have gotten more for him while at the same time be giddy about a job well done with the comp picks?  Is it you just like their comp pick (nice job to get a 6th rounder for so and so) moves besides the third rounder they got for Kirk?

You can’t pay Spencer Longs (average OL) seven million dollars annually and expect to not run into cap trouble down the line. Just like you can’t or at least shouldn’t pay Ryan Grant 5-7 M a year or whatever he got. That’s the equivalent of signing a McGee or McClain. The money most likely won’t fit the level of impact that player provides. So yeah, why not use that money to go toward far more impactful homegrown players and collect a 5th or 6th rounder? Or saving that money so we can pounce on a Djax or Norman when they unexpectedly become available and also add another pick? Those picks could turn into a Chris Thompson, Alfred Morris, Josh Harvey Clemons, Tim Settle, etc. Hell, we added Adonis Alexander who is a talented project at CB and still have a 6th next year. The draft is all about maximizing your chance for hits. more picks=more hits. It’s what the really good organizations do, and it’s pretty common knowledge in NFL circles. I can be pumped about comp picks and still be aware that we should have gotten far more than a third for Kirk. One thing doesn’t make the other not true.

 

 

[bedlamVR]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Giants who just about everyone seems to think has more talent than the Redskins -- in my view that perception is mostly colored by the FAs they have acquired in recent years to complement their homegrown guys.  The Giants turned around a bad defense in one fell swoop in one off season.  

 

 

 

I think that is just kind of a lazy assumption that all the Giants moves work out and all the Redskins moves are busts -

 

But look a little deeper - The talent on the Giants is nothing to do with free agency - It is all on offence and mostly all at the skill positions - and all comes from the draft - Shepard, Beckham, Engram and then Barkley - Henandez might be a good guy but the hype Nate Solder is other worldly where people are saying the Giants now have the best tackles in the division - in a division that has Trent Williams, Smith and Peters/Johnson that is just an indication of how the hype machine works ... 

 

As for fixing their defense in one off season - while statistically the defence were awesome - but watching them with eyes they were terrible - and then you had the constant infighting that comes when you throw a bunch of egos together with no leadership. 

 

And the issue with saying we have no stars or no great players - well i counter with not yet - I still love the fact you have condemed Payne to be a meh pick - but Edmunds and James are going to be generational talents who we were dumbest dumb dumbs to pass on - let them play the game .... then we will see ....

[TSO]

15 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

All I’m saying is that a very large majority of fans over the years screamed to have a process and plan in place that stayed away from paying other teams’ players huge amounts of money on the open market and to utilize the draft as the pipeline of the organization. Teams like the Ravens, Patriots, Steelers, Packers were continually cited as examples of organizations that we should try to emulate. Now the flavor of the month is to spend big since it’s lead to some recent success for teams like the Vikings, Jaguars, Rams etc. There are many ways to go about building a team, but I personally called for this style of building a team for years. And just as you aren’t going to revert back to accepting a piss poor FO structure, I’m not going to suddenly complain we aren’t utilizing free agency enough. Next year if the Steelers win it and Vikes, Rams, Jags don’t live up to expectations there will be a gazillion and one articles praising the stay out of FA approach. I personally believe this way lends itself to sustainable success and creates the best culture, which is paramount in football. 

 

Many of those same fans who were “screaming” for that (that’s the tone you unfortunately apply to them, which is a problem in and of itself) were right all along, were shot down when they were talking about it, and are now being shot down whenever they criticize whatever perceived issues there are based on much of the same objective analysis. 

 

Instead of discussing it in a fruitful, nuanced manner, it far too often comes off like some simply can’t stand any criticism directed at the top brass and conflate the likes of Dan/Bruce to rooting for the Redskins themselves. I can speak from experience, I used to be like this all the time when my fanhood was almost entirely emotional and very little of it rational. My emotions were tied up with the top brass. I thought people were weirdos when they’d complain about the likes of Vinny and Dan’s antics. I used to roll my eyes at them, poor souls.  

 

I’d defend Vinny, but then as soon as he was canned, it was like “yeah, that’s the right move”. Huh? Basically, I stood on nothing other than “what the top brass does, I’m with”. Now, I thought I was actually being rational, and at times I was, but the reality was others who I perceived as just “negative” were far more rational. 

 

So, to be frank, I struggle to accept your disclaimers, and I honestly thought you were opening your mind up a bit recently, but it seems you’ve totally reverted back into almost exclusively posting defenses of the top brass’s philosophy on every ground. 

 

Saying things like the “flavor of the month is to spend big” is a perfect example of this. Who said that they just want to spend big? When we celebrated signing Norman and DJax, was that a celebration about “spending big” or spending smart? It was the latter, and until this day we actually commend Bruce for that one aspect of his philosophy that has worked really well, in where we pounce on a late surprise cut and nab a stud when other teams have mostly spent up their cap. 

 

You keep complaining that people are missing the nuance to your positions, but all I see is you doing that in damn near every post you make. Generalizations, sweeping assumptions, and labeling people is basically what I expect whenever I see your username. :/ 

 

You say something inflammatory that overly generalizes the position of others, then when countered you expand on your point and provide qualifications for everything. Why not just do that in the first place and avoid those intial, unwarranted, drive-bys? Maybe then you’d get nuanced discussions all the time without having to battle the perception you’ve created for yourself? I’m assuming that’s what you want based off of your complaint, right? 

 

As for the lines being built, this one just really boggles my mind. There isn’t anyone on the board that has advocated for this more than the people you’re condescending here by giving them the tone of “screaming” and exaggerating their positions. 

 

And guess what we were met with the last couple years when we’d talk about it (mainly the Dline)? Meh, the Dline is fine, shut up. Now that they’ve invested major resources there, we’re happy about it but acknowledge that they could’ve done this much sooner and with better resource management, and you’re telling us “...hey, they’re doing it right now, be happy?!” 

 

 

I mean, come on now.  

 

Then you say, “we aren’t quite there yet”? Are you kidding me!? You make post after post about how good this roster is (which I actually agree with, maybe not to the degree you do, but close), but then you say this? 

 

You of all people should be totally on board with the type of thinking that suggest the roster is at a point where you can really push it to the next level. At least it shouldn’t be something you aim shade at. 

 

I’ll even take it a step further than you. We were good enough last offseason. The core of our team had been built enough. Were we slightly more aggressive, especially at Dline, where we got a premier player there instead, maybe we could’ve withstood those injuries and our run defense wouldn’t have completely bombed, which altered the season more than anything else. 

 

You see, it is precisely because they’re close we want them to get more aggressive! 

 

15 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Once the lines are built, the team shows it’s close to a SB, sure, swing for the fences and sign an Andrew Norwell in FA and draft the highest upside. We aren’t quite there yet.

 

This here just blows my mind. You’re actually saying exactly what we are, except you’re applying some other context for it.

 

Here, you are saying what you think needs to happen before it happens. So it’s perfectly fine for you to apply some arbitrary moment where it becomes okay to get more aggressive (the lines are built, team shows it’s close to a Super Bowl), but when we recognize the time is now (and give plenty of reasoning as to why) we’re just completely trashing sound principles and philosophies like building through the draft and not overspending in FA? 

 

So it’s only when you deem them ready, huh? Just let us know when.  

 

 

15 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Really? A thousand times? With my 200 some posts lol. I’m not a black and white person by any stretch of the imagination so that’s just a wrong impression on your part, probably because you never were able to wrap your head around the fact that I appreciate some of what’s going on around here and don’t slam Bruce Allen for everything which is a popular, let’s call it “the cool kids” stance. I too, want separation of duties and responsibilities, and for a Kyle Smith to be elevated to GM. Also not sure why you are taking this so directly as I was mostly referring to the media, and in particular Jerry Brewers article which is echoed by some on here. The lines are pretty well covered so is spending 14M or whatever on a Norwell or 11 on Richardson the best allocation of money? When we will soon have to pay premium dollar to keep Smith and Scherff?

 

First off, I’m pretty sure you knew I was making a hyperbolic statement to make a point and to not actually take the number of 1000 seriously, right? Secondly, it was about the amount of times responses have been given to you trying to explain it, so what does that have to do with the number of your posts? You could have one post and if it was responded to a bunch of times the point would stand. 

 

Anyway, you see what you did there? The “cool kids”, huh? But you’re not grouping and labeling anyone, right? 

 

The weird thing is if there’s any groupthink going on, it’s definitely more pronounced with those who espouse some of your views, not anyone else’s. But I won’t get into that more, let’s just avoid the labels, brother. 

 

You say that you also want separation of duties and responsibilities, but I’m left here wondering why you do? I don’t think you’ve ever stated it, and every criticism we’ve had related to said separation you’ve come to Bruce’s defense. I mean, by all accounts you should be perfectly okay with the set up as it is right now. It seems like you’re fronting here. I just don’t buy it, I’m sorry. Again, your disclaimers come off as entirely disingenuous. 

 

See, here’s the thing. If you realize the inherent issues there are with the organizational structure, you’d have a sense of urgency about it. You’d feel like people within the building, good people like a Kyle Smith and a Jay Gruden, are not being given an environment conducive to enabling them to be their best selves, right? And then you’d look at the resource management that has been atrocious on some levels, average on others, and good on few, and feel like those things need to happen now. You wouldn’t be applauding Bruce for getting the roster to where it’s at now after being here for going on 9 years, instead you’d be saddened it’s taken this long when there were plenty of avenues and routes that were quicker to be taken, and less of an hindrance or an obstacle to everyone else. 

 

I made a post touching on a lot of this recently, and you even claimed to agree with it. I’m going to just cut and paste some of those points so you can see why I feel you come off the way you do:

 

Quote

I don’t think we must commend Dan/Bruce for doing football organizational basics in which the vast majority of franchises act upon like valuing draft picks and not overspending on name guys in FA, while ignoring other things they do (that happen to be absolutely unprecedented for good reason) but then somehow justify it all like they’re pioneers in those cases. 

 

There should be an ability for us to look at the organization and its parts without an exclusively holistic approach. 

 

We should be able to look at a guy like Bruce Allen who has been here going on 9 years and wonder why it took this long to get the roster to where it’s at now. We can recognize who has the ability to override and undermine others by virtue of position/title. We can look at some of the absolutely mind boggling decisions made under him that in no way shape or form can be considered good resource management or based on healthy organizational principles. We can look at it with nuance and separate where the success is coming from and from whom (like a Jay Gruden) and where any obstacles to higher levels of success are coming from (Dan/Bruce). 

 

We don’t have to lump them all in together and label anyone who can do the above as a negative nancy. Or, as some otherwise brilliant fans have unfortunately done, just conflate the underling’s roles with the top brass’s and label them all “average”, “mediocre” or worse. 

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/422074-daniel-snyder-dare-we-say-maturingas-a-competent-owner/?do=findComment&comment=11254801

 

Instead, whenever you post, it’s just “look at these fools complaining, be happy, things are good”. That’s what it boils down to.

 

And you know what? I’m down with that when people own that they’re just being emotional fans and not really being objective. But when you condescend others who can recognize these issues, or are just attempting to explain why some of the good people within the building are held back so as to avoid them getting trashed and targeted viciously, that’s unfair and frustrating as hell. If you agreed with the post above, where does that come in when you say something like “stick to a stance people” and come down on anyone who takes issue with Bruce’s approach to FA recently? 

 

I mean, am I crazy for getting annoyed by that? Can you see where I’m coming from here?  

 

You’ve shown me recently you have an ability to do so, you’ve owned up to some things you’ve done (which I respect immensely), and I felt you recently opened your mind a bit by not assuming the worst of those of us who just want to see a better organizational environment. I’m just saddened it seems like you’re reverting back to the antagonistic approach again lately. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I’m serious when I say I don’t have the energy to delve into another huge Kirk debate that inevitably nobody will fully grasp my position on the matter. I will just reaffirm that I think there were a ton of moving parts and components that are hardly touched on which include, but not limited to, ballooning QB contracts right around the same time Kirks rookie deal being up,

 

I agree with the moving parts but you don't seem to delve into them when you go for your main conclusion in your posts.   You seem to sum up the issue as:

 

A.  Kirk wanted crazy money

B.  Bruce said no

C.  Kirk didn't like him for it.

D.  That's it in a nut shell as to why Bruce is given a hard time. 

E.  Boohoo that Kirk didn't like Bruce for not giving Kirk a truckload of money

 

 And implying by how you lay out your point how naive it is for us to criticize Bruce.  We are like a bunch of whiny kids who wanted to pay $20 for a toy and mommy said no.

 

Bruce the adult in the room had to step in and put a stop to out of control contract demands by a player who didn't deserve it.

 

Hey if it went down like that -- your point would be spot on.  But it doesn't even seem remotely in the ball park of being on point as to the macro.  You ignore the key plot lines of the behind the scenes contract -- all of which has been vetted out for well over a year. 

 

11 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I have never once claimed Bruce handled the situation perfectly or didn’t play his part. I just believe it’s far more than “Bruce is a meanie dumbass who screwed it all up.” 

 

You either ignore this point or as you do here belittle the idea that the tone of the negotiation was an issue.  That's cool, I am saying from the people who covered the story -- your take on what went down is quite different. Personally, I have no idea what happened naturally since I am not talking to Kirk's camp or the FO but if you listen to those who did most of them paint a different picture than you do.

 

11 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I can be pumped about comp picks and still be aware that we should have gotten far more than a third for Kirk. One thing doesn’t make the other not true.

 

 

 

The way you pump up the comp picks as a global point about the 2019 draft and to sing praises for the FO and how they go about their business just seems an odd fit with your one hit on the Kirk drill which is the compensation.  Yeah you strike gold on occasion with a 6th round pick -- but most of them are misses or just guys -- go through the team's history or for that matter most teams history in that round.  Yeah I get it in the throes of a just completed draft the real time late rounders almost feel like bonafide stars now.  But when you have some distance from the draft, you'll see that Alfred Morris is an exception not the rule when it comes to late rounders.  

 

Typically when you let your youngish 2nd, 3rd rounders go and collect one 5th and otherwise 6th rounders -- its to me fine but I am not doing jumping jacks over it.   I am ok with the Ryan Grant part of it.  You factor the 3rd they got for Kirk -- then to me the whole comp pick drill is meh.  And I know its not easy to articulate a point with context -- but to me I LOVE comp picks in the right context. 

 

In this context where you lose a franchise QB for just about nothing and a youngish IMO decent player and the kicker is that same position might be now the biggest hole on the team -- I can live with it all but I am not celebrating it on the aggregate as a job well done. do I like having extra picks in 2019 -- of course.  I just can't look at transactions in a vacuum and not consider context.

[bakedtater1]

9 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

How many top 5 play-makers do the Eagles have?  Only Ertz IMO. Maybe Malcolm Jenkins on defense. What made the Eagles special last year was how great they were in the trenches. They have the #1 ranked OL and DL, according to PFF, going into 2018. 

 

The Giants have a bunch of flashy play-makers, but their trenches are below average (they have a terrible pass rush DL). That will be their downfall. 

 

I’ll take a top OL and DL over a bunch of top playmakers with suspect line play. 

 

Keep building the trenches. 

Exactly why I have a Scherff jersey..I absolutely love your post..good call way to go good on ya mate how ever ya chalk it up I agree with you %100..

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

 

I think that is just kind of a lazy assumption that all the Giants moves work out and all the Redskins moves are busts -

 

 

It's actually lazy for you to respond this way.   I am not going to even bother to respond to this point aside from saying read my post again. 

 

7 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

But look a little deeper - The talent on the Giants is nothing to do with free agency -

 

Yep, nothing.   That's what runs through my mind when Jay praises Jenkins as a lock down corner, D. Harrison (arguably best nose tackle in the league) throws Perine into the backfield like a rag doll in the last game last year and Kirk is being chased by Olivier Vernon (arguing best run stuffing DE in the league).

 

Now personally I think the Giants are a bit overrated.  I've made my point in other threads.  But I am explaining why OTHERS tend to think the Giants are more talented.  And yeah some of those FAs are part of the conversation.  

 

7 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

As for fixing their defense in one off season - while statistically the defence were awesome - but watching them with eyes they were terrible -

 

They had one of the top run defenses in 2016.  In 2017, they slipped with injuries. Our inability to run the ball against them in 2016 is what cost us the playoffs. Recall what they did to the Cowboys vaunted run game that same year?  I don't know what Giants games you are watching but my wife and in laws are Giants fans, I watch almost every game of theirs.  I've watched every Giants-Redskins games in the last 2 years twice on coaches tape.  I've even put some clips from those games on different threads.  If you feel you have a better handle on that team -- that's cool -- I am just explaining why I have plenty of confidence in my own opinion where i am not swayed even a little by your observation of them.

 

7 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

I still love the fact you have condemed Payne to be a meh pick - but Edmunds and James are going to be generational talents who we were dumbest dumb dumbs to pass on - let them play the game .... then we will see ....

 

Why don't you quote me on these nonsense declarations you claim I've made and show the whole post context and all?   I debated with plenty of people but at least they have an understanding of my positions.  You come up with crazy stuff out of nowhere.  You got some wild stuff that I've never said or you take a criticism and turn it into some inflated wild and crazy condemnation.

 

Dude, we are talking football.  Even guys that I've defended to death like Kirk I've criticized. So why not take some of those comments out of context, blow them up into something crazy and call me a Kirk hater?  I am one of the biggest Jay guys on the board.  I've criticized him too.  This thread as far as I know isn't Redskins Nation (and I like Redskins Nation by the way) this isn't the PR arm of the team where its our job to only talk about everything we like about every player, coach, game, etc.  Wouldn't it be boring if we did that? 

 

We love everything about every move the team does -- they are the best, every player we got is the best at their said position.  Pom Poms about everything and everyone.  And heck if I was working for the Redskins PR team, that's what I'd do.  But this is a discussion thread. If the threads are instead hey lets discuss how much we love Orlando Scandrick -- pick a side is he simply the best CB in the league right now or a sure fire hall of famer -- vote on the poll and then comment -- yeah we can go that way.  Boring though, no?

 

No I don't do that.  I am struggling to think of anyone who does maybe a few people? On the aggregate, I am one of the more positive people here about the team and Jay.  I am not a Bruce guy and I know that bothers some - but I don't care.  I just desire what I think is best for the team.  I don't care if you disagree with me on it.  And I don't think Bruce = Redskins.   I don't think saying for example Jordan Reed is one of the best players in the NFL but also saying he isn't a good blocker and we need to improve TE blocking -- translates as you say I want to release him.

 

Seems like you think anyone who doesn't think the players here are perfect or have Bruce's back is a hater.  If so by that standards, just about everyone here is a hater.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

How many top 5 play-makers do the Eagles have?  Only Ertz IMO. Maybe Malcolm Jenkins on defense. What made the Eagles special last year was how great they were in the trenches. They have the #1 ranked OL and DL, according to PFF, going into 2018. 

 

The Giants have a bunch of flashy play-makers, but their trenches are below average (they have a terrible pass rush DL). That will be their downfall. 

 

I’ll take a top OL and DL over a bunch of top playmakers with suspect line play. 

 

Keep building the trenches. 

 

Their D line is actually very good, Harrison most think is the best NT in the league, Tomlinson, a Alabama D lineman, had a really good year last year.  If you watch the coaches tape in the game against us, he was really good.   Then they added McIntosh and BJ Hill in the draft.  Lorenzo Carter to the pass rush and they just signed Barwin. 

 

Their O line is more questionable.  But Solder is a good LT -- I think good signing.  Will Hernandez if you check out his tape is insane -- one of my man crushes in the draft, Kiper said he's the best run blocker he's ever seen.

 

Their GM believes in building in the trenches, same dude who did it in Carolina.  I think they are overrated but not because their D line is weak -- IMO their D line is really good potentially.  As for their O line, they aggressively tried to fix it -- 3 new O lineman this year.  Will see.  I'd love to think Hernandez will be just a guy but I'd be hypocritical to say that now after showing his clips repeatedly on the draft thread months back -- that dude is a potential monster.

[JSSkinz]

Philly had 2 straight 7-9 seasons before last year and what changed the game for them was a little more depth at DT (also swapped Logan for Jernigan), they signed 2 veteran WR's, and they picked up a nice RB (Ajayi) during the season.

 

Those needs sound kind of familiar.

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Their D line is actually very good, Harrison most think is the best NT in the league, Tomlinson, a Alabama D lineman, had a really good year last year.  If you watch the coaches tape in the game against us, he was really good.   Then they added McIntosh and BJ Hill in the draft.  Lorenzo Carter to the pass rush and they just signed Barwin. 

 

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.  I think you're mistaking how good they were in 2016, when they had Hankins and JPP, with how good they actually are now.  I agree that Harrison is the best NT in the league... but unfortunately for them, this is a passing league first and foremost (and they were actually pretty terrible, collectively, against the run last year as well).  They added a couple dudes in the draft who could be good, but that remains to be seen (they weren't first or second round talents, so it's a long shot they'll be true difference makers). Even if they are, I don't think it makes up for the loss of JPP.  They have no one outside of Olivier Vernon who can consistently pressure the passer, and Vernon only puts up good bulk stats because he plays an extremely high rate of snaps.  He's consistently been one of the most inefficient pass rushers in the league when compared to his peers.

 

Anyway, some stats:

 

- Giants finished 29th in sacks last year

 

- Giants finished 25th in pressure rate last year according to Football Outsiders.  They ranked 31st according to PFF (see below).

 

- Giants ranked 26th against the run last year according to Football Outsiders

 

- Giants rank 29th in PFF's pass-rush rankings entering the 2018 season

 

29. NEW YORK GIANTS

PROJECTED STARTING LINEUP:

Edge Defender: Olivier Vernon, 84.2 overall grade
Defensive Interior: Damon Harrison, 90.4
Defensive Interior: Dalvin Tomlinson, 83.9
Edge Defender: Kareem Martin, 75.2
Key Rotational Player: B.J. Hill, 81.5* (2017 college grade)

 

Pressure Percentage as a team, 2017: 29.0% (31st)

 

Vernon hasn’t hit the heights of his 2015 season, but has still been a solid pass-rusher in each of the past two seasons in New York. Last year, he registered nine sacks, five hits and 24 hurries 378 pass-rushing snaps. After Jason Pierre-Paul’s departure to Tampa Bay this offseason, their new addition in Martin could start opposite Vernon, but he has produced just 35 total pressures in his four-year career so far. Harrison and Tomlinson are stud run defenders, and while Harrison chipped in with 18 total pressure in 2017, neither should be expected to offer much as pass-rushers in 2018.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Philly had 2 straight 7-9 seasons before last year and what changed the game for them was a little more depth at DT, they signed 2 veteran WR's, and they picked up a nice RB (Ajayi) during the season.

 

Those needs sound kind of familiar.

 

 

 

Jernigan was a steal for them.   If I recall Philly had 4 All Pro players last year.  Fletcher Cox is one of the best defenders in the league.  Jenkins is one of the best safeties.  Sadly looks like Wentz is an All Pro QB.  

 

A bunch of the football geeks (if I recall among them PFF) rated the Eagles roster as either the best in the league or close enough.  I agree they don't have elite players everywhere but for starters arguably the D line is the most important position on defense and QB on offense -- and Cox is among the best, ditto Wentz.  Their special teams is typically among the best in the league.  It's very balanced team.  To your point if the Redskins become a balanced team this year -- I agree we'd be on our way.  We've had bad defenses, up and down special teams, bad running games -- if all of that turns around and we are on par with the Eagles on those fronts -- it would go a long way.  I think its possible.  Will see.

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.  I think you're mistaking how good they were in 2016, when they had Hankins and JPP, with how good they actually are now.  

 

They had JPP for some of 2017 -- a more whole JPP to boot. He has better stats in 2017.  Tomlinson just like Hankins is a good run stuffer -- I don't see much of a difference on that count. If I had to take one, I'd probably go with Tomlinson actually. 

 

They were decimated by injuries across the board in 2017.  Yeah if we are going with 2017 where it all fell apart for them in part because of injuries -- we shouldn't worry about their offense either -- put up their offensive numbers and we'd snooze at that unit, too. But the reason why many are picking the Giants (heck even Cooley is on that bandwagon, it sickens me ) to make the playoffs and most pick them ahead of us -- is they think they got a loaded roster and are factoring context to last season.

 

Personally I think people are getting carried away with the Giants.  But I disagree with you about the trenches at least as to the D line part of it.  Maybe the O line since they have new guys who need to jell.  But I'll say this if Payne and Settle turn into the combination of Harrison and Tomlinson I'd be giddy.  Not saying they can't.  I just need to see it play out. 

 

If we can shout about Payne and Settle as part of our D line turnaround this season -- why can't the Giants talk about some of the more hyped players in the trenches they added themselves as part of the narrative especially in their case where they already have two run stopping beasts?  Your PFF ratings you posted back my points about Tomlinson and Harrison.  And I am going to be consistent in liking players that I liked pre-draft and if I do it for the Redskins, i am not going to throw that approach out the window for the Giants -- Hill and Hernandez were two players I really liked -- one a high 2nd rounder, the other a high third rounder. 

 

I was watching our running game specifically against the NY Giants a few weeks or so ago.  We were running to death outside zone.  As Cooley likes to say, Jay prefers to run north to south with the duo -- the play where players double team the guys inside and part the seas.  In that game they barely even dared to try to do that.  I think that was out of respect for the Giants middle of the defense.   

 

The reason why I think the Giants are overhyped IMO has nothing to do with their d line which I think is one of the better ones in the league -- but they have a QB who stinks.  And I think you can exploit their secondary.   Ogletree might sow up their MLB spot -- will see but that has also been a weak spot for them. 

[HTTRDynasty]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

They had JPP for some of 2017 -- a more whole JPP to boot. He has better stats in 2017.  Tomlinson just like Hankins is a good run stuffer -- I don't see much of a difference on that count. If I had to take one, I'd probably go with Tomlinson actually. 

 

They were decimated by injuries across the board in 2017.  Yeah if we are going with 2017 where it all fell apart for them in part because of injuries -- we shouldn't worry about their offense either -- put up their offensive numbers and we'd snooze at that unit, too. But the reason why many are picking the Giants (heck even Cooley is on that bandwagon, it sickens me ) to make the playoffs and most pick them ahead of us -- is they think they got a loaded roster and are factoring context to last season.

 

JPP, Tomlison, and Harrison all played 16 games last year.  Vernon played 12.  So the DL's terrible performance last year doesn't deserve the injury excuse, and that is the unit we are discussing.

 

By the way, only reason I would ever take Tomlison over Hankins is if we take cap hit into account.  Hankins offers more as both a run stopper and pass rusher.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Personally I think people are getting carried away with the Giants.  But I disagree with you about the trenches at least as to the D line part of it.  Maybe the O line since they have new guys who need to jell.  But I'll say this if Payne and Settle turn into the combination of Harrison and Tomlinson I'd be giddy.  Not saying they can't.  I just need to see it play out. 

 

If we can shout about Payne and Settle as part of our D line turnaround this season -- why can't the Giants talk about some of the more hyped players in the trenches they added themselves as part of the narrative especially in their case where they already have two run stopping beasts?  Your PFF ratings you posted back my points about Tomlinson and Harrison.  And I am going to be consistent in liking players that I liked pre-draft and if I do it for the Redskins, i am not going to throw that approach out the window for the Giants -- Hill and Hernandez were two players I really liked -- one a high 2nd rounder, the other a high third rounder. 

 

I was watching our running game specifically against the NY Giants a few weeks or so ago.  We were running to death outside zone.  As Cooley likes to say, Jay prefers to run north to south with the duo -- the play where players double team the guys inside and part the seas.  In that game they barely even dared to try to do that.  I think that was out of respect for the Giants middle of the defense.   

 

The reason why I think the Giants are overhyped IMO has nothing to do with their d line which I think is one of the better ones in the league -- but they have a QB who stinks.  And I think you can exploit their secondary.   Ogletree might sow up their MLB spot -- will see but that has also been a weak spot for them. 

 

You seem to be extremely focused on the DL's ability to stop the run.  I agree that they are solid here, though even PFF only ranks them as having the 14th best run D going into the 2018 season.  However, as I said from the start, this is a passing league.  Having just a good DL against the run, but not the pass, does not make for a good, let alone "very good", DL overall.  Look at the top half of the list below, ranking total defensive efficiency.  You'll see a much higher correlation between teams great against the pass who made the playoffs compared to teams against the run who made the playoffs.  In today's league, if you are below average against the pass, there is just no way your defensive line can ever be called "very good".

 

	TEAM	DEF. DVOA	LAST YEAR	WEI. DEFENSE	RANK	PASS DEF	PASS RANK	RUSH DEF	RUSH RANK	NON-ADJUSTED			VAR.	RANK	SCHED	RANK
										TOTAL	PASS	RUSH
1	JAC	-16.2%	12	-13.1%	4	-27.6%	1	-2.8%	27	-19.1%	-32.5%	-3.4%	7.6%	29	-5.1%	31
2	MIN	-13.9%	8	-18.5%	1	-11.8%	4	-16.9%	6	-12.7%	-10.6%	-15.7%	5.2%	11	0.5%	13
3	BAL	-13.9%	6	-11.5%	5	-15.4%	2	-12.0%	9	-17.8%	-21.5%	-13.0%	10.5%	32	-3.5%	28
4	ARI	-12.7%	3	-17.1%	3	-3.9%	10	-24.4%	1	-8.7%	0.2%	-20.6%	3.5%	5	0.2%	16
5	PHI	-12.3%	4	-17.7%	2	-6.9%	8	-21.6%	2	-14.1%	-9.0%	-22.8%	9.8%	31	-1.5%	23
6	LARM	-9.8%	15	-9.0%	8	-14.3%	3	-4.1%	21	-8.7%	-11.4%	-5.3%	8.5%	30	-1.9%	24
7	CAR	-8.8%	10	-6.5%	9	-3.6%	11	-16.9%	5	-5.5%	1.2%	-16.0%	5.1%	10	4.5%	1
8	NO	-7.9%	31	-10.0%	6	-11.3%	5	-3.7%	23	-2.6%	-3.2%	-1.8%	6.9%	25	1.8%	11
9	PIT	-6.4%	11	-1.9%	12	-7.1%	7	-5.6%	18	-7.5%	-9.9%	-4.4%	6.8%	24	-3.0%	26
10	DEN	-5.3%	1	-2.3%	11	8.2%	15	-21.0%	3	-5.2%	10.4%	-23.6%	5.9%	20	2.1%	7
11	WAS	-4.9%	25	-1.3%	13	-10.2%	6	0.8%	29	-1.1%	-4.6%	2.6%	6.5%	23	3.3%	4
12	LACH	-4.7%	7	-9.6%	7	-6.2%	9	-3.0%	25	-8.0%	-10.5%	-5.2%	2.4%	1	-1.3%	22
13	SEA	-3.8%	5	-2.9%	10	0.7%	13	-9.0%	14	-5.5%	-1.4%	-10.2%	5.7%	18	-2.3%	25
14	CHI	-1.5%	23	-0.5%	14	4.7%	14	-9.1%	13	-0.4%	6.3%	-8.5%	3.1%	4	3.8%	2
15	BUF	1.6%	27	7.2%	26	0.6%	12	2.7%	30	3.1%	1.4%	5.2%	5.4%	14	1.8%	10
16	CLE	2.0%	30	0.5%	16	21.6%	26	-20.8%	4	3.7%	23.5%	-19.3%	4.4%	9	-0.9%	19
	TEAM	DEF. DVOA	LAST YEAR	WEI. DEFENSE	RANK	PASS DEF	PASS RANK	RUSH DEF	RUSH RANK	NON-ADJUSTED			VAR.	RANK	SCHED	RANK
										TOTAL	PASS	RUSH
17	CIN	3.7%	17	8.4%	27	10.1%	17	-3.4%	24	-0.8%	0.9%	-2.7%	2.9%	3	-4.5%	29
18	NYJ	3.9%	21	0.7%	17	16.9%	22	-11.0%	11	4.2%	16.4%	-9.8%	5.5%	16	2.0%	9
19	DET	4.0%	32	9.4%	28	8.7%	16	-1.8%	28	1.7%	5.4%	-2.9%	5.5%	15	-0.7%	18
20	GB	4.9%	20	6.0%	24	22.0%	27	-13.5%	8	7.2%	25.8%	-12.8%	3.7%	6	2.0%	8
21	TEN	5.0%	24	2.0%	18	18.9%	24	-15.6%	7	2.3%	15.4%	-17.0%	5.2%	12	-5.4%	32
22	ATL	5.6%	26	2.1%	19	13.3%	20	-4.3%	20	6.7%	15.6%	-4.5%	3.8%	7	3.5%	3
23	HOU	5.6%	9	13.4%	31	19.1%	25	-9.9%	12	7.5%	20.2%	-7.0%	5.7%	17	-1.2%	21
24	NYG	5.7%	2	3.2%	21	13.0%	19	-2.9%	26	7.2%	16.1%	-3.0%	7.6%	28	2.5%	6
25	DAL	5.8%	18	0.1%	15	12.9%	18	-4.1%	22	6.0%	14.0%	-5.0%	5.8%	19	0.5%	14
26	SF	8.3%	28	6.7%	25	23.1%	28	-7.8%	17	7.0%	20.1%	-7.3%	5.3%	13	-3.2%	27
27	IND	8.7%	29	5.9%	23	28.5%	32	-11.9%	10	7.1%	24.9%	-11.3%	2.7%	2	-4.8%	30
28	MIA	9.4%	19	10.3%	29	24.6%	29	-9.0%	15	10.8%	26.4%	-8.1%	7.4%	27	3.2%	5
29	OAK	10.3%	22	3.1%	20	26.1%	30	-8.3%	16	9.8%	25.7%	-8.7%	7.3%	26	0.3%	15
30	KC	10.7%	14	14.0%	32	17.2%	23	3.0%	32	9.1%	17.4%	-0.7%	6.2%	21	-0.2%	17
31	NE	10.9%	16	3.9%	22	16.6%	21	2.8%	31	10.7%	18.2%	-0.2%	3.9%	8	-1.0%	20
32	TB	11.7%	13	11.5%	30	26.4%	31	-5.1%	19	12.1%	25.8%	-3.5%	6.4%	22	1.6%	12

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

 

 

Regarding the OL, that's not even really a debate in my eyes.  Solder is an overrated LT who has benefitted from the name recognition that comes from playing on the Patriots, and also Brady's extremely quick release.  Solder ranked as the 32nd best T in the league last year, according to PFF.  His talent doesn't even come close to deserving the contract he got this off-season.  But the Giants were desperate, and in win-now mode, so they made a hilarious overpay.

 

Hernandez is a very good prospect.  If he plays as well as people project, that will make for one above average player on their OL, with (maybe) one average player in Solder, and three players who range from below average to terrible.

[Skinsinparadise]

45 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

JPP, Tomlison, and Harrison all played 16 games last year.  Vernon played 12.  So the DL's terrible performance last year doesn't deserve the injury excuse, and that is the unit we are discussing.

 

 

You seem to be extremely focused on the DL's ability to stop the run.  I agree that they are solid here, though even PFF only ranks them as having the 14th best run D going into the 2018 season.  However, as I said from the start, this is a passing league.  Having just a good DL against the run, but not the pass, does not make for a good, let alone "very good", DL overall.  

 

If you read the FA thread, I pushed so hard for Hankins for 2 years running you can practically hear violins in the background.  Supposedly, Hankins is a little out of shape now and that has hurt his FA stock some.  My impression on Tomlinson isn't just about his high PFF grade (yeah lower than Hankins) but he's an emerging young player -- when I watched the game on coaches tape against the Redskins, he really stood out to me.   

 

Yeah I know things fell apart for the Giants last year and some players were healthy.  But there was a lot of turmoil around the team.  The individual parts of Tomlinson and Harrison as to the middle of their line I don't think was their problem but a strength.    I saw from PFF that the Giants were top 5 at stopping the inside zone runs last year. 

 

Your point seems to be I'll concede that they can stop the run but they aren't good at pass rushing.  I agree with that so we are on the same page on that front but specifically as for the middle of the line I value run stopping more.  As for their edge guys -- Vernon is good (not a great pass rusher) and one of the best run stuffing D lineman.  As for the JPP position -- will see, they got Barwin and the rookie Carter.  I think the edge pass rush is an open question. 

 

My point is talent wise I just don't see how the Giants are weak in the trenches at the D line.  As for the O line, they arguably took the best LT in FA, and the best run blocking OG in the draft.  Will that turnaround their O line?  You got me.  But I am not counting on them stinking based on last year.  and at the very least they are working on upgrading the trenches.  Heck they took 4 players relatively high in the draft who are either O line or D line.  For us to discount that, it would be like Giant fans saying our D line stinks still because its stunk for years and Payne and Settle are unknowns so they don't count, yet.