Let's draft for offense first this year
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 8:26 AM EDT
105 comments
Let's face it. Our defense is in a transitional period. If we assume (and I think we can) that some form of the Tampa two defense will be implemented our defensive philosophy will change. Speedy, smaller linebackers and a lot of zone coverage may be in our future. The idea is to prevent the big play and make the opposing offense plod down the field in small increments, hopefully making a mistake along the way. It certainly has worked in the past, but even if it is successful it might take two years or so to find out.
The Tampa two offers our opponents a chance to defeat the defense bit by bit as they use up the clock. Manning, Brees, along with most of today's quarterbacks can pick a zone apart faster than you can say cover two. That's because most quarterbacks fear pressure more than coverage. In today's game more than ever, teams are using the short pass as a run, especially to big tight ends who outweigh speedy little linebackers by 30 or 40 pounds. I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the prospect of Jason Witten turning a 5-yard pass into a 15-yard play as he drags one of our undersized linebackers along for the ride.
So in the end I think it's going to take a year or two to get our defense tuned up. That's why I'm suggesting we stock up on offense so we can become a scoring machine like the Saints and Indy are. They won on offense first and let the defense catch up later. Maybe we should focus on offense for at least the first two picks. I'm thinking Spiller and an offensive tackle. With just a little better blocking and the threat of a guy like Spiller on a screen pass (we haven't had a decent screen pass play since Tiki retired) our offense could be extremely high powered, maybe enough to make up for whatever shortcomings the defense may have. Our receivers have the potential to be the best in the league.
So, am I crazy? Or could this be a winning strategy?
FanPosts are written by community members. This is simply a way for community members to express opinions too long to be contained in a comment.
0 recs |
105 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
1..You're not crazy
2. It could be a winning strategy.
3. Won’t happen, unless the Giants feel getting Rolle took care of their greatest overall weakness.
4. Even in that case, they might go for a Spiller in Round one and an OT and RB later, using the rest of the Choice to bolster the D
But..
It won’t happen, why would they wait until Rd. 3 to draft for defense?
by Great Gatsby on Mar 14, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
well...
the more i think about it, if you tried this offense first approach, its not that bad a thought…i know its a big “if” but if the D stays healthy we have plenty of players and talent to compete and play well, especially with a potentially #1 offense in the league…we have young LBs that need a chance to prove themselves, safety depth now, a hopefully healthy D line, these things alone will shoot us up the NFL leader board, not the best in the league but much much better…not to mention a proven and much more comfortable D coordinator..O first may not be a bad idea, especially if its the best player available approach.
by LT's Will Power on Mar 14, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I have this vision of Jacobs and Spiller
being the perfect backfield. We could finally have a credible receiver for those outlet screen passes plus Jacobs might be more effective than he is when Hedgecock is in and the defense moves nine men into the box because they don’t have to worry about anyone but Jacobs getting the ball.
Talk about Thunder and lightning!
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 8:58 AM EDT reply actions
Manningham and Nicks
Both took bubble screens or WR screens to the house this year. I don’t mind going offense if it’s the bpa but going offense just for the sake of it is dumb. Prob better if ut ended up a player on each side of the ball
by Giants56 on Mar 14, 2010 9:05 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
And....
During the home game against Dallas last year, Jacobs took a little swing pass deep for a 50+ yard TD. I know its not quite a screen, but I think thats close enough.
by ny12giants92 on Mar 14, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Preaching to the choir...
As for the OL, unless we’re getting 2 first round picks, I dunno if there’s a OT (unless the NFL turns dumb again and lets a WIll Beatty fall to the Giants…) that will be there in the 2nd that’s going to start.
I also don’t think the OL is all that bad, especially if they kick Diehl out of the LT spot, and either place him at LG or RT (I’d like LG…McCkenzie wasn’t that bad either..just hurt)
If they draft Spiller, I think that 2nd rounder’s gotta be a safety anyway.
Master of the squeegee
No, I don't think our O-line is bad, but this might be the year that Diehl,
playing out of position, falters. We would have a much deeper line if Diehl could get back in at guard. I don’t have a problem with Mckensie either, he’s just getting old and running out of gas.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Defense wins champioships
Sorry to be cliche but your examples of the Colts and the Saints actually disprove rather than prove your point. The Colts and Saints have had great offense for a while. It took improving their defense to get them the crown. Drew Brees was just as good two years ago as least year. The reaon the Saints were able to go win the superbowl is because Greg Williams came in and made something out of that defense. Our offense is already in a very good place. There are of course always ways to improve either side of the ball, but our offense was much more sound than our defense last year. Had our defense played at the level of our offense we would have been making a deep push into the playoffs.
You must have seen a different Super Bowl than I did....
It was all offense. Nowadays winning teams have to outscore their opponents because of the rules that give receivers the edge.
I’m not saying we don’t need a great defense, only that we don’t even have a scheme in place yet and may have to improvise for the next year or two until we get our players in sync with Tampa two or whatever hybrid defense we morph into. So because of that, offensive draft picks may pay off sooner and keep us in the playoff picture until we can rebuild the D.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: SB
If our defense had been able to stop NO in the 2nd half (Freeney was over by then) we would have won. Prolific offenses are great, but a stout defense is a must, imo.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Mar 14, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with Bigblue777
Yes the Saints had a great offense but the NFC championship was clinched on a great defensive play (that and a coin flip). And the SB was won because of greatly executed onsides kick and another great defensive play.
clinched on a typical brett favre mistake...NO defensive play was inflated by a QB that gambles and RB that cant hold onto the ball
also that final SB play was more a mistake on reggie wayne than NO defense
by LT's Will Power on Mar 14, 2010 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
If it did the Jets would have beaten the Colts
Remember that Peyton through for almost 500 yards against the #1 defense in the league.
In this era, offense wins Super Bowls.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I think they just need to get off the field on defense
make plays, get off on third down.
WHo really cares if they’re #17 in defense or #1? I think the offense can ’overcome that" .
I dunno that this is an ‘era’ of offense, I mean…2008 had the Steelers, who even tho they had an offensive explosion for a SB…the Steelers were all about their defense.
2007 was the Giants…defense, with of course Eli being the Manning.
…I think the whole idea, is TEAM. The Colts weren’t going anywhere if their defense was average all year. Same for the Saints.
Giants need to get the defense back to respectability..anything better then that, is just icing on the cake. Their offense I think will be good enough if their D is merely average.
…and I think the defense can get better merely by health and Fewell.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 14, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Not saying O isn't needed too
but our offense was by no means a disgrace last year, our defense was. Yes the Saints and Colts do have great offenses, but they didn’t get there on offense alone. In this league you need both sides of the ball competing at a high level. Regardless of the rules obviously the winning team has to outscore their opponent. That means both scoring points yourself and stopping the other team from scoring points. If it was just about offense the Sainst would have won the superbowl two years ago. The difference between that season and last year was a much improved defense. The year before when the Steelers won they got there on defense. When we beat the Pats it was because of our defense.
Our offense isn’t really hurting either. We have some future needs at OL, but that is future planning. I think with Beatty at LT, Diehl in at LG and everyone else standing pat we are in a good spot this year. If mcKenzie gets hurt Diehl goes to RT and Seubert goes back in at LG. We need to start thinkign about the future at RT, LG and C, but that’s not this year and probably not our 1st pick (unless a great tackle prospect slides to us). I have some concerns at RB because I’ve lost some faith in Jacobs. Other than that we are pretty well set on offense. We spent a lot of picks on that side of the ball last year (Nicks, Beatty, Barden, Beckum, Brown).
Our defense on the other hand has a lot of question marks. We don’t have a returning true starter at Mike or SAM, just two young guys with lots of potential that might or might not step up. We have a collection of bckup linebackers that have not proven that they can actually step up when needed (Blackburn is the only one who has actually shown anything and that is just massive effort. If only that guy had raw athletic talent to go with that heart). We have big question marks on the defensive line. Will Alford be healthy? Is Bernard healthy? Can Canty get it done as a 43 DT? We’ve improved our secondary by adding Rolle, but questions still linger about Phillips knee. If Phillips doesn’t pan out as healthy what spot does that put us in. We’ve all lost a lot of faith in what the other safeties can do. At CB will Ross be able to get back to starting caliber form? What if one of the corners gets hurt? Is Bruce Johnson able to be the nickel corner? I’d say we have a lot more questions to answer on the defensive side of the ball.
Agree - NYG have tradition of D
Maybe it is the weather in NJ in Dec.
Maybe it is something else.
But Giants like good D (and so do I). I think O is pretty good, with a couple tweaks.
Good theory. Not crazy. Not sure the NYG will go that way
Draft
I certainly agree that both the Saints and the Colts had high flying offenses last season and in some games, the strength of the offense helped offset some of the challenges the defense had experienced. With that said, I think our offense will be in a better position this next season than it was last season. Our young receiving core now has a year under their belts playing with Manning and hopefully William Betty will step up and make an impact on the offensive line. Obviously there is still concern regarding the longevity of Kareem McKenzie and that might be addressed in the draft, hopefully in later rounds. Like you, I think drafting a running back is going to be necessary since there are a ton of question marks surrounding our current stable of backs. How will Brandon Jacobs knee hold up? Is Bradshaw going to be back to his explosive pre-injury form? Will Andre Brown make an impact? I don’t know about you guys but I’m not holding out a lot of hope on DJ Ware and Gartrell Johnson. That said, what round do you draft a good back?
I am really excited about the signing of Antrel Rolle. It has been a long time since we have had a ball-hawking safety and I think paired with (a healthy) Kenny Phillips, those two could prove to be a dominant force in the NFC East. That said, I think we learned last season that we had glaring weaknesses at safety and if Phillips does go down again, we could be in real trouble. With that said, I like the idea of drafting a safety in the first round and I like Taylor Mays. I know he’s caught a lot of negative press due to some blown coverages during his senior year however with that said, he made far more impressive plays than bad plays. He ran a 4.41 in the 40, is built like a linebacker, delivers devistating hits and can line up in the slot and provide man coverage if necessary. I think too much negative press has been released on this kid and I think he has the potential to be the real deal. With that said, now that we do have two good starting safeties, we should consider drafting Mays and invest some time developing him into a good NFL safety. If Phillips does get injured again, we could have a potential dominant force comin off the bench in Mays.
I do think we have some glaing needs at linebacker which I hope wil be addressed during free agency. I think we should take Mays in the first, look to draft Jhavid Best in the second round if available. If Best is gone, and Brandon Spikes is stil available, I think he would be an excellent pick. Sorry for the long comment. As always, I’m interested in your feedback. Thanks!
Two comments
First, why is everyone so sure the Giants are going Tampa 2? They have done nothing in the offseason to get Tampa 2 personnel, and Fewell often used a single high safety in Buffalo. I hope he spends his first year assessing the talent that he has (hopefully injury-free) and determining the best way to use it, rather than committing to a system in advance.
Second, both the Colts and the Saints are dome teams. It is easier to build around a passing offense if you always have good weather at home (OK, Lucas Oil Stadium has a retractable roof, but the Colts never have to play in bad weather at home if they don’t want to). The Giants play outdoors in the northeast, and the first thing to go in bad weather is the passing game, whereas defense is relatively unaffected.
Besides, as pointed out above, the key to NO winning the Super Bowl was what Gregg Williams did with the defense.
The Giants’ offense can be improved, but it was not the problem last year – the defense was. If the Giants are going to contend, they have to get back to stopping the run and pressuring the QB. I agree with drafting an OL high to continue building the OL of the future, but beyond that I would like to see the problems addressed.
Mickey C
Well I guess I wa just assuming that the Tampa two is in the cards for this year.
Or at least some offspring or hybrid version of it. We might even surprise everyone and revert to the defense whose name I dare not utter….LOL No matter what scheme we chose to follow there will be a learning curve like the one Kiwi had to endure whern he was switched to linebacker.
I don’t know if I agree about bad weather. Receivers have the edge when conditions are slippery since they know where they are going. Plus the pass rush is stymied by wet fields too. Of course you need a guy who can throw it in windy and wet conditions. I think Eli is doing a better job in that regard these days.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 14, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
You may well be right
about the Giants going Tampa 2. I’m just saying that no one in the Giants organization has given us any clues in either words or actions. As for learning curve, it could be that Fewell will go back to Spagnuolo’s schemes, which he presumably has the personnel for, and just concentrate on getting people to execute.
The weather? I recall Parcells saying that, to win in the northeast in December, you had to be able to run and to stop the run, because the weather, and especially the wind, would disrupt the passing game. I agree with you about wet fields favoring the offense, but I think wind favors the defense.
Mickey C
More and More
I’m thinkin the BPA is gonna be the only way to approach this draft.
We’re gonna need to get better Defensively, obviously. Lots of needs, not alot of depth, and one franchise disgracing season under our belt, points us in only one direction this offseason.
But if we don’t start addressing the O-line and aging running back issues in this draft, next year at this time we’ll all be on here griping about how poor we’re gonna be moving the ball next season and how do we protect Eli.
So… I’m torn. and if that’s the case i guess we just gotta go into this thing with an open mind, and truly take the best guys availiable to improve the Team as a whole.
I’m of the opinion that we don’t need a LB as bad as everyone is saying, (remember last year when we had a plethora of WR’s that weren’t good enough, and all the cries were for us to trade for Boldin, Edwards, or Marshall? We drafted one guy and suddenly we have 4 wideouts that can play with the best in the league.) Goff, and Sintim, and Kehl haven’t yet had the chance to show thier best yet. Gotta grow into the NFL (physically and mentally) and play in a system that takes advantage of it’s players. I think we can all agree that BS didn’t do any of that. So much like last year’s percieved WR weakness I believe too much is being made of our need at LB. Someone will step up.
That being said I don’t think we need to get McClain (it’d be nice, but…) We have alot of Team needs on both sides of the ball and JR and co.need to keep a level head and take the best guy availiable… if that happens to be a Rb and an O-line in round one and two than so be it. If it’s a Safety and a DE than go get them.
FB has said it on here before the draft is not really about this season
good point
tho I think that they need to at least address depth since Pierce and Clark are gone…even tho they were almost useless aside from being veterans.
Gerris Wilkinson is back too. He may be the Sinorice Moss of the defense….but I’m not sure if he’s in Coughlin’s doghouse like Moss, just IR all the time.
Wouldn’t see him as a solution, but if he’s actually healthy…there’s some depth at least.
I’d still like McClain. After that……..basically meh.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 14, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
and absolutely not...
McClain or bust =/= trade up for him.
I’d be pretty pissed at Reese and co. if they traded up for McClain
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 14, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
depends on what you trade
Moving up in the first and swapping our first and S. Moss and/or G. Wilkersen would not be so bad. Of course, who besides Al Davis might do that? No one.
Packaging picks? I agree. Do not give up any picks in this draft. Lots of quality in the areas where Giants need help.
giants
to be honest,what you say makes alot of sense but our defense was so atrocious, we are forced to go defense. don’t forget the giants led the league in giving up thirty plus yard plays. our pass ruth was rarely within a zip code of the quarterback. if spiller is still on the board, i would flip a coin. he is that good…
I disagree with this. How many games did we give up 30, 40 points? The defense flat out quit.
We need LB’s badly. Aside from adding O Line depth, the offense is fine.
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
D was awful, but --
- we DO NOT have a starting running back. Jacobs is done folks. He’s Larry Czonka, circa 1978. The Giants D will rebuild and will be better, not amazingly, not late 2007, early 2008, but some what. But the O, which is on the verge of something truly special - the passing game - is also, ironically, on the verge of a set back due to the lack of a true starter at RB. We need a gamer out of the backfield. Spiller could be it. Not the eat up the yardage back we’re so used to having, but something good all the same, especially when put into a rotation with Bradshaw and the terribly beaten up Jacobs. (prediction: BJ will start the year with fire, everyone will be saying, he’s back - only to be fooled as they were during the first five games of pixie dust, wishful thinking and high school competition that started off the 2009 campaign — and then Jacobs will disappoint, disappoint, and disappoint again. So… yes, the D needs work. A new DC, Rolle, another pick up in free agency (LB), Phillips back (hopefully) and a second and third round pick, I say that does it. First round: goes to an RB. Has to in my mind, or all this enthusiasm for or potentially explosive O goes the way of last years D. IMHO. Peace.
I dunno if its a good thing Zillag...
but we agree on this one.
I mean..Spiller may not be on the board, probably just as likely as McClain not to be there,
Since you like making predictions…whaddya think if McClain and Spiller are both on the board at #15??
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 14, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
CJ spiller is not a starting running back
he is a change of pace guy like reggie bush. Drafting him will not solve our problem for a starting rb
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Spiller doesn't have to be an every down back.
He’s more like Dave Meggett with wings on his feet.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 4:45 AM EDT up reply actions
We've got change of pace backs
Bradshaw is a great change of pace back, and we’ve got three more waiting in the wings. Bradshaw only had two problems last year: injuries, and what he was changing pace from (Jacobs) wasn’t getting it done. Even despite those two setbacks Bradshaw still ran well. Look everyone gets all excited about a guy like Spiller because he can make highlight reels. Reggie Bush makes highlight reels too, but he isn’t a vital cog of the NO offense, just sugar on top. Everyone gets jazzed about these homerun hitting backs, but I don’t. If you want to continue the baseball analogy you need a guy who consitently gets on base. Then you can bring in your homerun hitter who might crack one but probably strikes out more often than not. I’d rather have a guy like Toby Gerhart that may not be a threat to take it to the house everytime but can be counted on to consistently get 5 yards at a time and keep our drives moving down the field. That is what we used to have in Jacobs and what made our overall running attack so great. You guys need to get off the highlight reel high and realize Spiller isn’t the best thing for this team.
I've watched plenty of Spiller...
he’s not like Reggie Bush, who was a star on a star lade team.
The Tigers were not at all a star laden team..they’re basically Spiller and Jacoby Ford, who’s really nothing more then a highlight real.
The Giants may have a few impact players like Nicks and HAM maybe…but they don’t have an explosive part of the team like Desean Jackson is.
We can’t beat the Eagles lately..why is that? Maybe its defense…maybe its cuz we don’t have a playmaker like DJAX/Spiller?
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Spiller caught more passes than the wide receivers did. He was practically their only weapon on offense and yet he still kicked ass. I live near Clemson so I’ve seen a lot of him.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
SS12 on 3rd down...and Beckum too!
Nicks and HAM for the deep threats
Boss and Barden for the RZ (listening Gilbride?)
…what about Eli’s safety valve? I think his completion % would skyrocket even more if he had a RB who knows how to slip out and catch.
Even better if after said slipping..he can take it to the house.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
It's because we can't stop Desean Jackson
Put a worthwhile safety in the game and we’ll be in better shape. Also, we have playmakers already on Ham and Nicks. With another year under their belt they are going to be very productive.
We'll have to agree to disagree....
A guy like Spiller would cause defenses to stop jamming 9 guys in the box. I think he could make Jacobs better again because he would draw off two run stuffers because of his excellent ability to execute the swing pass.
In addition the Giants could use him to counter those all out blitzes we constantly suffer because we don’t have speed on the outside. I like Bradshaw too but I’ve seen him get caught from behind by a linebacker with a ten yard head start. Bradshaw does not have great hands either. Spiller does.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder what the reaction will be if they do draft Spiller?
The were rumored to be at the Clemson pro day, and with Spiller, in full force.
I think McClain’s a better fit overall if both are there, but as for everyone else on the board…he’s my #2.
Can get a 5th DT in the middle rounds. Can get competition for Goff in the middle rounds. Can get a 3rd safety in the middle rounds (safety in the 2nd was ALWAYS my ideal 2nd rounder anyway…)
..So, unless one of the top tier OL’s fall (unlikely, unless we really like Anthony Davis or Bruce Campbell….and, meh..) ANd of course, we can get a developmental OL later on too (can trade back in the 3rd or 4th and accumulate some picks.
Given ^ all a that…if no McClain….Spiller.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
The Giants were here on pro day.
It was all over the local TV stations.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
most seem to think its fantasy island too
If they do draft him..I dunno whether to laugh or say I told you so..or both?
Of course, pray that he doesn’t stink too.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
They wouldn't be on the field together
I don’t see how having Spiller on the team keeps the other team from crowding the box when Jacobs is on the field. They can easily change what they do depending on what back is in the game. Unless you are suggesting that we play Spiller and Jacobs both on the field at the same time, which I’m sorry, is a bad idea. Jacobs may be big, but he is not a fullback. We aren’t a West Coast team that is going to play split backs either, and Jacobs would be no good out of that formation. The only other way to put them both on the field is play him as a slot reciever, which we already have covered. Sorry I just don’t see the value for us. It would be a waste of a 1st round pick.
You didn't see the team in the shotgun formation last year?
I dunno the exact numbers..but they used it a ton, regardless of whether its Jake or Shaw. You can’t tell me that having a back like Spiller, who probably has equal hands to Smith and Nicks (saying a lot…) out of the backfield, so that should Eli be running for his life wouldn’t have value
Getting an impact player that can help in multiple ways (basically everything except defense).
And lets all not act like Jacobs becoming the 2008 Juggernaut again is a given.
Jacobs, Andre Brown..even Bradshaw and Danny Ware. They all could.
They may not. All of them, again.
I’d like to have a player that is impossible to cover too. Bryan Westbrook was good, helped the Eagles a lot too.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Spiller is more like Reggie Bush than he is Chris Johnson
He doesn’t run between the tackles…. Just bounces everything outside – it works in college against linebackers that are going to be doctors in 4 years but not against professionals who are extremely fast
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not against getting a RB
I just don’t think Spiller is the type of back we need, if Ingram was in the draft then he would’ve been perfect for our type of offense.
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I've seen too much of Spiller to go along with that.
He’s more then a guy who simply bounces a run outside.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Even Chris Johnson doesn't carry a full load
He is the ‘feature’ back there now, but let’s be honest he shares carries with VY. A big reason he has the success running the ball he has is due to the added threat of VY running. That isn’t a game plan that translates well to the Giants. The previous year when VY wasn’t playing Lendale White played a much bigger role, again keeping CJ from having to carry a full load. Also, CJ is a good player, but for all of his highlight reel runs he also has a collection of plays for zero or negative yards.
Chris Johnson had 358 carries last year.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
and 50 receptions
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Two things
1. He won’t be able to do that for very many seasons.
2. Chris Johnson is an enigma for small backs. That’s why I said ‘even’ when referring to Chris Johnson not carrying that teams full load. Look at your other example of Westbrook. I’m not sure he played 16 games any season.
well we still have Jake and AB, who if they still have a pulse can be used.
Jake is better off getting 10-15 carries, mainly in the 4th. AB better off with 5-10 carries.
Westbrook was a feature back, as is Johnson (who like the few great backs his size..knows how to miss tackles, better then breaking tackles actually..you don’t get hit if you miss tackles).
The fact that Spiller likes to miss tackles instead of invite them, could make him a good bet to be a Chris Johnson type.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
But he isn't a Chris Johnson type
He shies away from contact unlike CJ, and was slower and is a much worse runner between the tackles.
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
#15 for a guy who will only get 5 touches?
Let’s just for arguments sake accept your carry counts, you are talking about 15-35 carries already covered. That doesn’t leave many carries for your boy Spiller. You are going to use your #15 pick to get a guy you are only going to give 5 carries? Seems like a waste.
Westbrook was a featured back, in a system that didn’t call for the ball to be traditionally run ofen. He still was broken most of the time.
Missing tackles is great in theory. You are still going to get hit often as a RB, especially at the NFL level. Add to that the fact that the guys who look to miss every tackle cannot be counted on to get tough needed yards. You can ony bring them out on an early down where if they don’t crack their home run you can still go back t someone who will churn the yards you need.
doubt he'd only get 5 touches
if so, it’d probably be better in 2010 to get a dude that gets 5 touches and returns kicks/punts instead of an OL who won’t play a down most likely, a DT who will be 5th on the depth chart too.
What are we talking about passing up here? If a MLB’s not getting drafted, a Safety’s not getting drafted…what’s gonna play?
I doubt a DT, DE or OL would get on the field either more then Spiller.
And if he “just bounces it outside”…I know its hard to fathom given the Giants backs…but go look at some 2009 tape if you can with the Giants….if we had a back that was physically able to bounce the rock outside…there’s a ton of yards out there.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
better in 2010?
Hmmm… aren’t you the guy usually preaching the draft isn’t about this year, but building for the future?
Yes.
And Spiller’s for the future too. Like when Jacobs gets cut.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is the bruiser then?
If we draft Spiller and cut Jacobs we don’t have much for a bruiser. Our only remaining starting caliber is Bradshaw another small back. I haven’t sen anything out of DJ Ware that says he is a starter in this league or that he can play like his listed 234 lbs. Gartrell Johnson is nothing but roster fill, and we have no clue what Andre Brown is. If neither Spiller or Bradshaw are guys who are going to tote the rock repeatedly, who are you proposing we have take the lion share of carries? That’s why I’d like to see us focus on getting a true replacement for Jacobs rather than another change of pace back.
do we really need a "bruiser"?
especially one like Jacobs?
Who says Spiller and AB can’t tote the rock 15 times a piece? What about Andre Brown? There’s another one in there
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions
In my opinion yes.
I think there is value to having a bruiser and a change of pace. First, you need a guy you can count on to get consistent yardage to keep the chains moving. A guy who may not crack a home run but is good for that 4-5 yards you need. Second, you have short yardage situations. Third, and here is the real value as I see it, the differentiation between backs hurts the defense. You get the linebackers committing hard to the hole and lineman used to setting hard to stop the push of your bigger back. Then you bring in your change of pace back. Linebackers overcommit, lineman get lead footed and the shifty back bounces it and heads for the promised land.
I mentioned Andre Brown. We have no clue what he is at this point.
Ironic
Kind of funny that my original point was that you guys love this prospect because he’s highlight reel material, and to prove to me that he is who we should pick you give me, you guessed it, a hihlight reel. I got a kick out of that.
did you watch any of it?
That’s not really a highlight real.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Watched a chunk
I’m not sure your definition of highlight reel. A video title “CJ Spiller Highlights” seems like a highlight reel to me… Yes, he is a very athletic player, but there are some things from that video that should concern you. First, I didn’t see much in the way of yards after contact. The ACC is not the NFL, you will have to break some tackles. The only tackles I saw broken were hand tackles. Second, he didn’t appear to want to get all the potential yardage. He was looking to run to the sideline often rather than turn it up field. A lot of those runs left yards on the field so he could duck out and avoid contact.
This "Reggie Bush"
talk is almost made into a thought that Reggie Bush sucks.
If Reggie Bush isn’t making 2nd overall pick money..and was say….the 15th overall pick, he’s a hell of a weapon for a team, when he’s on the field that is.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly why Bush does suck
He can’t even get on the field all that often, and the Saints other backs are mostly undrafted or very late round picks.
He can’t run the ball and he is not even that much of a threat in the passing game hes averaged 500 yards per year through the air.
And Reggie Bush was a better athlete coming out of college.
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Cmon big blue 5 touches?
If that’s all he gets on offense fine. But he can be used on ST mainly as a KR/PR. Now were talking 10 times a game this gamebreaker could score. 8-10 game changers a year is a huge asset.
#15 on a returner?
I’m not saying the idea of having an electrifying return man is a bad one. What I’m sying is that I don’t personally think that a return man is worth that high of a draft pick. There are blazer return men to be had for a much better bargain.
The 5 touches is messing with FB because he was saying Spiller wouln’t have to carry a load and get broken because we already had X number of carries covered by current players, so I was ribbing him that doesn’t leave much for his boy Spiller.
Either way TC gives spiller 10 touches a game
He takes one maybe two to the house. Gamechanger
I wouldn't count on it
10 touches per game =/= 1-2 touchdowns per game, unless you are talking about a power back who gets all 10 of those touches on the 1 yard line :) I don’t see a Spiller as that big of a game changer for a team like ours. He would have far more value to a west coast team that uses their back as a reciever more than having them run the ball. In that type of a system he could be successful as a more full time player. But spending a 1st rounder on a guy who is only going to return kicks and come in for the occasional gimmicky play is foolish to me. Such players can be had for a much better value.
Shotgun already changes the defense
You only have a couple of runs out of the shotgun formation, and the defense is already going to be altered to cover the additional recievers. Two back shotgun formations are not about getting more runningbacks on the field. They are about providing different protection scheme options. It gives you the flexability of the backs picking up the blitz from the backfield as it develops rather than having to guess which side to lineup the TE pre snap.
Huh
how does spiller stop defenses from having 9 in the box?
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
If there are nine men up close and Spiller goes towards the flat
he’s going to get the attention of at least two of the guys in the box. And if he doesn’t Eli tosses him a short pass and it’s off to the races. He is the perfect outlet guy for defenses that bunch up close to the line of scrimage.
As it is now, Hedgecock and Jacobs try to run through nine guys. The defense doesn’t have to honor the outlet pass because Hedgecock, even if he could catch it isn’t a threat to go outside.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
So who is playing FB
Are you saying Jacobs is playing FB or Spiller, because neither are FBs that can do what Hedgecock does. Why do people not appreciate a FB for the true value he gives, BLOCKING. The occasional FB screen is is just an outlet play, a throw of last resort. Hedgecock is one of the best true blocking FBs in the NFL. They are a dieing breed, but invaluable to a power running team. Putting Spiller and Jacobs in an I set and sending one to the flat would be nothing but a gimmicky play. Spiller won’t command two defenders at the NFL level, and Jacobs would not be able to run effectively out of the FB position. There wouldn’t be enough space between him and the line for holes to open and for him to see them.
There is no reason to have a fullback if he can't catch the ball
and Hedgecock, in addition to having hands of stone, is no threat to burn the defense outside. Spiller in the backfield can spread the defense and I assure you two guys will be glued to him. We need to revive the screen pass and the outlet pass and Spiller is just the guy who can do both.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions
WHAT?
I’m sorry but in my opinion the biggest value in a fullback (especially for a power running team) is their ability to run block. It is their job to hit the hole repeatedly and smash a linebackers head in. Hedgecock does that and does it well. He is a BIG reason for the successes we have had with our running game. Unless you are a west coast team (which we are not) catching is not the primary function of you fullback. Who cares that Hedgecock is no threat to burn the defense to the outside? Like I said in a power running scheme your fullback is your throw of last resort, or your occasional sneaky throw (take advantage of the fact that teams ignore fullback and dump him the ball for a TD while everyones attention is elsewhere).
Nobody will put 9 in the box
when Spiller and Jacobs together are in the backfield.
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
IF the put 9 in the box with Spiller there…..I know, another unfathomable thing…but he’s an excellent receiver out of the backfield.
Like Tiki Barber good.
Maybe they can use that?
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Teams won't be putting 9 in the box anymore anyway
Not with Steve Smith and Nicks or Manningham on the field.
by mclaren_is_the_best on Mar 15, 2010 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Because since Tiki Barber left, the Giants used a 20-25 carry back
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Tough one. My head says go with Spiller. My gut says they'd go McClain.
I’m not sure if the Giants muckety mucks realize just how weak their running attack is about to become. They should, you think they would, but sometimes the actions of management, for all teams, is flummoxing.
I think I'd go with McClain too
While I agree, with Jake and AB’s injury history…the running game could take another dump…but they could stand to wait for a Ben Tate or Montario Hardesty.
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 15, 2010 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions
when you put the dash in to start and end a sentence
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 14, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont like it
It could work but I’d rather see a Giants game where its a good defensive struggle than a massively high-scoring affair.
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi ! Oi ! Oi ! Aiming for ONE medal in the winter Olympics.
I know...I do too but you have to take what the league gives you.
Right now the rules regarding coverage highly favor the receivers. The things that defenses used to do like punish receivers who go over the middle are now 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalties. Flags in the secondary for illegal contact keep as many drives going as completions do.
The playoff game between Indy and the Jets reminded us how pass happy the league has become. The #1 defense in the league was burned for nearly 500 yards through the air. Like it or not, the NFL has turned our game into a version of Arena football.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 15, 2010 4:55 AM EDT reply actions
Free Agent Running Backs have become a commodity in the NFL
We have had more good running backs than we have needed over the last several years, giving Ryan Grant to GB and Derrick Ward to TB. I don’t think we need to draft a RB, we just need to hold on to one of the FA’s that we pick up and develop.
Giants fans want stud Middle Linebackers. Please acquire us one of those.
by Spider Lockhart on Mar 15, 2010 12:04 PM EDT reply actions
draft
The Gaints can get a good back in the 3 or 4 round. I think they need speed on Dee
At the 15 pick you got to get the best inpack player available. Go G-man
TO me we have been drafting offense
Steve smith, mario manningham, travis beckum, kevin boss, Ramses barden, wiliam beatty, bradshaw….. your not crazy but to me we have been drafting Offense just as much as Defense but maybe you mean you want to use a high pick on offense, thats cool i just dnt know who i would take, either spiller or OT.
But dont tell em i told you that !!!!!
BPANIQWRTEOLBoCB
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Mar 17, 2010 10:37 AM EDT reply actions
that is
“Best Player Available Not Including Quarterback, Wide Receiver, Tight End, Outside Linebacker, or Cornerback.
Let’s see if my spiffy new acronym catches on.
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Mar 17, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
BPAbtwMLBDTOTSoRB
haha
"I'm not a scratch golfer. I don't know how to bowl. I can't read the stock market. Hell, I have a hard time rememberingmy wife's cell phone number. But I can call 'Flip right double X jet 36 counter naked waggle at 7 X quarter' in my sleep" - Gruden
by I_Formation27 on Mar 17, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I would like to thank all who participated in this fan post.
I truly feel that I am a part of a very close knit family here. Many of you know much more about this year’s potential draft picks than I do, but since I live in CJ Spiller’s backyard and watched nearly all of his performances I have to say that he is a very articulate, clean cut, hard working, talented player that I think we should consider.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 17, 2010 7:26 PM EDT reply actions
we're on the same page here
Some are content with the status quo.
I’m looking for a Tiki.
I think Spiller is Tiki 2.0 (with elite Speed)
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 17, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
you mean a guy who can consistently
put up big numbers that somehow don’t impact wins and losses?
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Mar 18, 2010 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant Tiki, not Osi
Master of the squeegee
by FreeBradshaw on Mar 18, 2010 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions
LOL
Tiki’s big #s somehow made him forget that he was the biggest fumbling machine in the NFL until he met Tom Coughlin, somehow he forgot that when he was attacking Eli instead of being a good teammate, like the rest of the G men were to him when he was appearently allergic to pig skin. I hate Tiki. Thank goodness he missed out on that ring!
But dont tell em i told you that !!!!!
There is a bit of concern about his durability.
He played part of his last two years with minor injuries.
by giant fan since 57 on Mar 17, 2010 9:13 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Big Blue View
Related FanShots on Big Blue View
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Get Your Giants' Gear
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
