Happy Friday Giants fans! With the NFL draft fast approaching, many of us have been knee-deep in studying film and/or running mock draft simulations as we try to anticipate how general manager Dave Gentleman might be thinking.
I’m right there with you in wanting to see how this draft turns out. But along the way, I’ve been jotting down a few thoughts about other news topics that have popped up int he NFL this off-season, all of which I’d like to share with you in this latest installment of ”Pat’s Perspectives.”
Should the Giants Take Odell Beckham’s No. 13 out of circulation this year?
That would be cool, but it might also be tricky.
The Giants of late have been very judicious about retiring numbers out of concern they’ll run out of numbers at certain positions. This is believed to be behind the team’s reluctance to retire No. 53, famously worn by Hall of Fame linebacker Harry Carson.
While receiver Odell Beckham Jr. doesn’t quite have Hall of Fame credentials of a Carson or even a Michael Strahan (whose No. 92 hasn’t been officially retired, but which also hasn’t been worn since Strahan retired in 2007) — it might make for a nice gesture to the paying customers who are still mourning the trade that sent Beckham to the Browns, if the Giants could keep Beckham’s No. 13 out of circulation this year.
It would be a cool gesture for sure, though I doubt it would ease the sting that Beckham’s loyal followers are still feeling and probably will feel in the months ahead.
But for argument’s sake, let’s see if such a move is even possible.
Should the Giants keep Beckham’s No. 13 out of circulation this season?
This poll is closed
No, why should they?
Doesn’t matter to me.
Already the team has retired No. 1 (Ray Flaherty), 4 (Tuffy Leemans) 7 (Mel Hein), 11 (Phil Simms), 14 (Ward Cuff, Y.A. Tittle), and 16 (Frank Gifford).
Numbers 3 (Alex Tanney, 10 (Eli Manning) and 17 (Kyle Lauletta) are already assigned to the quarterbacks on the roster, while No. 2 and No. 9 are assigned to Aldrick Rosas and Riley Dixon, respectively.
As for the receivers, Nos. 12 (Cody Latimer), 15 (Golden Tate), and 19 (Corey Coleman) are already filled as are Nos. 80 (Jawill Davis), 84 (Alonzo Russell), and 83 (Brittan Golden).
And four other numbers in 80s are held by the tight ends: 82 (Scott Simonson), 85 (Rhett Ellison), 88 (Evan Engram) and 89 (Garrett Dickerson).
In other words, it might not be possible for the team to hold Beckham’s No. 13 out of circulation as some might be wanting, even though it would be a nice public relations gesture to a fan base that needs something to get excited about this season.
I think I’ve been looking at the Giants quarterback situation all wrong.
If you follow me on Twitter, I’ve often said that I’m willing to consider opinions that contradict my very strong beliefs. Well, believe it or not, sometimes someone will come along and make a point that makes me change my mind.
That someone is NFL draft analyst Charles Davis, whom I had on the April 5 LockedOn Giants podcast.
In speaking about quarterbacks, Charles brought up two very good points that contradict beliefs which I have staunchly defended.
The first is the notion that the Giants don’t need to get a quarterback this year and can instead select a guy next year when there is more of a selection.
My argument, however flawed, was that if they really wanted to get a guy next year, if they spent their assets in 2019 wisely, they would leave themselves with minimal holes to fill in 2020 to where they could afford to give up a small king’s ransom to get the quarterback of their dreams.
Davis reminded me that you just don’t know what the future brings. He pointed to the past where, for example, Christian Hackenberg (who was once with the Jets) was once regarded as a top-shelf prospect only to struggle to find his footing in the NFL.
The point, of course, is you never know what’s going to happen. We can all sit here and tout the promise of the 2020 class, but what happens if a guy gets hurt or has a lousy year? Those are just some of the factors that could potentially change everything.
The other point he made is that nowadays thanks to the rookie pay scale if you blow a pick on a quarterback it’s not going to hamstring you cap wise if you cut bait before the rookie’s contract is up.
If you figure that a team will give a young quarterback at least a couple of seasons, that’s half of his rookie contract right there. And if that young quarterback is a first-round pick, teams can decline the fifth-year option, which means they can get out of the deal and try another quarterback a lot sooner if the need calls for it.
What hasn’t changed, though, is you don’t force a quarterback at a certain spot, and this is something Gettleman has insisted the team won’t do. When you force a quarterback — any position for that matter — and he turns out to not be a fit or turns out to be uncoachable, that could be a big detriment to the franchise.
The AAF’s treatment of its now former players and staff sucks
There is a certain degree of risk taken when one gets involved in a start-up entity. Still, the more I read about how the AAF left its players high and dry, the crappier the AAF management looks.
And here’s the worst part. Those player who were hoping to display their skills for a chance in hopes of getting another crack at the NFL now find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place given that free agency is pretty much over and the draft (which yields younger and more cost-efficient talent) is just days away.
Yes, there have been a few AAF players who have landed reserve/futures deals with the NFL since the league ceased operations, but for the most part it sounds like the majority of the league got screwed.
I can’t help but wonder if there won’t be a class action lawsuit launched against the league. Of course that would all depend on what was in the players’ contracts, but the bottom line is that at the very least, the AAF should have had some sort of emergency fund to at least cover part of its players’ expenses, both medical and temporary living.
Let’s stop calling this QB succession strategy the “Kansas City Plan”
With all due respect to the Kansas City Chiefs, they didn’t invent the concept of drafting a young quarterback and having him sit behind a veteran for a year until he was ready to play.
The Giants executed an identical succession plan in 2004 when Eli Manning sat behind Kurt Warner. The Packers did something similar in 2005 when they had Aaron Rodgers sit for three seasons behind Brett Favre.
And back in the day the 49ers did it when Steve Young sat behind Joe Montana.
In other words, the Chiefs didn’t invent this concept, though they likely get the credit for having been the latest team to pull it off so flawlessly .
Locker room culture is a very real thing
If you’re one of those people who think, “Culture, schmulture,” you need to check out Bleacher Report’s Tyler Dunne’s outstanding long-form report on the dysfunction of the Green Bay Packers.
After reading Dunne’s report, it’s a wonder how Green Bay managed to have any success, let alone win a Super Bowl during the Rodgers-Mike McCarthy era.
Regardless, when you don’t have peace and harmony, especially at the top of your organization, it can lead to all kinds of dysfunction.