Bio not provided
@ultimatenyg @TC4EVASure, I get the argument that when a position is deep in a draft, you can wait to take a guy. There's merit to that. But I'd also argue that to be one of the top 2 or 3 guys at that position in a very deep draft must mean that you have some serious skills. At the end of the day, if he turns out to be a stud, that's all I care about. I won't look back and say, "but they could have gotten this other guy who turned out to be a stud in round 3." As far as the diva aspect goes, as George Young once said, "we are not in the business of well-adjusted human beings." If he's a bit of a diva but helps us win, so be it. As long as there's good leadership, you can deal with one or two of those guys. But from what I've read, he's not that kind of guy. Also, Nicks was a HUGE part of a SB run. Whatever he did in his last year is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned. I'd argue that he declined quickly because of all the injuries. I have my doubts as to whether he'll ever return to form. But he was a great pick.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://ultimatenyg.com/2014-articles/odell-beckham-selected-in-round-1.html
@RussWellen1 Yeah, size is important -- particularly to Eli. But in today's NFL, with the way they've taken the teeth out of DBs, I'd argue it's not as important as it used to be. I've also seen plenty of big receivers do nothing. Mike Williams, Ramses Barden. Beckham is big enough to succeed.
One other thing I'd like to point out -- I've read that this is one of the deepest drafts for WR in decades. If that's true, and if Cosell is right about Beckham, then we could have a special player on our hands. I admit, I wanted Ebron, then Lewan, but a serious weapon at WR can be deadly. That's why I can't agree that it's not worth it drafting wide receivers in the first round. It's a passing league and wide receivers catch passes. Their last SB-winning team had a terrible offensive line, a terrible running game and one great weapon on defense (JPP) and they won it all. Remember Belichick, right before the game winning drive? "This is still a Cruz and Nicks game." If Beckham turns out to be a pro-bowl caliber wideout, then he's a win. He might not be, and I appreciate you going on record with your thoughts, but let's just see. Regardless, there's still a lot of work left to be done in this draft.
If it makes you feel any better (and it actually made me feel A LOT better), Greg Cosell loves Beckham. Rated him ahead of Evans, 2nd in the class to Watkins. Here's a clip of him talking about all the 1st-2nd round receivers in the draft. Cosell is a smart guy and I really trust him when it comes to talent evaluation. He described Beckham as "sudden". Also, from what I can tell, the guy has huge hands. His ability to snatch the ball out of the air with those hands reminded me a bit of Nicks.
@ultimatenyg @Justin w You should see the hatchet job Reilly did on Chris Davis. I know this is a football website, but it boggles the mind. He's just an awful journalist who's clearly reached the end of the line and needs to be put out to pasture.
1 year ago on The Skinny on Tuna
@ultimatenyg Agreed. They're an absolute matchup nightmare. I'm curious to see how TE Adrien Robinson has progressed. I know the Giants are high on him and he's flashed that athleticism and speed. Where I do agree with you on the LB issue is as it relates to read-option QBs. It'd be nice to see the Giants get someone at LB who not only has the speed but the instincts to contain a guy like RGIII. The problem is, those guys are so, so rare. Willis is a once-in-a-lifetime LB. You have a better shot landing a franchise QB in Rd 1 than you do a guy like Willis who has the ability to cover the Gronks and also contain the RGIIIs. So if that's the case, you're probably better off investing in guys in the first two rounds who can get to the QB before he has a chance to do anything with the ball. But Taylor is interesting. Let's see if they can bring him in and coach him up. I keep hearing the word "enforcer" in describing him, lots of comparisons to Kam Chancellor . That'd be just fine with me -- I love physical DBs. Look at what they've done in Seattle with that back end of their D. I'd love it if we got a player that fits that mold.
1 year, 3 months ago on Justin Pugh taken in Round 1
@CommanderShepard @ultimatenyg Here's what Mayock recently had to say about Taylor: "The Cooper Taylor kid, the safety has had a tough road to go, the transfer from Georgia Tech. Medically there were some issues. He's a little bit of a tweener. He's so tall; he's a little stiff, so teams look at him and say is he a safety? Do we make him a will linebacker? I like the way he moves around. In today's NFL, I would think he's the kind of guy that could match up with a big tight end."
@CommanderShepard @TC4EVA @ultimatenyg Really like the Giants latest pick, Richmond safety Cooper Taylor. He's big, physical, and fast -- over 6'4", 230 lbs, and ran a 4.49 at his pro day. Really impressed at the East West shrine game. They're saying he might be able to bulk up a bit and play linebacker. And he'll come in right away and contribute on special teams. To me, I like this kind of gamble over spending a high pick on a LB. There are possibilities with this kid. Andy, you mention that we should all say a prayer to Pollard for knocking out Gronkowski (although we beat the Pats in New England that season with a healthy Gronk), but would you mind telling me how many LBers in the NFL can actually cover the Gronks and the Jimmy Graham's of the league? I'd say the answer is maybe one. Patrick Willis. Other than that, you can't stick a linebacker on those guys. Maybe Cooper comes in and plays in the big nickel, or they develop him as a linebacker. Going to keep an eye on this kid.
@ultimatenyg you're right. If only our front office could be more like the Bengals'.
Mayock is the best in the business and he loved Pugh. I remember when this blog was pounding the table for Rolando McLain and panning the JPP pick. I'm not saying Ogletree won't be the better player. But I think you've got rose colored glasses when it comes to LBers.
@ultimatenyg @TC4EVA I've been watching the game for a long time, and here's just a brief list of what's improved in the NFL over the past twenty years: coaching, scouting, drafting, the player talent pool, in-game strategy, the use of technology, player safety, training, nutrition, film study. I could go on and on and on. The idea that the league is "slop" now compared to some mythical golden age of the game is just false. I hear it a lot, mostly from the "old-timers", although I guess I'm approaching that status myself. But it's not grounded in reality. Nearly every aspect of today's game is functioning on a higher level than it was twenty years ago. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why. Money. The league is practically printing money. The kind of money that lures the best and the brightest. The talent pool, both in the coaching and executive ranks, and in the player ranks, is flat out better. It's bigger. And so more franchises are able to stock their organizations with talent. Combined with new rules that have effectively taken away the ability of a defense to bully an offense like they did back in the day, and you get parity. A level playing field. That's not slop, that's the closest thing to utopia that you can get in professional sports. Who wants to know before the season even starts who's going to win the championship? The reason we love sports is that it's the ultimate reality show. There's no telling what's going to happen next. The NFL is the gold standard when it comes to validating that statement. If you're interested in dynasties, watch your Steel Curtain highlight video, or pop in "Downtown Abbey".
1 year, 6 months ago on Conference Championship Day
If you really think the NFL is "slop" because there's parity, go watch the NBA for a full season, which might as well be a coronation it's so far from a competition. Then come back and tell me if you still think the greatest professional sports league on the face of the Earth is still "slop".
@ultimatenyg @TC4EVA I get what you're saying, and I respect your opinion, but you're not a physician. We've all got one life to live. He's doing what he loves. But if you are going to take that stance, you should probably take it in regards to the entire league. The fact is that every player that puts on a uniform in the NFL is putting the rest of his life at risk. Here's a clip from a recent episode of HBO's Real Sports that I'd encourage you to watch. The clip is only about 2 minutes long, but if you can get your hands on the whole episode, I would. It's eye opening. And keep in mind when you watch it that they're talking about high school and college students, not even pros:
1 year, 6 months ago on 10 Reasons Why I am Rooting for the Redskins
You can't root for Peyton because you feel he shouldn't have come back? That is a very strange perspective. Who are you to judge what another man does with/to his body? @ultimatenyg @capt
Looking forward to this, but we're now on, like, the 3rd or 4th post dedicated to what Ultimate 22 will be (as opposed to actual analysis of the games). Overall, seems to be much less content this season. Nothing in the preseason to speak of, and now little after Game 1. Ultimate 22 is a great idea, but speed matters, as does posting regularly. Just some feedback from a fairly regular reader that you can (obviously) take or leave.
1 year, 10 months ago on Ultimate22 takes on the Dallas review | September
@keepitsimple @TC4EVA @psffur I concede that my post was probably too aggressive. Or, rather, it wasn't very nice. I just think that in life, if you can't enjoy the victories, then what the hell is the point?
I don't want to delve too far into this, because I don't think it's all that healthy, but there are a few things about Pete's post that set me off. For one, he trumpets a "piece" that he wrote in which he explained to all of us non-former scouts that Butch Davis "made the call" to draft Hakeem Nicks. Do you realize how preposterous that idea actually is? Is there any chance on earth that Jerry Reese or Tom Coughlin would allow Butch Davis, or any other coach not associated with the Giants for that matter, make the call on drafting a player? He's taking the fact that they consulted with Nicks' college coach, which any organization worth its salt does, and completely twisting it because of the negative feelings he has towards the current Giants regime. And then he tries to say that because they took Nicks at a point where all the other top WR were gone (except Britt!), that just shows that the Giants got lucky. Well what if they had been like the Eagles and traded up for Maclin?! Can we give them some credit for standing pat and letting the value come to them, then making the best possible pick they could? It's just mind boggling. They are truly damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And while we're on the subject of Nicks, Pete claims Nicks was drafted the year after we won the Superbowl at pick #32. Wrong. We drafted Kenny Phillips that year. The next year (2009) we took Nicks at Pick #29. So not only does this come across as an incoherent rant, it's not even factually accurate.
Next, he says it's lunacy to think that drafting last every year will allow you to improve your team. So, winning the Superbowl every year should take a back seat to higher draft position? Or, from another angle, you should trade up to try and nab higher rated players? Isn't this the same guy (Pate) who lauds Bill Belichick for trading down every year and accumulating picks in the 2nd round (which this blog claims is the money round for value)?
Lastly, he blasts many of the signings Reese has made in the past few years. I, for one, think Boley has turned into a good one. Without him, or LB corp falls apart. And Canty might have had a rocky first year or so, but I'm happy to have him plugging the middle. Bernard hasn't panned out, and Baas was a bust last year but I suspect he was hurt. The point is, you win some you lose some. Same goes for the draft. But the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is 2 rings. So you can laud the Eagles for their draft, but I'll take the rings any day of the week. And by the way, can anyone tell me if in the annals of history, there has been a person who's been struck by lightening twice? What are the odds on that?
So I said I wasn't going to delve too far into this, but I definitely delved. Sorry for that. Sometimes I just get the feeling when I read this blog that the winning the organization is experiencing right now is not as sweet as it could be for some that write and/or comment here. Like, if only Coughlin and Gilbride and Reese were gone, and the Giants drafted linebackers in the first round, and dominated year to year like the '90's Cowboys, then it would be sweet. But right now it's bittersweet. Whether you think Coughlin and Gilbride and Reese have flaws or you think they haven't made all the right decisions, there's just not enough appreciation for what those men have meant to the organization - and by extension, the fans. They have brought us a lot of joy. Some heartbreak, for sure. But a lot of joy. And they have worked hard. Yet Pete talks about them as if they were dogs. And I shouldn't let that bother me, but it sticks in my craw. The entire reason that I'm a fan is that I hope to experience those moments where you just bask in the glory of victory after putting in the sweat and the tears that comes with an NFL season. And then I come here because I truly value the opinion of a lot of people who post here, and I read something that crosses the line from constructively critical, to incoherent, non-factual, bitter venom. I expect more.
2 years, 3 months ago on NY Giants Day 3 Draft Selections | April
@psffur Another sour grapes, garbage post by Pete. Please, give it a rest already. I could spend time poking holes in every word you wrote, but it would be a waste of time. You are an angry person.
For what it's worth, I've heard the exact opposite in regards to Randle. According to Greg Cosell, who's opinion carries a lot of weight, Randle might be the best WR in the entire draft. He compares him to Nicks, and says that his speed on the field is outstanding. Says he separates. So while his forty time at the combine might not have blown anyone out of the water, he knows how to get open, and once he catches the ball he can take it to the house. Not only that, he's fearless over the middle and he has great hands. He played with crappy QBs at LSU, but he still produced as a senior in the SEC. Not sure how you'd describe him as having routine size - he's 6'3", 210 lbs. He's also got big hands. And he runs a full route tree. Not like Hill who just runs deep (as far as we know, considering that's all they had him do at G. Tech.) I love the pick. Randle should have gone to the Rams at the top of the 2nd round, or even to the Browns at #22 in the first. Completely disagree with you and Wonder on this one. And from what I've heard about Hill, he doesn't play as fast as his forty time. Only time will tell, I guess.
I agree that the Giants need to stockpile some more talent at O Line, particularly OT. The line was just flat out bad last season. I think that had a lot to do with Diehl and McKenzie. Baas was also a disappointment, but I think he may have been hurt. I expect the Giants to address OL in the next few rounds and stockpile some talent. But lets see what Brewer, Boothe, Petrus, and Beatty bring to the table before we write them off. I think Snee will bounce back. Also, don't forget they signed Locklear. I wouldn't say I'm thrilled with the situation, but I am open to seeing how it plays out. I think the Giants like to pick these guys a few years before they need them, let them develop, then let them compete when they're ready. And I think this often coincides with when they have a need.
I also think it's not really fair to say on the one hand that the Giants greatest "need" is obviously at OL, then say they obviously drafted for need when they picked Randle. Feels like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. This pick screamed BPA to me, but I guess I could be wrong. But I think it's a major stretch to say the Giants front office bows to media pressure. If anything, they come across as not caring what the media or fans are clamoring for.
One more note about Wilson and Hosley - they are both supposed to be great returners. Hosley is supposedly a great punt returner. Can't remember the last time we had a good punt returner. I'll be excited to see our return game much improved. It was a glaring weakness last season.
2 years, 3 months ago on NY Giants Draft Randle in R2 and Hosley in R3 | April
The GM (Loomis) got 8 games, not 6. Joe Vitt, the Assistant Head Coach, got 6 games. I thought the penalty was more than justified. If you remove the lines of play, paying someone to injure someone is a crime. It's called a hit man. There's no place for it in the game. And from a legal standpoint, I think the entire league could be brought down by something like this. If someone was badly injured while being the target of a bounty, they could sue the league for all its worth if they knew the league was turning a blind eye to this stuff. Gooddell had to act.
2 years, 4 months ago on Goodell's wrath and R.I.P Ron Erhardt | January
What's next, articles about the length of the players' shoe laces? Glenn, love the effort, but this, combined with the "hoisted by his own petard" article, makes me think you're really looking for angles to the game that aren't actually there. There's plenty to talk about. You don't have to force the issue so much.
2 years, 5 months ago on Saved by the turf. A look back at Wes Welker's GIANT drop in Super Bowl XLVI. | February
Sheridan is a puppet in Tampa. No one wanted to take that job because everyone knows Schiano and Butch Davis will be running the defense. But Davis didn't want to sacrifice the compensation he's getting from North Carolina so they gave him the title of "consultant" instead of D Coordinator. Sheridan even said he's going to be running Schiano's defense. I'm no fan of Sheridan, but he's really just a puppet and potential fall guy should things go south in Tampa.
2 years, 5 months ago on Giants Roundup | February
@bummy123 Do you actually have hard data that shows the Pats don't move the ball down the field quickly, or is that just based on anecdotal evidence? Because they were one of the more prolific offenses of all time this season. They scored 5 touchdowns in one half of football against the Broncos in the playoffs, a team with a pretty decent defense. I don't care how you score them, 5 TDs in one half is explosive. I understand that their offense is built around 2 TE and a slot receiver, but all three of those guys are exceptional. Hernandez is basically a yoked up WR.
I think you're asking the wrong question re: percentages. It's not whether the percentage of made 50-55 yard field goals is greater than the percentage of completed hail mary's. The answer to that is obviously the 50-55 yard field goal. But you can't just assume the Pats get a shot at a 50-55 yard field goal if the Giants bled the clock and made the Pats use their final timeouts before kicking a chip shot for the winner. Taking that into account, the question is whether the percentage of going 80 yards for a TD in 57 seconds with 1 timeout is greater than the percentage of going 47 yards for a field goal in 10 seconds with no timeouts. I'd have to see the numbers on that, but I think you have to like your chances more going for the TD. I just don't see how you'd have time to pick up 50 yards and kick a field goal in 10 seconds with no timeouts. You'd absolutely have to get out of bounds to have any chance whatsoever.
2 years, 5 months ago on Hoisted By His Own Petard, Belichick's Strategy Backfires | January
@UltimateNYGGlenn Heck, just watched the sequence again and Belichick actually had the defense stuff Bradshaw at 1:06 after the Nicks first down/out of bounds play, which forced BB to use a timeout. I know it's hard to ever say this, but I think BB mismanaged that sequence. He eventually made the proper call in that situation, but he unnecessarily sacrificed about 45 seconds and a timeout in the process.
@Arthuro Right. I think he should have instructed him to go down. And I read that Eli yelled to Bradshaw as he was handing him the ball not to score.
@UltimateNYGGlenn One other thing. I thought Belichick made a big mistake not burning a timeout two plays earlier. Bradshaw takes the handoff on first down and picks up 8 yards, to the Pats 12 yard line. The clock ticks down from about 1:53 to 1:13, then Nicks gives them a gift by getting out of bounds. Then, of course, Belichick lets Bradshaw score. My question is, if BB felt like the right move was to let them score, don't you burn a timeout at 1:52, then let them waltz into the end zone? Things would have been really interesting then. It makes me actually change my mind about the whole TD versus field goal debate. Even though putting the Superbowl in Tynes' hands seems less appealing than taking the sure 6, I think the right move was absolutely taking a knee multiple times then kicking. And if BB had played it right, he may have gotten the ball back with 1:45 and we might have been screwed. I think he just had a hard time pulling the trigger on that call, for whatever reason.
@Arthuro Yeah, love FO. I agree. Doubt that Coughlin put 12 on the field on purpose, but what a strategy if he did. I think the NFL closes that loophole next season, and gives the team the option to take the yards or have the clock back. Or maybe, they give them both.
@UltimateNYGGlenn I completely agree that Belichick looks at everything. And you make a good point by bringing up the Dallas game. But knowing that BB's a guy that relies heavily on percentages (he referenced that a field goal from there was a 90% probability), I would HIGHLY doubt that he was banking on a kick out of bounds. I'd venture that Tynes had 1 or 2 kicks out of bounds all season out of 80+ kickoffs. I'd bet that there were less than 20 kickoffs out of bounds all season by all the kickers combined in the NFL, particularly with the new kickoff rules that spot the ball further up. It just doesn't happen very often. Neither do 1 minute touchdown drives, but at least in that case you're relying on arguably the greatest QB of all time to get the job done. Still not a good chance you score 6 with only 57 seconds left, but you give yourself a shot.
Furthermore, I think BB's behavior clearly shows he thought Coughlin was bleeding the clock. And Coughlin clearly was. He ran the ball on successive downs into the teeth of the defense, and rightfully so. Coughlin and Fassel should not be mentioned in the same breath. Coughlin knows how to manage a game. But I do think that in this case, he gave the Pats some life by not insisting that Bradshaw get down before scoring. Even so, I must say that seeing Tynes job out on the field for a winning field goal would have given me a heart attack.
@Arthuro@TC4EVA Not sure if you've heard of Football Outsiders, but the guy who wrote this article used to be one of their main guys until he started writing for Grantland.com. Outsiders uses heavy statistical analysis to evaluate teams. In terms of game analysis, there's something called Win Probability that charts a team's percentage chance of victory after each play in the game. In the article, Barnwell said their Win Probability went from 89% when Nicks picked up the first down, down to 85% when Bradshaw scored. If they had kneeled 3 times and kicked, their win probability would have been anywhere from 89-96%, based on my understanding of what Barnwell said. As a side note, there's some other really interesting stuff in the article. Barnwell wonders if Coughlin had 12 men on the field on purpose at the end of the game, in effect saying that he might have been willing to trade 5 yards for 9 seconds of clock. Apparently, Buddy Ryan used to do this. I personally doubt that Coughlin did this intentionally, but it's interesting nonetheless:
I think you missed the mark on this one, Glenn. Belichick let the Giants score because they were going to bleed the clock down to around 15 seconds. With the new kickoff rules, you don't have much of a chance at a big return. So you're probably starting from your own 20/25 yard line in need of 55 yards in 10-12 seconds with no timeouts. What sounds easier to you - go 80 yards in 57 seconds with 1 timeout, or 55 in 10 seconds, then somehow get your field goal unit on the field in time to attempt and make a 50+yard field goal? Everything you said may be true, but I don't think it applied in this particular situation. He knew they were screwed. He was just trying to give them the best possible chance to win. I'm glad we took the points, but the percentages say that the Giants chance of victory actually decreased when they scored that touchdown with 57 seconds remaining, than if they had bled the clock then kicked the field goal. Of course, that doesn't matter now. We won, and that's all that matters. But we did give them one last gasp.
We're in the Superbowl because Reese drafted all those D Linemen. Frankly, If he listened to all the "draft gurus" here, he'd have never taken JPP. Which, I think we'd all agree, would have been a gigantic mistake. We would not be in the Superbowl tomorrow if not for JPP.
Agreed, he largely ignores linebacker, but that seems to be the organizational philosophy, for better or for worse. And for the last five years, it seems to have worked, overall, pretty well. It seems to me they believe in devoting resources to DL, the secondary, and WR, then plug holes in the OLine, LB, RB, and TE spots. I'd love to see them spend some high picks at LB and OLine, but I can't argue with the results. When all else fails, we can pass the ball, and we can rush the QB. And that gives us a chance every single year.
Also, I actually think you're underrating the LB unit we have right now. Boley is a player, Williams was an absolute steal who will start for years iMO, Kiwi has been solid in run support and provides a pass rush on obvious passing downs, and Blackburn has been a godsend. They were a disaster early in the year, but I actually think they've come on pretty strong down the stretch.
Looking forward to the game tomorrow. Go Gmen!
2 years, 5 months ago on Supe and Nuts | February
@Arthuro I think Smith was looking around because the play clock had frozen. When the refs didn't acknowledge it, he just decided to let the clock run down. Heads up play by him, horrible officiating. I've noticed play clocks running down and the refs giving a second of leeway, but this was egregious IMO. Weird that even the announcers didn't notice.
2 years, 6 months ago on Final Thoughts Before the NFC Championship | January
Why was Smith allowed to run down the play clock before the 2 minute warning? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it 40 seconds from the end of the last play? If you watch when Gore went down, there were at least 45 seconds on the clock. Then the play clock seemed to freeze at 10, with Smith looking around bewildered. If they don't let him run it down, the Giants still have a timeout in their pocket.