Well, to update Bradshaw's status, he says he wants to be a Giant and will look at other deals if that doesn't work out (pertaining to the 3-day re-signing windoow). Says he'd look at the Dolphins if it came to having to look at other options. http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/6782064/ahmad-bradshaw-hopes-new-york-giant-year Click the audio to hear his interview. He talks about Miami within the first minute, then touches on his ankles. Hopefully the Giants muck this up and allow him to reach free agency.
I like that you have a generally positive attitude DJ. It's a much better way to go through life. The "woe is us" crowd just drag things down. I think we can anoint you as the Stuart Smalley of thephins.com. Positive affirmations man!
If I were a betting man, and you held my feet to the fire to make a bet today what Bradshaw will do, I'd say it is most likely the Gi'nts resign him. DWill is more likely to hit the open market. I think DWill has an unwarranted rap around here as a durability concern because of 2010 when he missed ten games. If Carolina would have been in the playoff hunt it's been said he could have come back and played, but being out of the race so early there was no reason to risk further injury to his foot. Is it just my imagination, or are foot injuries quickly closing the gap on knee injuries as for prevalence and severity? When I was a young lad and a football fan, it seems you hardly ever heard of a player missing all or most of a season due to a foot injury. Knees are same as before, happened it seems with the same regularity. Or so I recall anyway. Now, we seem to have at least one or two every season on just the Dolphins missing extended time with some kind of foot problem. You think it's much to do with so many guys just playing at heavier than their natural weight and putting that extra stress on feet?
I was reading that earlier. The thing is I would bet Bradshaw reaches the open market. Hes going to have at least a handful of suitors so what benefit does he have by resigning within the 3 day window? Hes going to get paid big from someone but how big? he wont know unless he hits FA. The Giants dont have to try too hard to muck this up, it might get done for them unless they give Bradshaw such a good deal that the Bradshaw camp says its too good to pass up.
Foot stress fracture ruined Oliver's career if I remember right. He went to Cincy in '94 and came back. Big safety never the same after the injury. Nothing new really.
I'm not saying they never happened back in the day, but we have one possible from the 90s with Oliver, and think back to the 70s and I do not recall any. Now we get them every season, just on the Dolphins, or so it seems to me.
fu$# that Mr.C, fu%4 being positive for positives sake, that's not what I'am doing here when I analyze my team, I watch tape, and I give my damn opinion, we should have a damn contest or somethin around here, let the record dictate what kind of adjectives are being dispersed to folks. and please don't take that personally my friend.
So you're saying you don't talk to yourself in the mirror every morning and wear big fluffy cashmere sweaters? I just think some folks are naturally more positive than others, and I think it's a quality to be commended.
Any update on Todd P Mr.C?..that mother grabber's pride is to much to come back huh?...Thats a shame..
Well, dj's points are all true and good points and well deserved props for this regime. However, your points are also true. Pretty normal. The thing is and as for the bold part; ..what was the key factor in that rise and fall from 2008 to 2010? ......Chad Pennington. Chad Pennington and his smart play and lack of turn-overs. His ability to set a season record for committing the least of turnovers. That's it! Dj's points are all good and those things are necessary and should be in place in order to have a successful franchise, but, and I think you'll agree, unless you find that high quality, franchise type QB or whatever, a regime whom is doing a rebuild will never be deemed a success. I'm not bashing Henne here. There are some questions and concerns and maybe even some doubt as well as some hope, but regardless and right or wrong, how Henne performs this year will inevitably be the deciding factor of whether or not this regime will even have the chance to being considered a success. They could end up being considered a regime that did some good things and had some good moments and put some good pieces in place, but fell short in certain vital areas and that's it. I am hoping for something better. This year will most likely be the "make or break" year.
It's not the pride. His profile is unblocked now, but his IP address is still blocked for some reason and he can only post from his phone right now. Not as easy to post from a phone I guess. Never tried it. We exchange open messages between our two profiles every few days. Go to his and leave him an open message if you like. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.
Agreed on Bradshaw ending up a Giant, whether it's in the re-signing window or after. It sounded like he wanted to play there with Brandon Jacobs. Though, I do think Boik makes a good point that he's going to have a number of suitors who can give him just as big a pay day as the Giants, with the Dolphins being lumped in that group. I'd prefer Bradshaw, but I'd be perfectly happy with DeAngelo Williams. Either of those options are fine with me. As for foot injuries, I won't speak to anything as I've never had one (though if you want some shoulder injury stories, I've got that covered). However, with Jared Odrick's injury last year, and all these running backs with turf toe, I remember Steve McNair battling that quite a bit as well. It does seem like foot and ankle injuries occur at a more frequent rate, at least from what I can remember.
A few thoughts here... I agree MrC as I posted earlier, I don't see him leaving the Giants. I think he's comfortable there and I think the Giants will pay him. I can see Brandon Jacobs getting the hook, with the Dolphins having zero interest. As for Jeff Ireland and the personnel department--I still hate it being called a regime. They aren't czar's or dictators. Personally, I think it's a poor adjective to describe a personnel department or GM's tenure. That's nit-picking but hey... I've never assumed the Dolphins were on a 4 year plan. I don't think the guys making the decisions upstairs did either. I don't believe they thought they would see such eary success like they did in 2008, but after that, their moves have shown that they feel they are much closer than a 4 yr plan. Have they made a decision to get younger players at better cost? Of course. What Parcells descendent hasn't thought that way? Bill Belicheck does it every year. However, you don't see them considering, or Tom Brady, they are in the state of rebuilding. Ticket sales and prices sure haven't dictated to fans we are rebuilding. You don't draft the luxury of Pat White, you don't sign Jake Grove, Karlos Dansby, and you don't trade for Brandon Marshall if you're insistent on rebuilding through the draft and waiting to win. Those FA's, those trades, those players came here with the idea of winning now. I don't see why fans should feel like it's a years long process to feel cushy. They didn't inherit a talent-less team either. I'm not going to get into what the issues were of the previous GM and personnel team, but some wasn't there fault either. We had crazy injuries in 2007 and had none in 2008. That helps a lot in winning. We had a ton of talent to boot. So, we weren't the worst team in the NFL. The 11-5 record only vindicates that. We might have been the un-luckiest. We may have been the most un-fortunate, but not worst heading into 2008. I don't agree that the QB position hinges on whether a GM's tenure is successful or not either. Absolutely the trading or drafting of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Phil Rivers, etc. has made it very easy on the GM's to keep their current jobs. However, there have been many GM's that have been successful and judged positively without the findings of 10 yr Franchise QB. Right now, I think Ireland has been a little better than average, but it's difficult to judge as to "who was making the decisions". This year will be the real test.
How many times have we heard of so and so player ,looking for a new contract ,mention the Miami Dolphins as a possible destination.'? Its contract negotiation leverage talk IMO.
whatta you know, even excons want to be dolphins..Guess the rah rah club wasn't just being positive on purpose, they were right.
IMO it's more likely that Jacobs stays with the Giants and that Bradshaw leaves. Here's an article from a Giants board relating to Jacobs: (I didn't post the whole article, you can see it here: http://www.touchdownblue.com/t1319-interesting-salary-cap-article-article-the-3mil-question ) The $3M Question 07/18/2011 | Author Pat Traina I’ve been following the NFL labor negotiations closely – why I put myself through the ups and downs of that is another story. Anyway, with word last week that the two sides are literally within days of putting a new CBA to bed, I’ve been keeping notes from the various reports about the provisions the new deal will include and one such provision that’s been reported by multiple media outlets is that all NFL teams will receive a one-time $3M cap credit to use on one player contract this year. This exemption is said to work very much in the same way as the old veteran exemption under the previous CBA, where only approximately $700K of a 10+ year veteran’s salary counted against the cap each year, regardless the player’s actual cap number. In other words, if an eligible veteran had a cap figure of $2M, only $700K counted against his team’s cap. So let’s get back to the “$3M Question,” specifically who the Giants are likely to apply the exemption to. I’ve narrowed it down to two possibilities: RB Brandon Jacobs and T Shawn Andrews. First Thing’s First… Before the Giants can decide who they will apply the $3M cap exemption on (assuming of course that it’s ratified as part of the final CBA and assuming that there are no alterations to how it can be applied, e.g. allowing teams to apply it to new contracts), the first step is to get all of the players under contract into the team’s facility and put them through physicals. Giants fans are no doubt familiar with the issues Andrews had last year. After making a remarkable comeback, his back decided to quit on him last Thanksgiving following a couple of weeks where he had to take a full workload of snaps in both practice and in games. Prior to that, Andrews showed signs of being dominating. However, when his back acted up, many people began to wonder if his NFL comeback was over. To his credit, Andrews fought back and was able to get back on the field, although at times he didn’t quite look the same as he did prior to his setback. If Andrews can’t pass a team physical, the question of whether to apply the $3M exemption to his contract becomes a moot point and I think Jacobs will be the winner of the $3M question. If Andrews is deemed healthy enough to remain on the roster, then I’m going to show you why and how the Giants can potentially get by keeping him this year despite his $3.5M roster bonus that’s reportedly due on the 30th day of the new league year. Jacobs & Andrews: The Numbers Jacobs is due a $4.65M base salary in 2011 (this money is not guaranteed as was the case with the first two years of his contract). He’s also reportedly due a $1M roster bonus if he makes the final 53-man roster, and his prorated signing bonus is estimated to be $962,500. That means Jacobs will count for an estimated $6.6M against the 2011 salary cap assuming that the same rules apply from the previous CBA (where a player’s signing bonus is prorated over the life of the contract). Andrews, meanwhile, could count for $7.041M against the salary cap, an amount that consists of his prorated signing bonus, a $500K workout bonus (assuming that the players receive their lost bonuses because of the lockout cancelling the workouts as is being reported; a $3.5M roster bonus, and a $3M base salary. Together, Jacobs and Andrews, both of who might not be starters in 2011, count for an estimated $13.64M against the reported $120M salary cap, or roughly 11 percent of the salary cap. Assuming Andrews is healthy and the Giants keep Jacobs, who, then, is the best candidate for the $3M exemption? Let’s take a look. Brandon Jacobs Head coach Tom Coughlin has expressed a desire in the past to get the big running back more touches in 2011, so it doesn’t sound that the team has plans to rid itself of Jacobs, even if they re-sign Ahmad Bradshaw and name him the starter. The Giants have always favored a two-pronged rushing attack in recent years, and it sounds like that’s the plan for 2011. So what happens if the Giants re-sign Bradshaw? Can they really afford to pay two running backs at least $4M per season – starter money at some positions — if they’re going to share the work load? The answer is yes, at least for 2011, if they use the $3M salary cap exemption on Jacobs. If they exercise this option, Jacobs’ estimated cap number drops fromthe estimated $6.6M to $3.6M, a reasonable amount considering he’d be splitting the workload with Bradshaw (or another running back if Bradshaw departs). What about 2012, when the $3M roster exemption goes away, you ask? Good question. Jacobs will enter the final year of his contract in 2012. If he struggles through 2011, or if another running back (Da’Rel Scott? D.J. Ware?) becomes this year’s Peyton Hillis, it becomes easier for the Giants to terminate Jacobs’ contract in 2012. If they do so, the team would save $4.9M in cap space because they would only be on the hook for the final prorated portion of Jacobs’ signing bonus, all $962,500 of it. Best of all for the Giants, since 2012 is the final year of Jacobs’ contract, they would not have to worry about any dead money spilling over to 2013’s cap. Shawn Andrews If you’re wondering if makes more sense to use the $3M cap exemption on Andrews, we don’t think it is because even if Andrews’ cap hit is reduced to $4.041M once the credit is applied, that’s still a very high figure for a player who projects to be a backup in 2011. To put that number into perspective, projected starting tackles David Diehl and Kareem McKenzie are scheduled to earn base salaries of $4M and $4.3M respectively. However, if the Giants apply the credit and restructure Andrews’ contract (assuming that a restructured contract is eligible for the $3M credit, which we think will be the case), then it makes sense to use it on him. When a contract is restructured, the base salary is reduced to the league minimum commensurate with the veteran’s experience, and the money is converted into a signing bonus, which is spread out over the remaining life of the contract, including any new years that are added. Andrews received a very low signing bonus ($250K) when he signed with New York last year. If the Giants were to trim his base salary to the veteran minimum commensurate with his experience — those figures have yet to be determined for 2011 — they could conceivably pay him a minimum base, convert the balance to the signing bonus, and recognize a savings. Let’s use the old CBA numbers to illustrate. The 2011 season will be Andrews’ seventh, so if we use the minimum base salary from 2010 for a veteran with 7-9 years of experience, that figure would be $760K. If the Giants reduce Andrews’ 2011 base salary to $760K, that means they’d have to make up approximately $2.24M. Before we factor in his new prorated signing bonus, Andrews’ adjusted 2011 cap number would drop to $4.76M. If the $2.24M that is removed from the base salary is turned into a signing bonus and is spread over the remaining five years of Andrews’ contract, his new prorated signing bonus (which also must include the $41,667K from his original signing bonus) comes to roughly $489K per year for the remainder of his contract. Adding that new number back into Andrews’ estimated 2011 cap figure, it comes out at $5.2M, which is still a high number for a player who is not projected to be a starter in 2011. Enter the $3M credit (again, assuming the rules allow the credit to be applied to a restructured contract). Andrews’ 2011 cap value then drops to $2.2M, a very reasonable amount for a backup veteran tackle. The $3M Question: What to Do? Having presented both sides of the picture what move would you make if you were the Giants? Do you go with the running game, which is the bread and butter of the offense, or do you go for the offensive line, despite the fact that if Andrews is removed from the picture, the Giants will still have the rights to Diehl, McKenzie, Beatty, rookie James Brewer, and Jamon Meredith in 2011?
I don't really have an issue with it being a four year plan or whatever but they've gotta change some of their thinking and philosophy. Tony Sparano has brought on a conservative approach to this team. Its bust *** on defense and run the ball. It reminds me of Nick Saban talking about how when he was at Michigan State, he had the same mindset. He was conservative his first two years there, '95-'97, on offense and all he wanted to do was run the ball while playing very good defense. He said he realized it was the biggest mistake he made in his coaching career and one of the first ones as a first time head coach. He said he learned from it - as you can see on Saturday's with his Alabama team and previous LSU teams - in his third and fourth years at Michigan State. He ended up winning 9 games in his fourth season at MSU. To wrap it up with the topic of Tony Sparano, he's got to do the same. He's gotta figure out what he did wrong and learn from it. Maybe he thinks it will change a bit with Brian Daboll but we'll see.
And my question would be what Tony Sparano's ideas are for being more aggressive. The conservatism was seen at every level of the offense. Does he just have broad, generalized concepts of being more aggressive, like just passing the ball more, or throwing deep more? Or does he really have a grasp on where the rubber meets the road of creating more space in a passing offense and how to get an aggressive mentality out of his players? Aggressiveness on the chalk board isn't necessarily going to improve anything unless he changes the way he coaches the players, agree?
Agree on all points. I've harped on their ****ty coaching all of last season and this off-season. I really don't know. Coaches can learn. Maybe Sparano will. Maybe he won't.
I think in 2008, we simply had nothing to lose, so Sparano was more willing to be aggressive, try new things, etc. 2008 was their redshirt year. They weren't going to be judged one way or another on that year and they inadvertantly became victims of their own success. In 2009 and 2010, when they had expectations, Sparano went into his conservative shell and started fist pumping field goals. I don't expect him to change considerably since he has a ton of pressure on him and I imagine he feels the ebst way to squeeze out 9 or 10 wins (whether that's good enough for the playoffs or not) is to ground and pound it and play good defense.
I don't think it's a question of whether he's decided to be more aggressive. He has. The question is, what does he see as the definition of "aggressive" in a football context, and does he really have a firm grasp on how to achieve his goals in that regard? For instance, Alen has talked about how Bill Belichick used to attend every off season Urban Meyer's clinics on his offense, and during those times he'd also spend a lot of time talking to Nick Saban about defensive concepts. What has Tony Sparano been doing this off season? I can virtually guarantee he's not been sitting on his haunches or taking vacation the whole time. That's not him. But that doesn't mean he's been using his time efficiently, either.
Thats certainly a reasonable assumption to make. However, I would tend to guess that he got more conservative as defenses started to figure out how to defend Henne.
Maybe. But even in 2009, we were fairly conservative. Henne had a big game against the Jets and a nice comeback against NE, but those games were the results of being behind more than any kind of philosophy.
They were conservative in 09, presumably because Henne was playing his first games. But from my perspective, it got progressively more conservative as time went on.
You're right in that regard. At the end of the day, they just didn't trust Henne. It's why he got benched. Whether the lockout has changed this equation, or there just aren't any other good options is another story.
I do think the offense they plan to use with Daboll will appear more aggressive to the eyes of most fans. I expect to see more multiple receiver sets and TE passing. This should result in more easy passes for Henne. I don't expect to see more deep passes, though. IMO that's a good thing b/c that isn't Henne's strength and most successful offenses don't pass deep that often anyways. I expect that Henne will be a good fit for that system. I think the overall success of the offense will primarily depend on whether we can get more or enough big plays from the run game and short passing game. If that happens then most will see us as an aggressive offense. I don't know if it's reasonable to expect a change in that 'settle for a FG' mentality that we had too much of last year. But if we're getting big plays from having more play makers it might not be that noticeable.
why you gotta go there man, maybe folks think what I said is fair..end of story..Its not about what your implying, its about giving a staff the proper amount of time relative to the circumstances and variables they inherited, and putting that record and what they have accomplished up until this point up, then put that against other staffs that inherited similar circumstances, and come to some logical conclusions..
Why does it have to be either/or??? I would say both posts were accurate. The front office has done a good job rebuilding the team, especially when you consider its been done with young players for the most part. But they haven't gotten a QB yet. Does that mean they've failed if they haven't got a QB? How long did it take Ozzie Newsome to get a QB? How many years did the Steelers go between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger? Its certainly fair and accurate to say they didn't get a QB, but I don't think that means they are "bad" by any measure.
DeAngelo Williams 1 - Ahmad Bradshaw 2- either would be an awesome fit!! Was reading an espn article that our needs 1QB 2RB..... I just hope we don't sit on our hands...get in there...and hammer home someone who can make a difference on our Offense THIS year
I don't know but I think RB will not be our primary direction/concern in free-agency. a pro-bowl caliber left guard & a bargain with promise @ veteran QB with enough up-side to compete for the start is the way I think they'll go. look for the resigning of Ronnie and/or Ricky in a favorable contract. the stable is flush, the only thing lacking is a dominant offensive line. we're still missing an elite pulling-guard to complete the offensive trench in 2011 we already have the backs to pound the ball if the line consistently opens running lanes
If they do sign Bradshaw, does anyone think they'll sign Ricky for a 1 year deal? Or do you think Daniel Thomas would be the 2nd RB right away?
I just wish we would have been less aggressive in the Ravens game..... watch that first drive. Went away from that for the kill. Bad move. Also the Chicago game after the benching. Collectively ran the ball twenty times. Bears were kicking field goals. Aggressive didn't work. Balance...
Lovie Smith was a "conservative" coach on offense, but when you hire a guy like Mike Martz it's not so that you can play ground and pound football. The hiring of Daboll, and our draft picks (& FA signings) are clues as to what kind of offensive philosophy we'll be seeking to adopt this season. There's a lot of talk about how conservative we were on offense last year, and in many respects we were. But there's also the reality that even if Sparano wanted a hyper aggressive offense, we simply didn't have the players to execute such a strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll put it out there again: If you can't run the ball to create favorable coverages and play action opportunities, if your OL is shaky in protection, if you lack a consistent deep threat or a QB who can extend plays, then there's really no avenue for creating big plays other than trickery. If some combination of the following occur: -The running game becomes the consistent force it was in 08-09 -We can add a big play runner in FA -Marshall's offseason workouts transfer to the field -Gates & Clay hit the ground running -Henne's given the green light to improvise and take shots downfield Then we'll be in good shape and the big plays will take care of themselves. IMO the running game remains the key. Our OL is built to fire off the ball and smack people in the mouth, not go backwards in pass pro. Calling 7 step drops all day in order to create down field opportunities isn't likely to work in our favor. Our big plays will come AFTER we've forced teams to crowd the LOS, go single high, single up on Marshall etc. The run game, the screens, the quick passing game, feeding Thomas, (DWill/Bradshaw?) Bess and Marshall until the defense becomes overaggressive and then throwing it over their heads to Hartline/Gates. That's the ticket IMO.
Not necessarily because you don't really know what you're getting with Brian Daboll. If you base it off of last season, at least the first half of last season, you are not really getting a guy thats aggressive. If you base it off of second half of last season, you are getting a guy thats somewhat aggressive. They still could have been aggressive in their play design and shortened the QB drops.
Which of course begs the question whether things changed because Mike Holmgren/Eric Mangini inserted more cooks into the kitchen...or fewer. I could see the rationale for more interference as the season went on. You have an offense that isn't going anywhere, too conservative, not scoring points, you're losing football games. Someone decides to step in and assert themselves on Daboll a little bit and who would be surprised, in that scenario. What would be more surprising to me, though still plausible, would be if everyone started out the season stepping on Brian Daboll's whistle and then with the offense's inefficiency, deciding to take a step back and let Daboll do his thing. And then firing him.
