Quote: @supafreak84 said:
I just wonder with Bradbury if a move to guard might not be the best thing for him? Take snapping the ball completely off the table, and just let him concentrate on his footwork and anchor without these huge nose guards lining up right over his face mask and putting him on skates. Regardless, I just have no interest in bringing him back
I dont think moving a liability one spot down the line will do much, if GB isnt strong enough to play C, I dont see him being able to anchor at OG since the DTs can simply line up over him at OG and move him back into the pocket.
my 2 cents, if kirk is a 35 million dollar a year guy, but needs better protection to play at the level of a 35 million dollar guy due to his unwillingness to move around and occasionally run to keep defenses honest... then either KC needs to go, or the team needs to spend the money to protect kirk. anybody see kirk going anywhere this offseason? me neither, so with that I guess we really need to emphasize improving the play of the 3 IOL positions, however that may be, however expensive that may be, because we arent going to get value from our QB investment if he is under constant duress when we play quality defenses, or even moderate pressure when we face average defenses. and if we arent going to have at least an average defense, then we need a top 3 to 5 offense that can hang 40+ a game when the situation calls for it. I think its to late to fix the D for next year, so if we are running with KC, then at least fix that side of the ball and hope to win in shootout fashion.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Yah, it makes you wonder if he doesnt have the right processing chip to handle things in real time. And/or if this offense put too much on his plate.
I saw the Bengals start 3 new OL against the Ravens and then @ Buffalo the last 2 weeks. They beat em both and literally kicked the Bills butts. I get the value of continuity and I see instances where it meant a hill of beans.
Continuity with Bradbury/Ingram/Cleveland may actually be a bad thing.
The Bengals replacement players played pretty well in spot duty, just as ours did on with Brandel, Schlottmann and Udoh. But it's likely not sustainable for either team.
Continuity and time together is a big thing for an offensive line, especially when the biggest problem appears to be cerebral. On that note, just a reminder that the All Pro line consists of the following players ages: 34, 31, 35, 32, 32. Ours goes 23, 24, 27, 23, 27.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Its borderline but recency-bias may end up being the nail is his coffin as it relates to MN. He had a great season compared to prior years, but in the playoffs we has straight-up abused by Dexter Lawrence. Yes, an all-pro player who does this to quite a few interior lineman. But does that give you an urge to offer $10-12M annually?
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Its borderline but recency-bias may end up being the nail is his coffin as it relates to MN. He had a great season compared to prior years, but in the playoffs we has straight-up abused by Dexter Lawrence. Yes, an all-pro player who does this to quite a few interior lineman. But does that give you an urge to offer $10-12M annually?
Yes, I've seen Lawrence abuse All Pro centers. But my lasting impression was the many times Dexter started on Bradbury's right shoulder but ended up looping around and going over Cleveland's left shoulder. There was a lot of that. The Giants defense knew what we struggled with. I think many defenses did.
Bottom line is that the IOL has to improve. I'm just not certain if that's more likely to happen with another year together for the five, or bringing in a new center from God knows where, who might even be worse.
I keep thinking of Ethan Pocic, who was steaming-pile putrid his first three years, but is probably the top free agent center this year. Did he really improve that much? Or was it going from Seattle's crap line to lining up next to Joel Bitonio and the rest of Cleveland's very good line?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Its borderline but recency-bias may end up being the nail is his coffin as it relates to MN. He had a great season compared to prior years, but in the playoffs we has straight-up abused by Dexter Lawrence. Yes, an all-pro player who does this to quite a few interior lineman. But does that give you an urge to offer $10-12M annually?
Yes, I've seen Lawrence abuse All Pro centers. But my lasting impression was the many times Dexter started on Bradbury's right shoulder but ended up looping around and going over Cleveland's left shoulder. There was a lot of that. The Giants defense knew what we struggled with. I think many defenses did.
Bottom line is that the IOL has to improve. I'm just not certain if that's more likely to happen with another year together for the five, or bringing in a new center from God knows where, who might even be worse.
I keep thinking of Ethan Pocic, who was steaming-pile putrid his first three years, but is probably the top free agent center this year. Did he really improve that much? Or was it going from Seattle's crap line to lining up next to Joel Bitonio and the rest of Cleveland's very good line?
I agree with Geoff here, all we can go on is the track record, which is he's been terrible before this season where his play was improved, but when we got to the playoffs the same old Bradbury showed up and got dominated. I tend to believe he will always struggle holding up against bigger, stronger players in pass protection. Not someone I'd pay to extend and would rather take my chances in free agency or the draft to address the position.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Its borderline but recency-bias may end up being the nail is his coffin as it relates to MN. He had a great season compared to prior years, but in the playoffs we has straight-up abused by Dexter Lawrence. Yes, an all-pro player who does this to quite a few interior lineman. But does that give you an urge to offer $10-12M annually?
Yes, I've seen Lawrence abuse All Pro centers. But my lasting impression was the many times Dexter started on Bradbury's right shoulder but ended up looping around and going over Cleveland's left shoulder. There was a lot of that. The Giants defense knew what we struggled with. I think many defenses did.
Bottom line is that the IOL has to improve. I'm just not certain if that's more likely to happen with another year together for the five, or bringing in a new center from God knows where, who might even be worse.
I keep thinking of Ethan Pocic, who was steaming-pile putrid his first three years, but is probably the top free agent center this year. Did he really improve that much? Or was it going from Seattle's crap line to lining up next to Joel Bitonio and the rest of Cleveland's very good line?
I agree with Geoff here, all we can go on is the track record, which is he's been terrible before this season where his play was improved, but when we got to the playoffs the same old Bradbury showed up and got dominated. I tend to believe he will always struggle holding up against bigger, stronger players in pass protection. Not someone I'd pay to extend and would rather take my chances in free agency or the draft to address the position.
Its a good draft class for centers, could be a consideration as well if you look at resource allocation.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Our OL seemed to handle 3 and 4 man rushes OK (not great, but ok) this season, but they couldn't pick up a blitz to save Kirk's life. And short-yardage runs, ugh.
People really forget that your two starting guards are in the bottom three in the entire NFL in pressures given up, and your starting Center was out for 5 weeks before coming back to face Lawrence in his first game back.
Quote: @PurpleCrush said:
People really forget that your two starting guards are in the bottom three in the entire NFL in pressures given up, and your starting Center was out for 5 weeks before coming back to face Lawrence in his first game back.
So add the starting OGs to the list of players that need replacing with the C as well then. As far as that Giants game, I didn't think playing GB after a 5 game break from practice was a smart move and I stand behind that, but he is still a liability to often at a very key position IMO.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I think it's borderline, I really do. One thing I do know is that you can't just declare you're going to upgrade the position and have it be so.
Couple things arguing for Bradbury is that his arrow is pointing up. Another is the continuity factor. We're constantly shifting that line when the thing they need the most is time together. It's still the youngest OL in the NFL. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to bring back the same five in about a decade or two. I wouldn't discount that.
Arguing against re-signing him is the money obviously. That and the fact that the biggest problem this year wasn't getting beaten physically, although that happened at times. It was mostly an inability to recognize and manage looping and stunting DTs and blitzes. That became all too easy for teams, especially the Giants. And I think that's Bradbury's responsibility more than anyone else.
If there's a smart, experienced journeyman center out there somewhere I'd be interested.
Its borderline but recency-bias may end up being the nail is his coffin as it relates to MN. He had a great season compared to prior years, but in the playoffs we has straight-up abused by Dexter Lawrence. Yes, an all-pro player who does this to quite a few interior lineman. But does that give you an urge to offer $10-12M annually?
Yes, I've seen Lawrence abuse All Pro centers. But my lasting impression was the many times Dexter started on Bradbury's right shoulder but ended up looping around and going over Cleveland's left shoulder. There was a lot of that. The Giants defense knew what we struggled with. I think many defenses did.
Bottom line is that the IOL has to improve. I'm just not certain if that's more likely to happen with another year together for the five, or bringing in a new center from God knows where, who might even be worse.
I keep thinking of Ethan Pocic, who was steaming-pile putrid his first three years, but is probably the top free agent center this year. Did he really improve that much? Or was it going from Seattle's crap line to lining up next to Joel Bitonio and the rest of Cleveland's very good line?
I agree with Geoff here, all we can go on is the track record, which is he's been terrible before this season where his play was improved, but when we got to the playoffs the same old Bradbury showed up and got dominated. I tend to believe he will always struggle holding up against bigger, stronger players in pass protection. Not someone I'd pay to extend and would rather take my chances in free agency or the draft to address the position.
Its a good draft class for centers, could be a consideration as well if you look at resource allocation.
I don't believe in draft classes anymore. LOL. This QB class was supposed to be generational but it's far from that.
Given our needs on defense...and at WR...and at QB...and the fact that we don't have a 2nd rounder and only four picks in the entire draft...it's super hard to justify drafting a center anywhere before day three. And there's no one on day three who would be an upgrade to Bradbury in 2023.
If we lose Bradbury to the money game, I would prefer going with Schlottmann over a rookie.
|
