March 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesAddict said: I agree he's been very good. But if I'm debating between paying him or CJGJ big money, (and Hargrave might actually cost more), I'd go CJGJ. While I would agree that having a disruptive DT is more valuable than a Safety/Slot CB, age is definitely a big factor for me. CJGJ would be in his prime during his contract whereas Hargrave is starting to enter the years when production starts declining for DTs...especially pass rushing DTs. At the end of the day, I'm not going to be mad if we do resign Hargrave and let CJGJ walk. It's just not what I would do if I had the choice. Both will probably walk in FA anyway. I don't think there's any doubt that Hargrave will get more ... DL are generally more in demand than safeties. Other than Minkah Fitzpartick, the league's top paid safeties are in the $14-16M range. Regarding DTs, other than Donald (who makes a ridiculous $32M/year ) the top paid safeties are in the $20M range. I think we've shown we are willing to pay safeties (Jenkins, McLeod). CJGJ is only 25 and an integral part of the defense. I don't buy most of the talk that he is likely to walk ... I think we end up bringing him back.
March 9, 20232 yr I have no problem letting both Hargrave and CJGJ walk. It's time for Williams and Blankenship to get bigger roles. If we didn't already have replacements waiting, I would have a different mindset.
March 9, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, time2rock said: I don't think there's any doubt that Hargrave will get more ... DL are generally more in demand than safeties. Other than Minkah Fitzpartick, the league's top paid safeties are in the $14-16M range. Regarding DTs, other than Donald (who makes a ridiculous $32M/year ) the top paid safeties are in the $20M range. I think we've shown we are willing to pay safeties (Jenkins, McLeod). CJGJ is only 25 and an integral part of the defense. I don't buy most of the talk that he is likely to walk ... I think we end up bringing him back. I just wish that they would allocate a little more draft capital to other areas. I agree that everything starts with the trenches...and as of late Howie has done a tremendous job fortifying the trenches....either via draft or FA signing... but ideally I'd like to see at least one high draft pcik/premium player at each layer of the defense...DL, LB, S/CB...and not continually look to trades or FA for the 2nd and third layers of the defense...
March 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, brkmsn said: I have no problem letting both Hargrave and CJGJ walk. It's time for Williams and Blankenship to get bigger roles. If we didn't already have replacements waiting, I would have a different mindset. So for example: Pacheco averaged 5.1 and had a TD while Blank was part of a defense that couldn't make a single stop in the second half and allowed wide open players/TDs the entire game and he's ranked higher? Sure, PFF.
March 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Swoop said: So for example: Pacheco averaged 5.1 and had a TD while Blank was part of a defense that couldn't make a single stop in the second half and allowed wide open players/TDs the entire game and he's ranked higher? Sure, PFF. The picture says highest graded rookie going into the superbowl, but the tweet says highest in the superbowl
March 9, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Traveler Vic said: We have too many holes to keep any one player. But if there was 1 player that i would keep above all others, it would be Hargrave. He is more important than CJGJ. I can agree that a good DT is more important than a Safety (even though I think Safety is wildly underrated these days) as far as positions go. But you're betting on Hargrave living up to what will be a pretty big contract...one that he will begin at age 30. The chances of him being "worth it" are far less than if we did the same for CJGJ. If Hargrave was 25 like CJGJ, it would be a no brainer. But age 30? That is not a no-brainer...to me, anyway.
March 9, 20232 yr CJGJ is the one that transformed that secondary and defense into a playmaking one. Haven't we been clamoring for a playmaking DB? When we played the Giants, Slay was jawing at them, "How could you let this man (walk) out of the building?" in regard to Bradberry. They did it with CJGJ when we played the Saints and, AJ when we played the Titans. This is the same thing. He played his ass off, deserves the contract, fits well in the defense, is a little versatile and young. The drop off to Blankenship is large enough, that I wouldn't entrust Reed to replace CJ. He is a serviceable backup, with upside.
March 9, 20232 yr Shame if he does not come back. He had some B-Dawk in his game. Those types of players are hard to find.
March 10, 20232 yr 7 hours ago, Swoop said: So for example: Pacheco averaged 5.1 and had a TD while Blank was part of a defense that couldn't make a single stop in the second half and allowed wide open players/TDs the entire game and he's ranked higher? Sure, PFF. You watched the game, right? CJGJ played 55 defensive snaps (100%). Blankenship played 1 snap (2%) on defense and 24 on special teams. Sure, blame Blankenship for the defense's poor day ... During the regular season, Blankenship graded much higher than CJGJ, albeit from a smaller sample size. I realize it's not everybody's nature to be optimistic, but I'm excited about Blankenship's future based on how he stood out in preseason and then performed well in his opportunity during the regular season. I wanted to keep CJGJ, but at this point it looks like he'll get top safety money in free agency. I think he's good, but he's not "Dawkins good." There's no reason to overpay for a player that you already have a viable replacement for.
March 10, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, brkmsn said: You watched the game, right? CJGJ played 55 defensive snaps (100%). Blankenship played 1 snap (2%) on defense and 24 on special teams. Sure, blame Blankenship for the defense's poor day ... During the regular season, Blankenship graded much higher than CJGJ, albeit from a smaller sample size. I realize it's not everybody's nature to be optimistic, but I'm excited about Blankenship's future based on how he stood out in preseason and then performed well in his opportunity during the regular season. I wanted to keep CJGJ, but at this point it looks like he'll get top safety money in free agency. I think he's good, but he's not "Dawkins good." There's no reason to overpay for a player that you already have a viable replacement for. My comment had nothing to do with CJGJ. I never mentioned him, at any point, in any way. I was saying that another rookie played a valuable role all season, was on the winning team and had a much better game.
March 10, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, Swoop said: My comment had nothing to do with CJGJ. I never mentioned him, at any point, in any way. I was saying that another rookie played a valuable role all season, was on the winning team and had a much better game. Likewise, the tweet I posted that you commented about wasn't really the point of my post, it was just something I shared to support my reason (for my opinion). My point was I'm fine with moving on from CJGJ and Hargrave. Once again, PFF grades don't factor outcomes or factors that are outside the control of the individual player. They only grade the individual player. In the Super Bowl, virtually all Blankenship's snaps came on special teams and he graded higher than Pacheco.
March 10, 20232 yr 36 minutes ago, brkmsn said: Likewise, the tweet I posted that you commented about wasn't really the point of my post, it was just something I shared to support my reason (for my opinion). My point was I'm fine with moving on from CJGJ and Hargrave. Once again, PFF grades don't factor outcomes or factors that are outside the control of the individual player. They only grade the individual player. In the Super Bowl, virtually all Blankenship's snaps came on special teams and he graded higher than Pacheco. Right. My point was that PFF has it's head in it's ass. One player had almost 1600 total yards and 5 TDs (including KR yards) and backed it up in the SB. The other guy played STs and couldn't get on the field when the defense couldn't stop a nosebleed. I like Blank, but I disagree with the ranking.
March 10, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, Swoop said: Right. My point was that PFF has it's head in it's ass. One player had almost 1600 total yards and 5 TDs (including KR yards) and backed it up in the SB. The other guy played STs and couldn't get on the field when the defense couldn't stop a nosebleed. I like Blank, but I disagree with the ranking. Once again, the tweet was about super bowl grades and had nothing to do with season grades, although Blankenship graded higher than Pacheco on the season as well. LOL @ "couldn't get on the field." Seriously, nobody was hurt. Blankenship played his role in the Super Bowl and played well (almost exclusively on special teams). Not getting an opportunity to start was not on him. He played very well as a replacement for CJGJ in the regular season, but in the Super Bowl, Gannon decided who played. What's weird is on one hand, you say you like Blankenship. Why is that? I'm guessing for the same reasons I like him. But on the other hand, you want to mock PFF for giving him good grades. He had good grades because when his number was called, he played well. You saw it, I saw it. PFF saw it.
March 10, 20232 yr 28 minutes ago, brkmsn said: Once again, the tweet was about super bowl grades and had nothing to do with season grades, although Blankenship graded higher than Pacheco on the season as well. LOL @ "couldn't get on the field." Seriously, nobody was hurt. Blankenship played his role in the Super Bowl and played well (almost exclusively on special teams). Not getting an opportunity to start was not on him. He played very well as a replacement for CJGJ in the regular season, but in the Super Bowl, Gannon decided who played. What's weird is on one hand, you say you like Blankenship. Why is that? I'm guessing for the same reasons I like him. But on the other hand, you want to mock PFF for giving him good grades. He had good grades because when his number was called, he played well. You saw it, I saw it. PFF saw it. The picture specifically says "going into the Superbowl". What else would they be basing it on? How they interviewed the weeks leading up to the game? And either way you were to slice it, one player played in 17 games, had almost 1600 all purpose yards and 5 TDs. I'd say he had a bigger impact in the actual SB as well. PFF is a joke.
March 10, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, brkmsn said: Once again, the tweet was about super bowl grades and had nothing to do with season grades, although Blankenship graded higher than Pacheco on the season as well. LOL @ "couldn't get on the field." Seriously, nobody was hurt. Blankenship played his role in the Super Bowl and played well (almost exclusively on special teams). Not getting an opportunity to start was not on him. He played very well as a replacement for CJGJ in the regular season, but in the Super Bowl, Gannon decided who played. What's weird is on one hand, you say you like Blankenship. Why is that? I'm guessing for the same reasons I like him. But on the other hand, you want to mock PFF for giving him good grades. He had good grades because when his number was called, he played well. You saw it, I saw it. PFF saw it. The tweet was confusing. It said something and the picture said another. Did you not read that bit?
March 10, 20232 yr 14 minutes ago, rrfierce said: The tweet was confusing. It said something and the picture said another. Did you not read that bit? At a quick glance it is worded a bit weird, but it's absolutely talking about the regular season and going into the SB. Either way, the point stands.
March 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Swoop said: At a quick glance it is worded a bit weird, but it's absolutely talking about the regular season and going into the SB. Either way, the point stands. I'm not even sure what the arguement is about?
March 10, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, rrfierce said: I'm not even sure what the arguement is about? Summary: I'm fine with letting Hargrave and CJGJ walk because I'm confident in what I've seen from Williams and Blankenship and look forward to seeing the latter two get bigger roles on the team.
March 10, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, rrfierce said: I'm not even sure what the arguement is about? I was saying that Blank being the highest graded rookie going into and in the SB over a guy like Pacheco who clearly had a better year/game shows how dumb PFF is.
March 10, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, Swoop said: I was saying that Blank being the highest graded rookie going into and in the SB over a guy like Pacheco who clearly had a better year/game shows how dumb PFF is.
March 10, 20232 yr 44 minutes ago, brkmsn said: Neat. Aaron Rodgers received a negative grade from PFF some years back for 330+ passing yards, 5 TDs and 0 INT.
March 10, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, brkmsn said: Summary: I'm fine with letting Hargrave and CJGJ walk because I'm confident in what I've seen from Williams and Blankenship and look forward to seeing the latter two get bigger roles on the team. Blankenship is fine...next to a strong talent like CJG. Williams is fine...as a backup when you have Cox, Hargrave & Davis. He's not going to be a solid starter.
March 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, NOTW said: Blankenship is fine...next to a strong talent like CJG. Williams is fine...as a backup when you have Cox, Hargrave & Davis. He's not going to be a solid starter. Blankenship was excellent while CJGJ was out. How do you know Williams won't be a "solid starter?" lol --- People said the same thing about Sweat, TJ Edwards, Hurts, etc...
March 10, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, NOTW said: Blankenship is fine...next to a strong talent like CJG. Williams is fine...as a backup when you have Cox, Hargrave & Davis. He's not going to be a solid starter. I think your going to see Milton will be better than you think. Being a 3rd round investment with similar size and traits as Hargrave, he has a chance to develop into a starter. He just needs to get stronger this offseason and get an opportunity to showcase that this season.
March 10, 20232 yr On 3/9/2023 at 8:15 AM, brkmsn said: I have no problem letting both Hargrave and CJGJ walk. It's time for Williams and Blankenship to get bigger roles. If we didn't already have replacements waiting, I would have a different mindset. Blankenship can be the Epps replacement. Bringing back CJGJ wouldn't stop Blankenship from starting.
Create an account or sign in to comment