I don't think David Wilson is ready. (1 Viewer)

[Eminence]

Fork him for this year, hope he puts on some weight this offseason; refine technique a little bit. Grasp playbook, etc.

Some players need to be developed differently. People can get injured if thrown to the wolves. In practice he'll face monsters but his teammates won't be trying to injure him.

Gotta trust him, he's got two rings.

 

[GCP]

LOCK

 

[Eminence]

Cut him, put him on IR, whatever he's not ready to play in the NFL.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

LOCK

+1

 

[Badgers Fan]

Time to toot my own horn. I said this PRE-SEASON. Calling this now is weak sauce.

 

[49er fan]

LOCK

+1

Finally a thread about David Wilson

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Time to toot my own horn.

No it isn't.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

LOCK

+1

Finally a thread about David Wilson

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=658017

 

[steveski]

LOCK

+1

Finally a thread about David Wilson

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=658017

Turn your sarcasm detector back on.

 

[shader]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

LOCK

+1

Finally a thread about David Wilson

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=658017

Turn your sarcasm detector back on.

Coffee hasn't kicked in yet. I was agreeing with the other two though. Trying to keep all thoughts in one thread. Too much for my ADD

 

[shadyridr]

WOW THANKS FOR THE INSIGHT CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

 

[Banger]

WW material at this point. He was worth a shot but right now he's 3rd on the depth chart at best.

 

[Khy]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

wilson's time isnt right now, if giants make a run later in year though he will be an important cog. not in the sense that he is going to get 15 touches. More in the way that bradshaw was used in the 09 SB run.

 

[mphtrilogy]

was my draft slpper.. oh well. held onto him for this game... now i go trolling for a backup somehwere with some potential...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.

IIRC early in week 2 he was targeted with a pass, and he was staring at a defender bearing down on him, looked afraid of getting hit, and he alligator-armed the pass. I agree that he needs more touches to build confidence and gain some momentum, but he's certainly not helping himself. Meanwhile Brown took immediate advantage of the opportunity he got when Bradshaw went down. Coughlin has an obligation to develop his young first round draft pick, but he has a more important obligation to win games. Should Wilson have gotten more touches in garbage time last night? Maybe. It seems to us like that would be an obvious spot to let the rookie build back some confidence, but far be it from me to question the coach who has won two of the last five Super Bowls. I have to assume he knows what he's doing. He doesn't care about developing Wilson into a fantasy stud, he cares about doing what's best for the team to win games and try to win another championship. Maybe what we imagine Wilson's role to be isn't the same thing that Coughlin envisions.

 

[zamboni]

I agree that last night might have been a good time to let Wilson to get some garbage carries, but can't argue with Coughlin's success.

He's got his reasons, and it may be more than the fumble - who knows. But to say they're not developing their first round pick is pretty short-sighted. It's still been only 3 games - I imagine Wilson will get his chance, just a matter of when Coughlin thinks he's earned it.

 

[rzrback77]

Sometimes the skill level of all NFL players gets dismissed somewhat. There are definitely skill differences between 1st and 5th round picks and undrafted players, but the lower round guys have much more ability than we typically give them credit for. Then there is the competitiveness and heart of them that we can't always see. Wilson most definitely had his confidence severely shaken by that early fumble in the first game and he may still be shell-shocked. Brown on the other hand has had to work extremely hard over the past two years just to get into position to have a chance. Sometimes, those hard working moderate talent level guys are able to seize the opportunity better.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Where is that guy who said "David Wilson is going to have a better season than Any other rookie RB and its not even close, Mark it down"?

 

[hxperson]

However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN

I apologize in advance for being the spelling/grammar police, but I see this often and it is really starting to bug me. I believe the term you are looking for is Cro-Magnon. Curmudgeon means an ill-tempered and sour person.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Where is that guy who said "David Wilson is going to have a better season than Any other rookie RB and its not even close, Mark it down"?

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Its game 3 and we're talking about the giants failing to develop a draft pick? that is ridiculous. Wilson has a well documented fumbling problem you're not going to give him any decent number of carries in a game until he proves otherwise. If anything he will get a buncha touches in a blowout L, not a blowout W. right? In Tom and Jerry we trust. Despite their recent evaluation of college linemen, I have no reason to doubt them. And 'Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation.' You gotta be kidding me dude. I think you mean as a Wilson owner I've been really upset...' Giants O is playing great, no need to be upset..

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Where is that guy who said "David Wilson is going to have a better season than Any other rookie RB and its not even close, Mark it down"?

Not sure, but we better find him quick so we can berate him for his idiocy.

 

[Shutout]

However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN

I apologize in advance for being the spelling/grammar police, but I see this often and it is really starting to bug me. I believe the term you are looking for is Cro-Magnon. Curmudgeon means an ill-tempered and sour person.

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Its game 3 and we're talking about the giants failing to develop a draft pick? that is ridiculous. Wilson has a well documented fumbling problem you're not going to give him any decent number of carries in a game until he proves otherwise. If anything he will get a buncha touches in a blowout L, not a blowout W. right? In Tom and Jerry we trust. Despite their recent evaluation of college linemen, I have no reason to doubt them. And 'Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation.' You gotta be kidding me dude. I think you mean as a Wilson owner I've been really upset...' Giants O is playing great, no need to be upset..

Its not ridiculous at all. With the high price you paid to get him and the average life span of a RB, especially, you need to play them if you are going to. What are you going to do? Put him in moth balls and break him out in 4 years? As much as every coach in this league talks about the importance of reps and practice, there is NO excuse not to play this guy in any blowout. The REAL short-sightedness is when you're too stubborn to see that and you are holding this guy back from showing you what he has or doesn't. You're never going to find out by standing him on the sideline and scowling at him, making him feel like a kid in a classroom corner. It may only seem like a few games to some people, but this is their career and the window is small. If the Skins were sitting RGIII or the Colts were sitting Luck or even if the Browns were sitting TRICH, you would have people screaming out of their mind to just play the guy and see what you have in them. You get no benefit from not finding out when you are at a point in the game where the player can't possibly cause you a loss.

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Its game 3 and we're talking about the giants failing to develop a draft pick? that is ridiculous. Wilson has a well documented fumbling problem you're not going to give him any decent number of carries in a game until he proves otherwise. If anything he will get a buncha touches in a blowout L, not a blowout W. right? In Tom and Jerry we trust. Despite their recent evaluation of college linemen, I have no reason to doubt them. And 'Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation.' You gotta be kidding me dude. I think you mean as a Wilson owner I've been really upset...' Giants O is playing great, no need to be upset..

Its not ridiculous at all. With the high price you paid to get him and the average life span of a RB, especially, you need to play them if you are going to. What are you going to do? Put him in moth balls and break him out in 4 years? As much as every coach in this league talks about the importance of reps and practice, there is NO excuse not to play this guy in any blowout. The REAL short-sightedness is when you're too stubborn to see that and you are holding this guy back from showing you what he has or doesn't. You're never going to find out by standing him on the sideline and scowling at him, making him feel like a kid in a classroom corner. It may only seem like a few games to some people, but this is their career and the window is small. If the Skins were sitting RGIII or the Colts were sitting Luck or even if the Browns were sitting TRICH, you would have people screaming out of their mind to just play the guy and see what you have in them. You get no benefit from not finding out when you are at a point in the game where the player can't possibly cause you a loss.

OK, so you expect what? 20 touches when he has shown he isn't ready yet? By your definition every early draft pick should play immediately? Admit it, you're a David Wilson owner. ADMIT IT!I didn't mean to say ridiculous. I meant to say ri-DONK-ulous!!

 

[hxperson]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Its game 3 and we're talking about the giants failing to develop a draft pick? that is ridiculous. Wilson has a well documented fumbling problem you're not going to give him any decent number of carries in a game until he proves otherwise. If anything he will get a buncha touches in a blowout L, not a blowout W. right? In Tom and Jerry we trust. Despite their recent evaluation of college linemen, I have no reason to doubt them. And 'Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation.' You gotta be kidding me dude. I think you mean as a Wilson owner I've been really upset...' Giants O is playing great, no need to be upset..

Its not ridiculous at all. With the high price you paid to get him and the average life span of a RB, especially, you need to play them if you are going to. What are you going to do? Put him in moth balls and break him out in 4 years? As much as every coach in this league talks about the importance of reps and practice, there is NO excuse not to play this guy in any blowout. The REAL short-sightedness is when you're too stubborn to see that and you are holding this guy back from showing you what he has or doesn't. You're never going to find out by standing him on the sideline and scowling at him, making him feel like a kid in a classroom corner. It may only seem like a few games to some people, but this is their career and the window is small. If the Skins were sitting RGIII or the Colts were sitting Luck or even if the Browns were sitting TRICH, you would have people screaming out of their mind to just play the guy and see what you have in them. You get no benefit from not finding out when you are at a point in the game where the player can't possibly cause you a loss.

OK, so you expect what? 20 touches when he has shown he isn't ready yet? By your definition every early draft pick should play immediately? Admit it, you're a David Wilson owner. ADMIT IT!I didn't mean to say ridiculous. I meant to say ri-DONK-ulous!!

 

[DoubleG]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Anyone else notice that Brown had some nice holes for him all night, and the first time Wilson touched the ball he got lit up in the backfield haha? I think Coughlin told his OL to ease up, let the rookie get hit, see if he fumbles again.

 

[DoubleG]

Anyone else notice that Brown had some nice holes for him all night, and the first time Wilson touched the ball he got lit up in the backfield haha? I think Coughlin told his OL to ease up, let the rookie get hit, see if he fumbles again.

Oh stop.

 

[Ray_T]

I agree that last night might have been a good time to let Wilson to get some garbage carries, but can't argue with Coughlin's success.He's got his reasons, and it may be more than the fumble - who knows. But to say they're not developing their first round pick is pretty short-sighted. It's still been only 3 games - I imagine Wilson will get his chance, just a matter of when Coughlin thinks he's earned it.

it's possible that he hasnt resolved his fumbling problem in practice. The coach is not going to put him back in that situation if he is gonna put the ball on the ground again.If this is the case, I would suggest at this point (considering how the media jumped all over it) he's probably doing the kid a favour. can you imagine what it would do to the kid if he fumbled and Carolina returned it for a TD and it sparked a comeback? The media would roast him alive.while I dont think this scenario is likely, why take the chance? If they figure they want to take more time to develop him, I'm not sure it's a bad call. There is also something to giving a kid out of college a year to learn the system and mature a bit more physically so he can take the pounding that an NFL schedule will dish out.

 

[MAC_32]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.

His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

 

[Ray_T]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

yeah, that and holding onto the ball.

 

[MAC_32]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

yeah, that and holding onto the ball.

Also a big problem with him in college.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

But we aren't talking about a self-fulfilling prophecy here. It's easy to say he's bad because of his stats because his stats are bad because of the random chance of 6 carries. Go back and look at any player in history and I think you can fin that EVERY player has a stretch of 6 carries that look ugly. But that's not the point in this discussion. The point is: You've got a guy that, for whatever reason isn't getting any opportunity to play, despite being drafted in the 1st round. If you want to say he doesn't get a chance when the game is in the balance then I completely agree; don't risk the team's entire week on a guy that is unprepared. But when the game has been decided, then take advantage of your chance to train the man. Give him some work and find out what he is.

If you say a man can't play because he is a fumbler, all I can tell you is I guarantee he will never fumble again...because a man can't prove you wrong or correct if he doesn't have the OPPORTUNITY. Its like anything else in life. I can train you how to fly an aircraft in a classroom and if you crash in the simulator, if I say I won't let you fly for real because you crash in practice, then you'll never get a chance to fly.

 

[Shutout]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.

His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

he carried the ball 462 times in college. Trent richardson had 540. Its not like this guys was a one year player or anything.How many times did he fumble in college? And how many times did Doug Martin/Richardson/Peterson/Mccoy, or any number of other guys fumble in college?

 

[DoubleG]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

And there is a tipping point in these things. Coughlin can write his own check right now because he has been so successful recently and so, he gets the benefit of the doubt. However, Tom Coughlin is also an old-school CURMUDGEN and I've seen this before. Mike Ditka was an AWESOME coach. And he had wild success. But there came a point when his old-school philosophy and stuborness began hampering his players and stunting their potential growth.

Yes, protecting the ball is vital in football. But you can't sulk on that and stop developing the guy (which is what you are doing with your FIRST round draft pick if you aren't willing to play him in , at least, the end of a blowout).

Don't compare him to Ditka. Coughlin isn't some old guy who won in the past and now has let the game pass him by. He just won a Super Bowl last year. I'm sure he has a better idea of how to manage his roster than disgruntled David Wilson fantasy owners.

Like I said, THERE IS A TIPPING POINT. And, like I said, I trust the coach to know most about this situation .And I'm not an owner of Wilson. You can definitely have your opinion any way you shape it and right now, its very easy for you to appear correct because you can always fall back on the fact that the Giants have been good recently. I acknowledged that in my post. However, if you really want to discuss this and not just say "Don't!", then let's start on the point:

Are you or are you not failing to develop your first round draft pick if you won't even give him a small handful of reps at the end of a game that is clearly decided? There is a point when you go from "making a point" to "being stubborn and failing to take advantage of an opportunity." There aren't many games in the NFL that come down to easy wins and good opportunities to play your backups. They had their backups in at every position they could afford one late in the game. If you draft a man in the first round, you might want to play him in the ideal opportunity.

Yeah, shutout I'd agree with all of your points. Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation. In week one it had the look like he was going to see quite a few touches in that game then he fumbled and didn't see the field again. Now he's see what 3 attempts in the past 2 games? I'm almost wondering if there is something else going on here besides that fumble. I'm not sure what though, I just can't understand how even when your #1 RB goes down you don't give your #1 draft pick at least some time to show what he's got.I also agree with what you said in terms of playing time. You can't give a guy 2 carries in a game and expect him to make or break them. Hell his one carry this week was a blown block. As I watched that play develop I thought it was going to be another fumble cause the defender was landing on him as Eli's hand was pulling away from the ball. Coughlin might be old and stubborn but he isn't stupid. He surely understands that you need to give the guy some touches to see what you have in him.

Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Its game 3 and we're talking about the giants failing to develop a draft pick? that is ridiculous. Wilson has a well documented fumbling problem you're not going to give him any decent number of carries in a game until he proves otherwise. If anything he will get a buncha touches in a blowout L, not a blowout W. right? In Tom and Jerry we trust. Despite their recent evaluation of college linemen, I have no reason to doubt them. And 'Personally, as a Giants homer I've been really upset and at the same time confused with the entire David Wilson situation.' You gotta be kidding me dude. I think you mean as a Wilson owner I've been really upset...' Giants O is playing great, no need to be upset..

Its not ridiculous at all. With the high price you paid to get him and the average life span of a RB, especially, you need to play them if you are going to. What are you going to do? Put him in moth balls and break him out in 4 years? As much as every coach in this league talks about the importance of reps and practice, there is NO excuse not to play this guy in any blowout. The REAL short-sightedness is when you're too stubborn to see that and you are holding this guy back from showing you what he has or doesn't. You're never going to find out by standing him on the sideline and scowling at him, making him feel like a kid in a classroom corner. It may only seem like a few games to some people, but this is their career and the window is small. If the Skins were sitting RGIII or the Colts were sitting Luck or even if the Browns were sitting TRICH, you would have people screaming out of their mind to just play the guy and see what you have in them. You get no benefit from not finding out when you are at a point in the game where the player can't possibly cause you a loss.

OK, so you expect what? 20 touches when he has shown he isn't ready yet? By your definition every early draft pick should play immediately? Admit it, you're a David Wilson owner. ADMIT IT!I didn't mean to say ridiculous. I meant to say ri-DONK-ulous!!

Why..so...serious? No need to yell. And I don't know how you do it in your home with your family, but yelling at people doesn't make you right nor make people say something they have already told you differently. No, I'm not saying give him the ball "X" amount of times, even if other teams are using their rookies in that manner. Every player is different. I said, "give him opportunites" and I trust the team to make the right decision based on how that goes. But, and this is the only thing I've really pointed out, you will never know what you have until you give them a chance and if you draft a guy, especially that high, common sense tells you that you need to see what you have in the investment.

 

[MAC_32]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.

His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

he carried the ball 462 times in college. Trent richardson had 540. Its not like this guys was a one year player or anything.How many times did he fumble in college? And how many times did Doug Martin/Richardson/Peterson/Mccoy, or any number of other guys fumble in college?

Look up this number and you'll see a big reason of what I'm talking about. Read some good breakdowns of his inability to read the hole too. Identifying carries of him vs. Richardson or anyone for that matter is just lazy analysis.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

That's the point: forget the stats for a minute and look at "use" (or lack of use). That is the issue. we don't know what he is because one stubborn old man won't even take the time to see what he has in him. Thankfully Coughlin wasn't the coach when Barry Sanders came into the league. that game in his rookie year when he went 5 for 1 yard would have done him in and if we would have looked at stats, he would have been buried in someone's depth chart too, I guess. Long story short, I just simply think (for what that is worth, which is nothing but a thought in a forum) that no one is ever going to know what this kid is or isn't until he actually gets some run and, wrong or right, I questioned why a coach would be so stubborn as to not give a highly-drafted player a few carries at the end of the game when it didn't effect the outcome. How will a player ever prove anything if he isn't given an opportunity to?

what is the difference between his stats and Andre brown's? In Brown's only other two attempts before this year, he had 2 carries for -1 and 2 carries for -1? People could have easily looked at his stats and said the same thing being said of Brown now. the difference is OPPORTUNITY.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

That's the point: forget the stats for a minute and look at "use" (or lack of use). That is the issue. we don't know what he is because one stubborn old man won't even take the time to see what he has in him. Thankfully Coughlin wasn't the coach when Barry Sanders came into the league. that game in his rookie year when he went 5 for 1 yard would have done him in and if we would have looked at stats, he would have been buried in someone's depth chart too, I guess. Long story short, I just simply think (for what that is worth, which is nothing but a thought in a forum) that no one is ever going to know what this kid is or isn't until he actually gets some run and, wrong or right, I questioned why a coach would be so stubborn as to not give a highly-drafted player a few carries at the end of the game when it didn't effect the outcome. How will a player ever prove anything if he isn't given an opportunity to?

what is the difference between his stats and Andre brown's? In Brown's only other two attempts before this year, he had 2 carries for -1 and 2 carries for -1? People could have easily looked at his stats and said the same thing being said of Brown now. the difference is OPPORTUNITY.

 

[Shutout]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.

His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

he carried the ball 462 times in college. Trent richardson had 540. Its not like this guys was a one year player or anything.How many times did he fumble in college? And how many times did Doug Martin/Richardson/Peterson/Mccoy, or any number of other guys fumble in college?

Look up this number and you'll see a big reason of what I'm talking about. Read some good breakdowns of his inability to read the hole too. Identifying carries of him vs. Richardson or anyone for that matter is just lazy analysis.

No, lazy is I asked you a question and you didn't answer it and you didn't offer a reason as to WHY its not a valid comparison.The statement being LAZILY thrown around here is that he's raw. Ok, define raw. Usually when people say that in football, it is because aplayer hasn't played much. Well, he's played every bit as much as some of these guys people are trying to put into the HOF already. Its not a direct comparison to any of the players named but it is a REAL, researched FACT that he has not played in significantly less games than some of these others. So why call him raw? Define your parameter.

And then, if people are going to just casually throw out "yeah, that was a problem in college too", then tell us about it. You should know that info. Tell us: How many times did he actually fumble and how does that compare to his peers? That's all that is being asked for. Playing the "is not! Is too! game is lazy. I'm not playing that game with you. i'm asking you to give me your data and show me how 462 is raw while other guys with similar numbers are not. And I'm asking for the number of fumbles and how that compares to peers.

And this isn't directed particularly at you. It just happened to be your post this time. but I've found out a lot of posting that goes on is just peat and repeat and people echo a lot of what has been said but many times its not ture at all. So show me the Carfax. You might have the data and if so, great (I honestly don't know the number unless I go look for it right now) but let's see how 462=raw and let's see if that fumble number is really all that crazy (enough to say it was an issue).

Quick example (Because I'm not one of these people that has all these stats at my fingertips).

CJ spiller had 477 carries in his last three seasons and Wilson had 462. So explain to me hwhat makes Wilson Raw.

CJ Spiller had 4 fumbles in his last year and Wilson had 5. So explain how that makes one guy "have issues" and its never mentioned as an issue for the other. Just simple stuff like that. I saw Cam Newton had 6 in one year in college. Russell Wilson had 7. What defines labeling the guy as having issues, beyond hearing someone say it on tv and just adopting it?

 

[DoubleG]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

That's the point: forget the stats for a minute and look at "use" (or lack of use). That is the issue. we don't know what he is because one stubborn old man won't even take the time to see what he has in him. Thankfully Coughlin wasn't the coach when Barry Sanders came into the league. that game in his rookie year when he went 5 for 1 yard would have done him in and if we would have looked at stats, he would have been buried in someone's depth chart too, I guess. Long story short, I just simply think (for what that is worth, which is nothing but a thought in a forum) that no one is ever going to know what this kid is or isn't until he actually gets some run and, wrong or right, I questioned why a coach would be so stubborn as to not give a highly-drafted player a few carries at the end of the game when it didn't effect the outcome. How will a player ever prove anything if he isn't given an opportunity to?

what is the difference between his stats and Andre brown's? In Brown's only other two attempts before this year, he had 2 carries for -1 and 2 carries for -1? People could have easily looked at his stats and said the same thing being said of Brown now. the difference is OPPORTUNITY.

You have, now twice, COMPLETELY missed my point.Neither I, nor (more importantly) Coughlin are judging Wilson on stats alone. As you pointed out, if Coughlin were judging Andre Brown on stats, he shouldn't have played either. Clearly Coughlin sees (or doesn't see) something as far as as Wilson's game is concerned in practice. I don't pretend to know what it is - but Coughlin is an experienced NFL coach - he is not just doing this to "teach the rook a lesson" - clearly something else is at work here.

BTW, the Barry Sanders comparison is absolutely ludicrous - and wrong. First off, Sanders was drafted 3rd overall and widely considered the best RB in the class - Wilson was drafted 32nd overall - and considered top 5 at best. His first NFL carry, Barry went for 18 yards. In his first 9 carries he rushed for 71 yards - thats 7.1 YPC. While it's true he did have a 5 carry game it was against PITT in a gamne the Lions lost 23-3. That was his 4th game - but I think the first 3 - where he had gone 39 for 254 and 3TDs (6.5 YPC) and added 7 receptions for 106 yards would have kept Coughlin from benching him. I think you are trying WAY too hard.

 

[Shutout]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

That's the point: forget the stats for a minute and look at "use" (or lack of use). That is the issue. we don't know what he is because one stubborn old man won't even take the time to see what he has in him. Thankfully Coughlin wasn't the coach when Barry Sanders came into the league. that game in his rookie year when he went 5 for 1 yard would have done him in and if we would have looked at stats, he would have been buried in someone's depth chart too, I guess. Long story short, I just simply think (for what that is worth, which is nothing but a thought in a forum) that no one is ever going to know what this kid is or isn't until he actually gets some run and, wrong or right, I questioned why a coach would be so stubborn as to not give a highly-drafted player a few carries at the end of the game when it didn't effect the outcome. How will a player ever prove anything if he isn't given an opportunity to?

what is the difference between his stats and Andre brown's? In Brown's only other two attempts before this year, he had 2 carries for -1 and 2 carries for -1? People could have easily looked at his stats and said the same thing being said of Brown now. the difference is OPPORTUNITY.

You have, now twice, COMPLETELY missed my point.Neither I, nor (more importantly) Coughlin are judging Wilson on stats alone. As you pointed out, if Coughlin were judging Andre Brown on stats, he shouldn't have played either. Clearly Coughlin sees (or doesn't see) something as far as as Wilson's game is concerned in practice. I don't pretend to know what it is - but Coughlin is an experienced NFL coach - he is not just doing this to "teach the rook a lesson" - clearly something else is at work here.

BTW, the Barry Sanders comparison is absolutely ludicrous - and wrong. First off, Sanders was drafted 3rd overall and widely considered the best RB in the class - Wilson was drafted 32nd overall - and considered top 5 at best. His first NFL carry, Barry went for 18 yards. In his first 9 carries he rushed for 71 yards - thats 7.1 YPC. While it's true he did have a 5 carry game it was against PITT in a gamne the Lions lost 23-3. That was his 4th game - but I think the first 3 - where he had gone 39 for 254 and 3TDs (6.5 YPC) and added 7 receptions for 106 yards would have kept Coughlin from benching him. I think you are trying WAY too hard.

If you can't tell us what that "something else' is, then this is nothing more than speculation. It is your opinion and it is different than someone's opinion that says he IS just in the dog house. There is no point to be missed. I said something. I questioned the thinking. THAT WAS THE POINT. everything said after it is just speculation by everyone because you don't know anymore that there is something else to it than I (or anyone else knows that it isn't just simply old school way of doing things). that is WHY it was a "spoken out loud question/thought. It didn't require an explanation because I know when I say it that no one short of tom Coughlin himself coming in here saying "here is why I am doing this" is anything more than just conjecture.

Re: the Barry Sanders reply. This is why we can't hardly have decent conversations around here anymore. If someone says anything in general, people shout for comparisons. If you give a name (just a freaking name), people automatically try to link the two. Its impossible to say something simple anymore that people don't want to try to dissect 50 ways and mke it fit THEIR personal model. I mentioned barry sanders because, off the top of my head, I know him to be a succesful player who has had MANY streaks of plays where he had negative or zero yards. So I mention him. Not to compare the players but to MENTION a player that I know anyone reading this can recall and to point out that EVERYONE has these types of days. It doesnt have to be the 1st, 51st, or 101st game they play and compare them directly and mention who it was agianst and all that. its just to SIMPLY say that look at players...any of them..all along their career and you will find rough patches and to merely suggest that what you have seen in 2 measly opportunities in a few games just might not be the entire book on Wilson. Its as ridiculous as TRICH IS A BEAST..one week later.TRICH IS CRAP...one week later...TRICH IS A BEAST AND I TOLD YOU ALL!. People really need to be realistic.

 

[MAC_32]

His rawness as a football player is why i never considered him top 5 in rookie drafts. Fantastic athlete, enormous potential - not there as a football player. If there's a team that will it's the Giants, great situation for him, but not this year.

His negative 20 yard run against Michigan last year is the thesis for everything that's wrong with his game right now. Once he gets the mental part of the game, if he does, watch out.

he carried the ball 462 times in college. Trent richardson had 540. Its not like this guys was a one year player or anything.How many times did he fumble in college? And how many times did Doug Martin/Richardson/Peterson/Mccoy, or any number of other guys fumble in college?

Look up this number and you'll see a big reason of what I'm talking about. Read some good breakdowns of his inability to read the hole too. Identifying carries of him vs. Richardson or anyone for that matter is just lazy analysis.

No, lazy is I asked you a question and you didn't answer it and you didn't offer a reason as to WHY its not a valid comparison.The statement being LAZILY thrown around here is that he's raw. Ok, define raw. Usually when people say that in football, it is because aplayer hasn't played much. Well, he's played every bit as much as some of these guys people are trying to put into the HOF already. Its not a direct comparison to any of the players named but it is a REAL, researched FACT that he has not played in significantly less games than some of these others. So why call him raw? Define your parameter.

And then, if people are going to just casually throw out "yeah, that was a problem in college too", then tell us about it. You should know that info. Tell us: How many times did he actually fumble and how does that compare to his peers? That's all that is being asked for. Playing the "is not! Is too! game is lazy. I'm not playing that game with you. i'm asking you to give me your data and show me how 462 is raw while other guys with similar numbers are not. And I'm asking for the number of fumbles and how that compares to peers.

And this isn't directed particularly at you. It just happened to be your post this time. but I've found out a lot of posting that goes on is just peat and repeat and people echo a lot of what has been said but many times its not ture at all. So show me the Carfax. You might have the data and if so, great (I honestly don't know the number unless I go look for it right now) but let's see how 462=raw and let's see if that fumble number is really all that crazy (enough to say it was an issue).

Quick example (Because I'm not one of these people that has all these stats at my fingertips).

CJ spiller had 477 carries in his last three seasons and Wilson had 462. So explain to me hwhat makes Wilson Raw.

CJ Spiller had 4 fumbles in his last year and Wilson had 5. So explain how that makes one guy "have issues" and its never mentioned as an issue for the other. Just simple stuff like that. I saw Cam Newton had 6 in one year in college. Russell Wilson had 7. What defines labeling the guy as having issues, beyond hearing someone say it on tv and just adopting it?

In Wilson's case raw is he doesn't know how to play the position - he has ball security, play recognition, decision making, and possibly confidence issues. These were the same case in college, I'm sure I've mentioned it before on this board too. If you really want the specific data on how many, per touch, per game, etc. I'm sure you can find it. I don't really come here to argue, I come here to absorb facts and opinion and share what I know and think. I'm not a numbers guy, I read numbers all the time and apply them to what I already know and think - support a previous opinion or sway one. Same goes for non-quantitative data. Baseball is more of a numbers sport than football, there is statistical analysis that shows predicting production in that game can be done in a reliable way. There isn't in football, so I don't put as much stock in numbers - it's a tool, but only one of many.

 

[DoubleG]

I trust the coach to know most about this situation BUT, with that being said:

In Wilson's defense, you can't perform if they don't let you play. Even Shady McCoy and jamal Charles and Ben Tate and CJ Spiller, and all these other guys that everyone said "too small" or "can't pick up the blitz yet" or whatever, have shown they CAN play but showed nothing when they were getting 1-4 carries a game.

I agree with your basic premise, but the "fact" that McCoy, Charles, Tate, Spiller, etc. showed nothing with limited carries is simply wrong. McCoy and Charles buth rushed for 5+ YPC in their first games on 9 and 5 rushes respectively. Through 3 games, 3 of the 4 averaged 4+ YPC or higher - only Spiller didn't, but he went 4 carries for 29 yards, 3 receptions and a TD in his 3rd NFL game. Even in limited play, those guys all showed "flashes".Through 3 games Wilson is averaging 1.67 YPC - that's almost 1 yard less per carry than Michael "Fall Down Fatty" Turner. That's not an example of not getting an opportunity - that's not on example of just not showing anything - that's an example of showing bad.

There are very few true "busts" at RB with Wilson's talent - and it is far too early to call him that or even hint that that may end up what's happening. But when you go from 2nd off the bench early in week 1, to 2 touches, with the normal starter hurt (in effect 4th RB on your own team) - that's a pretty significant drop - and not all of that can be attributed to Coughlin's "rookie intolerance". Some of that likely has to do with what Wilson is or is not showing in practice.

Let's be realistic here. The basis of my comment is about a guy that is getting no opportunities on the field.These other guys, even though they were given relatively little opportunities and people WERE questioning them highly, asking if they were bad picks, etc, still; all these guys even had more opportunity.

In their first three games:

Tate-66 carries

Charles-13 carries (and one of those games was a 3 for 7 yard day)

McCoy-34 carries

That is a ton of more opportunity than Wilson only getting 6 carries in three games. Geez. Give a man 6 carries in three games and all it takes is one bad carry to make the stats look bad.

Ummm...they've all been bad. He has a long of 4. Like I said - I agree with your basic premise (I think you missed that part). Have his opportunities been limited? Yes. But I would suggest that there is more to it than the handful of touches. He is dropping like a rock in the RB depth chart in NY for more than just 1 fumble. Like I said, Coughlin must see something (or a lack of something) at practice. I am no Giants homer, so I don't know what the practice reports/ beat reporters have to say. But based on what I have seen and his stats, he clearly will not be breaking into any decent % of the touches in that backfield any time soon.

That's the point: forget the stats for a minute and look at "use" (or lack of use). That is the issue. we don't know what he is because one stubborn old man won't even take the time to see what he has in him. Thankfully Coughlin wasn't the coach when Barry Sanders came into the league. that game in his rookie year when he went 5 for 1 yard would have done him in and if we would have looked at stats, he would have been buried in someone's depth chart too, I guess. Long story short, I just simply think (for what that is worth, which is nothing but a thought in a forum) that no one is ever going to know what this kid is or isn't until he actually gets some run and, wrong or right, I questioned why a coach would be so stubborn as to not give a highly-drafted player a few carries at the end of the game when it didn't effect the outcome. How will a player ever prove anything if he isn't given an opportunity to?

what is the difference between his stats and Andre brown's? In Brown's only other two attempts before this year, he had 2 carries for -1 and 2 carries for -1? People could have easily looked at his stats and said the same thing being said of Brown now. the difference is OPPORTUNITY.

You have, now twice, COMPLETELY missed my point.Neither I, nor (more importantly) Coughlin are judging Wilson on stats alone. As you pointed out, if Coughlin were judging Andre Brown on stats, he shouldn't have played either. Clearly Coughlin sees (or doesn't see) something as far as as Wilson's game is concerned in practice. I don't pretend to know what it is - but Coughlin is an experienced NFL coach - he is not just doing this to "teach the rook a lesson" - clearly something else is at work here.

BTW, the Barry Sanders comparison is absolutely ludicrous - and wrong. First off, Sanders was drafted 3rd overall and widely considered the best RB in the class - Wilson was drafted 32nd overall - and considered top 5 at best. His first NFL carry, Barry went for 18 yards. In his first 9 carries he rushed for 71 yards - thats 7.1 YPC. While it's true he did have a 5 carry game it was against PITT in a gamne the Lions lost 23-3. That was his 4th game - but I think the first 3 - where he had gone 39 for 254 and 3TDs (6.5 YPC) and added 7 receptions for 106 yards would have kept Coughlin from benching him. I think you are trying WAY too hard.

If you can't tell us what that "something else' is, then this is nothing more than speculation. It is your opinion and it is different than someone's opinion that says he IS just in the dog house. There is no point to be missed. I said something. I questioned the thinking. THAT WAS THE POINT. everything said after it is just speculation by everyone because you don't know anymore that there is something else to it than I (or anyone else knows that it isn't just simply old school way of doing things). that is WHY it was a "spoken out loud question/thought. It didn't require an explanation because I know when I say it that no one short of tom Coughlin himself coming in here saying "here is why I am doing this" is anything more than just conjecture.

Re: the Barry Sanders reply. This is why we can't hardly have decent conversations around here anymore. If someone says anything in general, people shout for comparisons. If you give a name (just a freaking name), people automatically try to link the two. Its impossible to say something simple anymore that people don't want to try to dissect 50 ways and mke it fit THEIR personal model. I mentioned barry sanders because, off the top of my head, I know him to be a succesful player who has had MANY streaks of plays where he had negative or zero yards. So I mention him. Not to compare the players but to MENTION a player that I know anyone reading this can recall and to point out that EVERYONE has these types of days. It doesnt have to be the 1st, 51st, or 101st game they play and compare them directly and mention who it was agianst and all that. its just to SIMPLY say that look at players...any of them..all along their career and you will find rough patches and to merely suggest that what you have seen in 2 measly opportunities in a few games just might not be the entire book on Wilson. Its as rediculous as TRICH IS A BEAST..one week later.TRICH IS CRAP...one week later...TRICH IS A BEAST AND I TOLD YOU ALL!. People really need to be realistic.

Honestly, in my time on these boards I have placed exactly 2 people on ignore. 1 of them was banned shortly after. You are coming very close to being the 3rd.Seriously, anyone disagress with anything you say, and now the whole internet is ruined because we "can't have a decent conversation" - you pulled stats completely out of context and tried to draw a parallel where clearly none exsists. Wilson's stats are not a bad patch after several weeks of quality production. Sorry you drafted Wilson higher than he apparently should have gone.

I'm done here.

Have a great season guy.

 

[nxmehta]

David Wilson threads always end well. :IBTL: