The Giants traded up to draft all three, so they cost us multiple draft picks. And none of them amounted to much as players, though the book isn't closed yet on Nasib.
They were all Reese's picks, too. Obviously, there is a degree of luck involved in drafting but I think the lesson is that it's probably better to have more picks than to trade up for someone you really want.
Unless, of course, that someone is Aaron Donald. :-)
i agree with the basic principle that it's better to have more picks than fewer picks. given how uncertain the draft is, statistically it seems like you're more likely to be successful with more picks (as opposed to marginally higher picks, but in a lesser quantity).
that said, this is not the best way to make the point. 20/20 hindsight on three guys who didn't pan out isn't really persuasive. if you want to show us draft performance (and i'd be curious how you measure that) broken down by team and then broken down by the number of picks each team had, that'd be something interesting.
Although that was Acorsi. Can anyone recall any players we gave up multiple picks for that turned out decent besides Shockey and Eli?
One interesting thing about the Alford trade, it was "forced" by Wellington Mara of all people. As I recall back at the time, the Giants wanted to draft WRs and in looking at the board, all their targets were getting picked. So Mara made a comment along the lines of "we are going to have only dog food left to pick from" and that made Accorsi pick up the phone to trade up.
I think Sinorice Moss was also a pick the Giants traded up for as well.
One of the best trade up moves from the Giants was in 1984, they traded their 2nd and 5th round picks to the Redskins to move back into the first round and drafted William Roberts out of Ohio State. Roberts struggled as a tackle but turned into a Pro Bowl guard. The Redskins got a DT Bob Slater and a LB Jeff Pegues. Neither of those guys amounted to anything in the NFL, and not close to impact Roberts provided.
Matt et al: Just a minor correction on the Alford trade story. The 'dog food' quote certainly was Mara's line but he only really just okayed the trade. When the Giants came to make their #2 pick that year Accorsi wanted Jurevicius while Fassel went to the mat for Alford and my sources tell me it got very heated. As the GM Ernie got his wish, but I was told the whole room went real quiet for awhile because everyone feared a replay of the lingering animosity that followed the Wheatley pick stuff with Dan Reeves a few years earlier. As a compromise Accorsi suggested trading up to also get Alford and Mara uttered the dog food line when he asked to approve the deal.
And the whole thread is interesting as it relates to something I have been doing a little research on regarding the concept of 'going after the guy you really like!' In fact I have no issue with the Nassib or Barden deals because they were both guys who if they had/do 'play to their physical potential' they could/might be special players. However, in a very general sense I have seen little evidence that guys 'teams really like' - and this applies to all teams not just the Giants - have any greater success rate at the position they are picked than the average pick at that spot. Just a couple of examples, remember in 2004 just about everyone in the NFL - including I would think close to 90% of the BBI - wanted Robert Gallery. and 2002 when everybody was hot after Ryan Sims.
I wasn't trying to rate the overall performance of the Giants draft. I was merely making the point that Reese is 0 for 3 in trading up. It seemed particularly relevant with the negative reports about Nasib.
They were the players selected with the low-value picks the Giants gave up in those trades. Considering that the total cost of those three trade-ups was just two fairly late sixth-round picks and a late fifth-rounder, it's almost eerie that:
a) All three are legitimate NFL players;
b) They all play positions where gaping holes cost the Giants dearly within a year or two of the relevant drafts (S in 2009; P in 2010; RB in 2013).
Tiny sample size, and the Giants probably wouldn't have taken those players anyway - although Morstead might have been a possibility, since Feagles considered retirement in 2009 and sucked that year. Still pretty weird.
The Giants traded up to draft all three, so they cost us multiple draft picks. And none of them amounted to much as players, though the book isn't closed yet on Nasib.
They were all Reese's picks, too. Obviously, there is a degree of luck involved in drafting but I think the lesson is that it's probably better to have more picks than to trade up for someone you really want.
Jerry - what did i win?
Unless, of course, that someone is Aaron Donald. :-)
Do I win?
They were all Reese's picks, too. Obviously, there is a degree of luck involved in drafting but I think the lesson is that it's probably better to have more picks than to trade up for someone you really want.
Unless, of course, that someone is Aaron Donald. :-)
that said, this is not the best way to make the point. 20/20 hindsight on three guys who didn't pan out isn't really persuasive. if you want to show us draft performance (and i'd be curious how you measure that) broken down by team and then broken down by the number of picks each team had, that'd be something interesting.
One interesting thing about the Alford trade, it was "forced" by Wellington Mara of all people. As I recall back at the time, the Giants wanted to draft WRs and in looking at the board, all their targets were getting picked. So Mara made a comment along the lines of "we are going to have only dog food left to pick from" and that made Accorsi pick up the phone to trade up.
I think Sinorice Moss was also a pick the Giants traded up for as well.
One of the best trade up moves from the Giants was in 1984, they traded their 2nd and 5th round picks to the Redskins to move back into the first round and drafted William Roberts out of Ohio State. Roberts struggled as a tackle but turned into a Pro Bowl guard. The Redskins got a DT Bob Slater and a LB Jeff Pegues. Neither of those guys amounted to anything in the NFL, and not close to impact Roberts provided.
And the whole thread is interesting as it relates to something I have been doing a little research on regarding the concept of 'going after the guy you really like!' In fact I have no issue with the Nassib or Barden deals because they were both guys who if they had/do 'play to their physical potential' they could/might be special players. However, in a very general sense I have seen little evidence that guys 'teams really like' - and this applies to all teams not just the Giants - have any greater success rate at the position they are picked than the average pick at that spot. Just a couple of examples, remember in 2004 just about everyone in the NFL - including I would think close to 90% of the BBI - wanted Robert Gallery. and 2002 when everybody was hot after Ryan Sims.
They were the players selected with the low-value picks the Giants gave up in those trades. Considering that the total cost of those three trade-ups was just two fairly late sixth-round picks and a late fifth-rounder, it's almost eerie that:
a) All three are legitimate NFL players;
b) They all play positions where gaping holes cost the Giants dearly within a year or two of the relevant drafts (S in 2009; P in 2010; RB in 2013).
Tiny sample size, and the Giants probably wouldn't have taken those players anyway - although Morstead might have been a possibility, since Feagles considered retirement in 2009 and sucked that year. Still pretty weird.
They were all Reese's picks, too. Obviously, there is a degree of luck involved in drafting but I think the lesson is that it's probably better to have more picks than to trade up for someone you really want.
Jerry - what did i win?
Unless, of course, that someone is Aaron Donald. :-)