Ten years of premium NYG picks since the Eli draft.

but all the rest played important roles, they were multi-year starters at a minimum. Rd 2 was a disaster.

Webster, Thomas, Beatty, Joseph and Hankins were good picks. Randle and Richburg are ok. There are some bad ones in that round - Moss, Sintim and Austin, but three bad picks over that period doesn't make the round a disaster.

In comment 12076370 Ira said:

Quote:

Webster, Thomas, Beatty, Joseph and Hankins were good picks. Randle and Richburg are ok. There are some bad ones in that round - Moss, Sintim and Austin, but three bad picks over that period doesn't make the round a disaster.

I consider Randle a disappointment, much more was expected of him. And it's too early to judge Richburg (I still have high expectations for him).

As we look ahead to the 2015 draft, the distribution of past picks offers some clues about the team's valuation of different positions.

Maybe good vs. bad picks is inherently a more interesting topic than positional priorities and draft philosophy. On the qualitative side, the Giants have gotten almost nothing from their last seven third round picks, since Manningham. Maybe that's a fluke, based on bad luck with Chad Jones and others; maybe it reflects a swing-for-the-fences approach to the third round; maybe both, with some lousy player evaluation mixed in.

About 10 years ago I wrote a post analyzing the fate of the prior 10 years of overall top ten draft picks. Rough numbers, about 1/6th became real stars, about as many were total busts (a combination of failures and injuries) and the rest were on a continuum from good starters to role player/solid backup types. And that was from the top ten.

The main conclusions I drew from that (and looking at the first 10 picks of the second rounds of a few years later) were that 1) What you hope for from a draft pick and what you can expect on average are quite different. The comments on Randle above triggered this. Yes, he has been less than we hoped. But he has done about what you can expect from a second rounder. The other conclusion is that the historical performance of players in a given draft slot decreases much less rapidly as you move down in draft order than the "trade value charts" would indicate. That is, GM's will almost always overpay (relative to historical outcomes) to move up in the draft.

In comment 12076381 Mike in Boston said:

Quote:

About 10 years ago I wrote a post analyzing the fate of the prior 10 years of overall top ten draft picks. Rough numbers, about 1/6th became real stars, about as many were total busts (a combination of failures and injuries) and the rest were on a continuum from good starters to role player/solid backup types. And that was from the top ten. The main conclusions I drew from that (and looking at the first 10 picks of the second rounds of a few years later) were that 1) What you hope for from a draft pick and what you can expect on average are quite different. The comments on Randle above triggered this. Yes, he has been less than we hoped. But he has done about what you can expect from a second rounder. The other conclusion is that the historical performance of players in a given draft slot decreases much less rapidly as you move down in draft order than the "trade value charts" would indicate. That is, GM's will almost always overpay (relative to historical outcomes) to move up in the draft.

We have certainly missed in the 3rd round and above but the way the draft is, those are hardest rounds to draft correctly. I have never thought the Giants completely have drafted bad. The issue is that all the injuries to the primary picks (who all showed promise or top tier ability) have finally come back to hurt us.

In comment 12076372 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 12076370 Ira said: Quote: Webster, Thomas, Beatty, Joseph and Hankins were good picks. Randle and Richburg are ok. There are some bad ones in that round - Moss, Sintim and Austin, but three bad picks over that period doesn't make the round a disaster. I consider Randle a disappointment, much more was expected of him. And it's too early to judge Richburg (I still have high expectations for him).

That's the problem. People expect too much from 2nd round picks. I did a post a few weeks ago comparing Randle too about 20 other 2nd rounder WR pick over the past few years. Few had better numbers. Only Jordy Nelson has become a true #1 guy the other best players were cobb, Torry smith, alshon Jeffrey but for the most part you should expect guys like Robert woods, Randle or worse like Stephen hill

may bring is if you add more data and put it in perspective.

Year by year:

What starters retired?
What starters left via FA?
What starters are entering the last year of their contract?
What starters had poor seasons?
What starters suffered significant injury?
What FA's were brought in?
What FA's were available?

Not nearly enough data to really say anything about this upcoming draft.

...

Only makes sense because your not giving up anyone that is going to produce unless you get lucky for every Ahmad Bradshaw there are mostly just failures.

In comment 12076370 Ira said:

Quote:

Webster, Thomas, Beatty, Joseph and Hankins were good picks. Randle and Richburg are ok. There are some bad ones in that round - Moss, Sintim and Austin, but three bad picks over that period doesn't make the round a disaster.

I totally agree. Corey Webster was a major cog in playoff and SB wins. That pick alone takes it up to average. The jury is still out on Randle and Hankins, but the upside on big Hank looks huge and Randle might have turned the corner too.

In comment 12076381 Mike in Boston said:

Quote:

The comments on Randle above triggered this. Yes, he has been less than we hoped. But he has done about what you can expect from a second rounder.

I would disagree with that. I expect more from a second round pick than what we have gotten from Randle, who has hurt the team more than he has helped it in his three years. Second round picks don't have to be Pro Bowl players, but you want them to be plus players, or at the very least, a solid starter. Randle has been a starter by default only, and an unreliable one at that.

Historically speaking, the Giants have done some of their best work in the second round: Terrell Thomas, Steve Smith, Corey Webster, Chris Snee, Osi Umenyiora, Cornelius Griffin, Tiki Barber, Amani Toomer, Jason Sehorn, Michael Strahan, Phillippi Sparks, Mike Fox, Jumbo Elliott, Mark Collins, Erik Howard, Pepper Johnson, Leonard Marshall, Joe Morris.

As George Young used to say, there are more second round picks in the Hall of Fame than there are first round picks.

Worst first round pick of the bunch

"Nobody saw this coming" John Mara

Real shocker the OL has stunk at least 1/3 of the time

For coomparison, here are the other 63rd picks during the ten-year period:
2 31 63 Jarvis Landry Dolphins WR Louisiana State
3 1 63 Travis Kelce Chiefs TE Cincinnati
2 31 63 Marcus Gilbert Steelers T Florida
2 31 63 Patrick Angerer Colts LB Iowa
2 31 63 Cody Brown Cardinals LB Connecticut
2 32 63 Terrell Thomas Giants DB USC
2 31 63 Brandon Jackson Packers RB Nebraska
2 31 63 Darryl Tapp Seahawks DE Virginia Tech
2 31 63 Matt McCoy Eagles LB San Diego State

Stronger group than I expected, frankly. Even so, Randle is probably in the middle of the pack. If you go back farther, the record is more mixed.

Rounds 1 and 2 are pretty good if compared to "average" (not sure how you should do that, but I'd like to know), but Round 3 seems like it might be below average. Obviously your "hit" rate is lower when you get down there, but boy, there's Tuck, Manningham, and not much else.

But I think people have unrealistic expectations. I'd like to see the numbers on 1st rounders who never become starters. I bet there's a fair number of them, percentage-wise

Draft is probably why the Giants are where they're at right now....

The Sintim pick, trading up for Barden, drafting a somewhat "TE" in Travis Beckham....

I also think this was the Rhett Bomar draft

I think the guy is a great DT. Absolutely loved the pick and his performance.

In comment 12076398 mattlawson said:

Quote:

Worst first round pick of the bunch

Aaron Ross was the Jim Thorpe recipient as the best corner in college football that year. His measurables were also good. He looked like a real player and at the time like a decent pick. Just didn't pan out like we wanted. With that said, he was at least a starter for us and fairly effective until injuries got the better of him.

Look at the defending champs. They drafted much higher than the Giants in 2009, and what do they have to show for it six years later? The offensive lineman they picked in the second round, same as the Giants. At least the Giants got a few good years - and a title - out of Hakeem Nicks. Seattle got squat from Aaron Curry and Deon Butler.

3rd rounds in the 3 years around him: Barden, Beckham, Jernigan, Hoseley. YIKES. You should at least be able to get useful players in the 3rd round. These guys were all disasters. With the Jones accident, 4 straight years of no production from round 3.

The jury is still out on Moore and Bromley

for one thing but the neglect of the type of players that the Giants needed especially on offense is the real crime. ELI is a drop back QB who is the heart of this offensive team. Reese should have had that in mind foremost when he used all thiose premium picks that did not help that cause. He was sidetracked reaching for other positions based on measurables while the nucleus of our team went down the drain. Thats why we fell like a rock and teams like NE and GB did not. We did not draft and acquire players to protect and nurture our key ingredient. Four years wasted already because of it.

In comment 12076913 TMS said:

Quote:

for one thing but the neglect of the type of players that the Giants needed especially on offense is the real crime. ELI is a drop back QB who is the heart of this offensive team. Reese should have had that in mind foremost when he used all thiose premium picks that did not help that cause. He was sidetracked reaching for other positions based on measurables while the nucleus of our team went down the drain. Thats why we fell like a rock and teams like NE and GB did not. We did not draft and acquire players to protect and nurture our key ingredient. Four years wasted already because of it.

Good post TMS. My criticism of Reese is that he over values "athleticism" and under values football acumen and physicality.

Reese/Ross did invest the 60th pick in 2009 in Beatty as a developmental LT. Was it reasonable to expect something - anything - from Whimper, Koets, Petrus, Brewer, McCants, Mosley or Herman? They were all Day Three picks, but there were seven of them. And Diehl, Seubert, O'Hara, Snee and McKenzie weren't that old when the wheels came off. It's hard to eliminate hindsight from the equation. It's clear now that OL should have been a higher priority, and it has been since the decay became undeniable in 2010 - starting with the ill-fated acquisition of David Baas.

Not every pick can be a Hall of Famer.

Then, nothing.

...is how lucky Reese and Accorsi were in assembling it. After Petitgout broke his leg, the line comprised one premium UFA, one low-tier UFA, a second-round pick, a fifth-round pick, and a home-grown UDFA coming off a gruesome injury that cost him nearly three seasons. By comparison, Reese and Ross have lavished resources on the current OL - and they appear likely to continue the trend, because there's still at least one gaping hole (probably at guard, depending on how Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are deployed).

a success among those late picks, as he eventually put together a pretty long career as a reasonable backup swing-tackle. Unfortunately, he took too long to develop that he did most of that with JAX and PIT after his rookie contract was. The Giants had to sign Bob Whitfield because they didn't trust Whimper.

Anyhow, nice work on the thread, BBB.

In comment 12077214 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

Reese/Ross did invest the 60th pick in 2009 in Beatty as a developmental LT. Was it reasonable to expect something - anything - from Whimper, Koets, Petrus, Brewer, McCants, Mosley or Herman? They were all Day Three picks, but there were seven of them. And Diehl, Seubert, O'Hara, Snee and McKenzie weren't that old when the wheels came off. It's hard to eliminate hindsight from the equation. It's clear now that OL should have been a higher priority, and it has been since the decay became undeniable in 2010 - starting with the ill-fated acquisition of David Baas.

I was going to post something similar. Hindsight is 20/20, but the poor OL play the last few years is not all on Reese. There were numerous factors that contributed (in no particular order):

1. Baas busting - it's arguable that they overpaid for him, but no way Reese and co could've predicted he'd barely see the field, especially healthy

2. Mid-late round picks not developing - they had at least 6-8 OL picks after rd 4 over the last 5-7 years and none of them have developed. Poor scouting? Poor coaching? I'm not smart enough to know why these players failed to develop, but considering the age/talent of the OL in 2008, this was the smart play. The premium picks need to be for more immediate needs (not necessarily rookie starter, but certainly in year 2).

3. Reese probably waited a year too long to start using premium assets on OL talent (particularly the draft), but Snee/Diehl fell off the cliff quickly and at a younger age than is typical for OL.

4. Hopefully Schwartz doesn't turn into Baas, but I think the OL performs a lot better this past year with him out there. On the other side though, at least Richburg got a ton of experience which will hopefully help going forward.

Reese has been unsuccessful in maintaining a winning team that he helped to build.

In comment 12076395 Milton said:

Quote:

I expect more from a second round pick than what we have gotten from Randle, who has hurt the team more than he has helped it in his three years.

Couldnt disagree more with this opinion. Randle may not be performing at the upper tier of the great 2nd round picks but he has certainly not hurt the team more than helped. Imagine, with Cruz going down this year, what we would've had at WR without Randle this year.

not a single bust in the mix. You could probably say that Kiwi under performed a bit but he was miscast in a LB role for years in our 'square peg round hole ' and force players to adapt to system mindset .

Basically all players at minimum flashed and produced albeit some had their careers chopped short by injury. Thats not a bust. A bust is a guy who you miscalculated on their talent or work ethic and didn't really produce much on the field relative to draft position.

Round 2 had a couple clear busts Simtim,Austin,Moss (though Austin showing a little in Denver ) but also quite a few hits.

I would be surprised if his top 2 rounds didn't rank in top 10 in all NFL in terms of hit %. Though Beatty has been inconsistent he is not a bust and has shown he can play the premium LT position at a competent level (which is rare for a late 2nd pick).

Rds 3-4 is where the big drop happens (which is for all teams really). But I'd say he probably fares middle of the pack here without any metric to measure.

Couple with same late round big hits and UDFA-- Will Hill,Cruz,Bradshaw

I think Reese is definitely upper echelon as a evaluator

In comment 12077282 GIANTSr01 said:

Quote:

In comment 12077214 Big Blue Blogger said: Quote: Reese/Ross did invest the 60th pick in 2009 in Beatty as a developmental LT. Was it reasonable to expect something - anything - from Whimper, Koets, Petrus, Brewer, McCants, Mosley or Herman? They were all Day Three picks, but there were seven of them. And Diehl, Seubert, O'Hara, Snee and McKenzie weren't that old when the wheels came off. It's hard to eliminate hindsight from the equation. It's clear now that OL should have been a higher priority, and it has been since the decay became undeniable in 2010 - starting with the ill-fated acquisition of David Baas. I was going to post something similar. Hindsight is 20/20, but the poor OL play the last few years is not all on Reese. There were numerous factors that contributed (in no particular order): 1. Baas busting - it's arguable that they overpaid for him, but no way Reese and co could've predicted he'd barely see the field, especially healthy 2. Mid-late round picks not developing - they had at least 6-8 OL picks after rd 4 over the last 5-7 years and none of them have developed. Poor scouting? Poor coaching? I'm not smart enough to know why these players failed to develop, but considering the age/talent of the OL in 2008, this was the smart play. The premium picks need to be for more immediate needs (not necessarily rookie starter, but certainly in year 2). 3. Reese probably waited a year too long to start using premium assets on OL talent (particularly the draft), but Snee/Diehl fell off the cliff quickly and at a younger age than is typical for OL. 4. Hopefully Schwartz doesn't turn into Baas, but I think the OL performs a lot better this past year with him out there. On the other side though, at least Richburg got a ton of experience which will hopefully help going forward.

I agree with this completely regarding how we got to this point with the OLine. I would also add that significant injuries to Rich Seubert and then Shaun O'Hara probably ended both of their careers with the Giants a year or 2 too early and left the team in a bad spot (it was pretty much the catalyst for the Baas move).

Was the last of 5 WR picked in the 2nd round of the 2012 draft
(since we won the SB that Feb.). Of the 5, Alshon Jeffery is doing much better than Randle. Randle is doing much better than the other 3 (Brian Quick, Stephan Hill and Ryan Broyles)--in fact, he has as many catches and yards as the 3 of them put together, and one fewer TD than the 3 of them put together.

You can say he fell short of what you hope from a 2nd round WR, but I don't think you can say he is short of what you have a right to expect.

They just missed on the guys they brought in. Baas lasted only one year. That guy should still be here. They drafted guys like brewer and Mosley in the 3rd and 4th round. They addressed the OL plenty of times and tried to prepare for the post snee, Mckenzie era, Reese and coughlin just simply didn't hit on the replacements.

It's been falsely proclaimed that the giants ignored the OL. This is false. There's a difference between ignoring the position and missing.

They may have missed again with regards to Schwartz if last year is any indication. I hope they bring in more youth.

are Olympic worthy.

Baas for example wasn't a bad signing. Reworking his deal twice while starting to fall off a cliff was fucking dumb. But its easier to defend him by stating the initial signing was OK and ignoring the secondary stupidity. SO managing the cap and redoing player deals isn't really part of his job right?. Bad deals to Baas Snee and DD left no $$ for a guy like Bennet

Reese picks WRs every year I'm rounds 1 through 3 but goes 6 years were he drafts 1 offensive linemen and people say its OK while that unit turns into easily a bottom 5 unit in the NFL with no signs of it getting better



Again Gold medal stuff

In comment 12078476 LauderdaleMatty said:

Quote:

are Olympic worthy. Baas for example wasn't a bad signing. Reworking his deal twice while starting to fall off a cliff was fucking dumb. But its easier to defend him by stating the initial signing was OK and ignoring the secondary stupidity. SO managing the cap and redoing player deals isn't really part of his job right?. Bad deals to Baas Snee and DD left no $$ for a guy like Bennet Reese picks WRs every year I'm rounds 1 through 3 but goes 6 years were he drafts 1 offensive linemen and people say its OK while that unit turns into easily a bottom 5 unit in the NFL with no signs of it getting better Again Gold medal stuff

Do you realize the sheer volume of moves and decisions a GM is responsible for on an annual basis? Can he be blamed for riding the OL too long? Perhaps, but that is unfortunately par for the course with the continuity obsessed thinking of ownership. On the other hand, you can see at least a little justification for it. The OL had a great group of soldiers who bled Giant blue and we subsequently stuck with a few too long. He also hasnt had injury luck with some of the guys he brought in as FA's since. Baas just couldnt stay healthy here but was actually a key contributor during our Super Bowl run.

Reese's hit percentage overall between the draft,FA etc. is awfully good.

projects are for late round picks, and selections like Barden, Beckum, and Sintim were low probability of success moves that could've been put to far better use. Take any of them in the 5th round and I'm fine with it, 2nd and 3rd? Not so much.

In comment 12078261 Mike in Boston said:

Quote:

Was the last of 5 WR picked in the 2nd round of the 2012 draft (since we won the SB that Feb.). Of the 5, Alshon Jeffery is doing much better than Randle. Randle is doing much better than the other 3 (Brian Quick, Stephan Hill and Ryan Broyles)--in fact, he has as many catches and yards as the 3 of them put together, and one fewer TD than the 3 of them put together. You can say he fell short of what you hope from a 2nd round WR, but I don't think you can say he is short of what you have a right to expect.

I think people "have a right to expect" whatever the hell they want. This is America. But let's not reduce this to a semantics argument, the point is the guy has been a disappointment. It's three years and he's still unreliable, still a guy the team can't count on, still a guy who gets benched for being late to meetings or whatever. The guy has caused more INT's than he's caught TD passes.

Not all second round picks are going to pan out, but it's a premium round and in premium rounds, you like to have more hits than misses, and he was a swing and a miss. He is not a guy the Giants are going to sign to a second contract.

In comment 12078261 Mike in Boston said:

Quote:

Was the last of 5 WR picked in the 2nd round of the 2012 draft (since we won the SB that Feb.). Of the 5, Alshon Jeffery is doing much better than Randle. Randle is doing much better than the other 3 (Brian Quick, Stephan Hill and Ryan Broyles)--in fact, he has as many catches and yards as the 3 of them put together, and one fewer TD than the 3 of them put together. You can say he fell short of what you hope from a 2nd round WR, but I don't think you can say he is short of what you have a right to expect.

I think people "have a right to expect" whatever the hell they want. This is America. But let's not reduce this to a semantics argument, the point is the guy has been a disappointment. It's three years and he's still unreliable, still a guy the team can't count on, still a guy who gets benched for being late to meetings or whatever. The guy has caused more INT's than he's caught TD passes.

Not all second round picks are going to pan out, but it's a premium round and in premium rounds, you like to have more hits than misses, and he was a swing and a miss. He is not a guy the Giants are going to sign to a second contract.

Just to keep Alshon Jeffery in perspective: The Bears took him at #45, 18 picks before the Giants selected Randle. I would add that two receivers were selected in the six picks after Randle: DeVier Posey and T.J. Graham. Both were wasted picks. By comparison, Randle has been great. Sanu was the next decent receiver, at #83, and I'm not sure he's better than Randle. Hilton was a steal at #92.

Randle is a disappointment because he doesn't appear to play up to his talent. He has absolutely played up to his draft position. That suggests a reasonably efficient market, in which Randle's deficiencies (mental or otherwise) seem to have been priced into his valuation at draft time.

Will he get a second contract? Maybe, maybe not. We don't even know who the coaches will be a year from now, let alone how they will evaluate Rueben Randle. If Randle continues his pace of adding 300 yards to his seasonal total each year, he will be a popular young man in March 2016. In any case, the recent Giant receiver whom Randle most resembles in stature and toolset - Amani Toomer - was just as much of a dog for most of three seasons. He went on to make some pretty decent coin as a core member of six playoff teams with a pair of NFC titles.

Curiously, Randle's three-year totals are nearly identical to Toomer's statistics for his entire rookie contract, including his breakout 1999 season: 131-1847-12 vs. 123-1818-12. Stats lie, but still...

3 of the 22 players that start on offense or defense play OG/C. That is 14% of the team yet according to the chart above the Giants only used 1 premium pick out of the last 31 pics on OG/C which is 3%. Clearly OG/C has been short changed. LBs have also been under represented (6% instead of 14%) while CB, DT & WR have received almost double the number of picks they should have if the Giants weighted all positions equally.

IIRC Accorsi drafted in a very similar fashion. WRs received many more picks than one would expect and OG/C was under represented. We have had the same pattern go on for 2 decades, since Accorsi was the assistant GM.

The team tries to compensate for this with the low and mid round picks and with free agency but clearly that has not worked out well. Sometimes it works out like it did when we got guys like Shaun O'Hara and Dave Diehl (who was originally a Guard) but most years in the past 2 decades our offensive line and LBs have been near the bottom of all NFL teams.

In comment 12078641 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 12078261 Mike in Boston said: Quote: Was the last of 5 WR picked in the 2nd round of the 2012 draft (since we won the SB that Feb.). Of the 5, Alshon Jeffery is doing much better than Randle. Randle is doing much better than the other 3 (Brian Quick, Stephan Hill and Ryan Broyles)--in fact, he has as many catches and yards as the 3 of them put together, and one fewer TD than the 3 of them put together. You can say he fell short of what you hope from a 2nd round WR, but I don't think you can say he is short of what you have a right to expect. I think people "have a right to expect" whatever the hell they want. This is America. But let's not reduce this to a semantics argument, the point is the guy has been a disappointment. It's three years and he's still unreliable, still a guy the team can't count on, still a guy who gets benched for being late to meetings or whatever. The guy has caused more INT's than he's caught TD passes. Not all second round picks are going to pan out, but it's a premium round and in premium rounds, you like to have more hits than misses, and he was a swing and a miss. He is not a guy the Giants are going to sign to a second contract.

Well, sure you'd like to have more hits than misses. In fact, you'd like to have no misses. But if you are going evaluate your scouts and FO, you ought to compare how well they do to other teams'. By the standards of how 2nd round (and Randle was the last pick of the second round--Quick incidentally was the first) WR historically do, Randle isn't a bad pick at all. Fact is the draft is more of a crap shoot than GMs and fans like to admit.

In comment 12078444 djm said:

Quote:

They just missed on the guys they brought in. Baas lasted only one year. That guy should still be here. They drafted guys like brewer and Mosley in the 3rd and 4th round. They addressed the OL plenty of times and tried to prepare for the post snee, Mckenzie era, Reese and coughlin just simply didn't hit on the replacements. It's been falsely proclaimed that the giants ignored the OL. This is false. There's a difference between ignoring the position and missing. They may have missed again with regards to Schwartz if last year is any indication. I hope they bring in more youth.

If you chose to ignore the first 3 rounds then you're ignoring the draft as much as the Giants ignored the OL.

Look at the Cowboys, with their vaunted commitment to the middle of the offensive line: Before Frederick and Martin (a college tackle) in 2013 and 2014, they hadn't drafted a center or guard above the middle of the fourth round since taking Stephen Peterman late in the third round in 2004.

The Redskins haven't taken a guard or center above #73 in twenty years. Eagles? Just Danny Watkins in 2011, and he was a disaster.

I am glad we have paid more attention to the OL recently. As Phil Simms says, you need the big guys upfront to do a good job so the other guys have a chance to do good too.

With a better OL I think we would have made the playoffs most if not all the seasons under Coughlin, and as all Giants fans know, once you get into the playoffs the hot team might take it all.

In comment 12077224 drkenneth said:

Quote:

Not every pick can be a Hall of Famer.

he did, played a key role in holding the greatest offense of all time to 14 points in SB42 and then had some huge tackles in SB46...he was never a pro bowler but I think Ross is one of the most underrated corners we've had, maybe ever. Excellent pick in my eyes.

..they will slip in a RB, OL or pass rushing LB type every now n then, even Travis Beckum one year, but they love drafting the DL and WR and DB early and often.