So looking over the Thompson interview, it was said when he came in for a visit they told him if he was there they'd pick him. Which (of course) he was and they did.
When TC says it is there philosophy to go BPA as an Organization how do those two interviews match up? Does anyone believe a potential UDFA was BPA at the top of the 5th round? Or Hart was BPA over La'el in the 7th (Police questioning or not.)
I think Mara needs to look over this situation. Bromely was the same kind of pick. Scouts make their money on rounds 3-7. That's where we struggle to find good players.
Technically Collins wasn't BPA because he wasn't technically available we traded up to grab him
They couldn't have been to convincing because it sounds like he was surprised by the selection. Maybe they just said if he were still available there was the possibility which would sound about right.
A: It was a surprise to me. I don’t even know how to explain it right now.
Maybe even its coaching staff as well.
..."need" versus "value" has always been a bit of a false dichotomy.
With the exception of very high draft picks, players are never selected on the basis of pure "value".
The Draft is about filling needs, and a team's perception of "value" is influenced big time by their perception of what they "need".
What teams hope to accomplish is to match "need" and "value" as best they can.
2012 - Looking like on Randall will stick.
2011 - 1 out of 8 picks in on the roster. Prince A.
2010 - 1 out of 7 on the roster. JPP. (And they dont want to pay him lol.)
2009 - 1 out 9 on the roster, Will Beatty. DESPITE multiple picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
2008 - No one on the roster.
2007 - No one on the roster.
2006 - No one on the roster.
2005 - No one of the roster.
2) BPA is based on the GIANTS draft board.. not anyone elses.. not Mayock's, Kiper's, McShay's, Jeremiah's. Sy'56's, UKGiants's or even our own personal little crazy draft boards we come up with...
3) The Giants assign GRADES to players.. not necessarily rankings.. and those Grades can have MULTIPLE player grouped together with the same grade..
Example.. Lets use the NFL grades for example..
Grade 7.0-8.0
Leonard Williams 7.5, Amari Cooper 7.1
Grade 6.0-6.9
Kevin White 6.9
Fowler 6.8
Winston 6.7
Beasley and Ray 6.6
Armstead 6.5
Gregory, Scherff, Shelton 6.4
Waynes, Landon Collins, Gurley 6.3
6.2
Peat, Andrus
Mariota, Marcus
Humphries, D.J.
Parker, DeVante WR
Perriman, Breshad
Gordon, Melvin RB
Brown, Malcom
Goldman, Eddie
Collins, Jalen
See how you can get CLUSTERS of players together with the SAME grade.. now im not saying I agree with the NFL ranking.. the point is to show you could have SEVERAL players clumped together with the SAME grade... And then you could have a selection of several players who are the best player available.. and then NEED becomes a determining factor..
So in THIS scenario.. @6.2 you would have in that row several players with the same grade and if every other player was taken .. the Peat could be seen as the BEST player available.. even though there were other players with a similar grade because then NEED tilts the scale..
Again not mutually exclusive from one another..
2012 - Looking like on Randall will stick.
2011 - 1 out of 8 picks in on the roster. Prince A.
2010 - 1 out of 7 on the roster. JPP. (And they dont want to pay him lol.)
2009 - 1 out 9 on the roster, Will Beatty. DESPITE multiple picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
2008 - No one on the roster.
2007 - No one on the roster.
2006 - No one on the roster.
2005 - No one of the roster.
this has something to do with not resigning players and injuries wiping out some good picks that contributed to 2 Superbowl winning teams.
I will take 4 players left and 2 trophies every eight years. The key is not to miss on the big decisions like trading for a franchise QB.
Its like throwing deep you don't have to complete every shot down the field but you have to take your shots
The Giants waited until Seubert, Diehl & Co. got old and retired before they started really focusing on the O-line. There was a need that wasn't filled despite the "value" being there.
when you talk drafting for need, and don't be naive to think teams don't do this, why in the world would you draft need, but NOT the best player available at the position of need.
if anyone thinks the Giants drafted BPA yesterday in vacuum you should google jerry reese, bpa and he'll explain what others on here already have about how the Giants approach the draft.
Also, might be worth reading some of Colin@gbn posts. He explains it in almost every thread he starts.
Kenny Phillips, Jay Alford, Steve Smith and Kevin Boss would still be in the league possibly on this roster if they pretty much were healthy. Just saying.
2) We added a safety, which was our biggest need.
3) We added depth or starting caliber de/dt with free agent and draft to improve run defense and pass rush.
4) We spent big money improving our special teams in kick offs and punt returns and gunners in both free agency and the last 3 draft picks.
5) We brought in a RB who can catch passes in free agency.
In short, on offense, we increased our chances of not finding Eli on his butt, improved our run blocking with the addition of Flowers, and added another weapon in Vereen for Manning to use as a safety valve. The only negative on offense is we failed to add an equivalent Cruz type WR in case he's washed up. We went status quo on TE, which isn't a critical need anyway.
On defense, we added the much needed top safety Landon Collins in the draft to our decimated safety corps and added a Tuck like player in Odi and a run plugger in Ellis to stop the bleeding in our run defense. We went status quo on the LB corps meaning we have no depth there. We may have failed to produce the dominating free safety type we might have liked as Collins bio says he is more of a box safety. We will see. So, we improved our defense, but not as well as we would have liked as we had to give up 2 draft picks for Collins (a necessary evil). You can't do everything you want, and we did learn that excessive free agent fills are not always what they are cracked up to be.
On special teams we spent wildly in FA to steal Harris from Dallas and added special teamers in rounds 5-7 as there is no chance they were drafted as starters as most of them were not familiar names the so called draft experts wrote about. Still, helping yourself while crippling your enemy may be a worthwhile investment.
Quote:
it was said when he came in for a visit they told him if he was there they'd pick him.
They couldn't have been to convincing because it sounds like he was surprised by the selection. Maybe they just said if he were still available there was the possibility which would sound about right.
Quote:
Q: Did this catch you by surprise getting drafted by the Giants in the fifth round?
A: It was a surprise to me. I don’t even know how to explain it right now.
One can also look at the Giants draft history and see that the whole need versus value thing is rather fluid and evolves from year to year. Indeed, in some years - for example, 2001 at CB, 2003 along the DL, 2007 in the secondary, 2009 at WR they clearly went into the draft targeting a particular position. And it certainly appears they went into this draft targeting OL early and then safety later. In the majority of years, though they appear to head into the draft, or at least the first round, targeting a particular, sometimes who fills a need and sometimes who is just a good player (Shock in 2002 and JPP in 2010).
In contrast, I don't ever recall a year where they went into the draft, sat their ubtil their pick came up and then made some kind of decision on which player to take.
And ghost I do not know where you get your info from but I don't think you could be more wrong. Indeed, the whole essence of modern scouting has been to come up with objective standards to compare players. The Giants for example will have as many as 8-10 different people evaluate a prospect and put numerical values on the various aspects of their game and then combine the numbers into a final grade. That's why they are called grades. An element of subjectivity of course comes into when choosing the guy at the same level when they will ask themselves about each player "if this kid plays to his physical ability what do we get ... " and which one will ultimately get the team closer to getting back to the Super Bowl.
Of course they have needs in mind with most if not all drafts and do you really think the Giants just ignore talent and value and blindly just zero in on a supposed position of weakness in these drafts? Cmon man..
It's a little bit of both. It's logic.
And if the Giants drafted two DLs and two WRs you would be saying the same thing. Again, it's a little bit of both....
Granted safety was a huge hole but the Giants have ignored other positions of supposed weakness time and time again. They historically draft tons of DBs and Wrs and tackles and DEs with only slight deviations. This year no different they once again zeroed in on the same positions they always draft-- tackles, DEs and DBs.
One can also look at the Giants draft history and see that the whole need versus value thing is rather fluid and evolves from year to year. Indeed, in some years - for example, 2001 at CB, 2003 along the DL, 2007 in the secondary, 2009 at WR they clearly went into the draft targeting a particular position. And it certainly appears they went into this draft targeting OL early and then safety later. In the majority of years, though they appear to head into the draft, or at least the first round, targeting a particular, sometimes who fills a need and sometimes who is just a good player (Shock in 2002 and JPP in 2010).
In contrast, I don't ever recall a year where they went into the draft, sat their ubtil their pick came up and then made some kind of decision on which player to take.
And ghost I do not know where you get your info from but I don't think you could be more wrong. Indeed, the whole essence of modern scouting has been to come up with objective standards to compare players. The Giants for example will have as many as 8-10 different people evaluate a prospect and put numerical values on the various aspects of their game and then combine the numbers into a final grade. That's why they are called grades. An element of subjectivity of course comes into when choosing the guy at the same level when they will ask themselves about each player "if this kid plays to his physical ability what do we get ... " and which one will ultimately get the team closer to getting back to the Super Bowl.
As to where I got it from was during a press conference over the last couple of days when Jerry Reese said, specifically need was a factor when they make their boards. I think he used the word consideration. Now maybe he mispoke, but that's what I heard him say.
I take your word that's not how they do it.Thank you for the lesson.
I still stand by the overall premise that the Giants owned the fact they draft with need as a consideration, not pure BPA, which I said is a subjective term, and like you, I hate it, I think it's a throw away phrase.
Let's try using only simple logic for a moment.
Let's assume the Giants are NOT using a BPA philosophy. What do you think their reasoning for that would be?
1. They have much better players on the board, but they want to be fair to the other teams that haven't picked anyone good yet so they pass on them.
2. They have much better players on the board, but they don't want to have to pay them too much, so they're hoping they just keep sliding and they can get them later as UDFA.
3. They have much better players on the board, but they really hate working for the Giants and in a passive-aggressive way are looking to exact revenge against their employer before they are ultimately fired.
4. They have much better players on the board, but they have no idea how they'll fit them on the roster since we are so loaded already at every position BUT the one we picked at. Who needs another TE, or another LB? The only positions we need are the ones we picked.
Seriously - how can one believe that they have much better players on the board and just pass on them to select inferior players? What would their rationale for doing this be?
Let's try using only simple logic for a moment.
Let's assume the Giants are NOT using a BPA philosophy. What do you think their reasoning for that would be?
1. They have much better players on the board, but they want to be fair to the other teams that haven't picked anyone good yet so they pass on them.
2. They have much better players on the board, but they don't want to have to pay them too much, so they're hoping they just keep sliding and they can get them later as UDFA.
3. They have much better players on the board, but they really hate working for the Giants and in a passive-aggressive way are looking to exact revenge against their employer before they are ultimately fired.
4. They have much better players on the board, but they have no idea how they'll fit them on the roster since we are so loaded already at every position BUT the one we picked at. Who needs another TE, or another LB? The only positions we need are the ones we picked.
Seriously - how can one believe that they have much better players on the board and just pass on them to select inferior players? What would their rationale for doing this be?
Noone is "tied in knots", though I doubt you go to anywhere near as much pains as I do to be accurate when relating events.You're a snarky fuck, and it's unappreciated, particularly in a year when Reese went out of his way for the first time to mention need repeatedly in his press statements, as did Ross and TC. you can pretend they didn't, that they said they same thing they always do, but you'd be a liar.Me making note of it isn't being tied in knots, it's recognizing reality, which Giant management has at long last and you refuse to do.
I know many here adhere to the notion of BPA being the Giants' draft strategy, but if you really look at the picks over the years, that only really applies to the 1st round and even then, only when there is a tremendous player at a premium position available. I honestly believe that the Giants actually factor roster composition into the evaluation so in a sense, need is always present as a part of the process. Otherwise, it's just too much of a coincidence to genuinely think that BPA and need intersect as frequently as the Giants' picks over the years suggest.
The thing is, as the draft progresses, the prospects are more and more bunched together when it comes to value. There could be a prospect they are considering in the 5th round that is still available in the 6th or even 7th round because the draft just plain flattens out. As a result, it becomes much easier to match BPA with need as the draft moves along. I.e., in round one you have two players at the top of your board with the same grade (and hopefully one of them fills a position of need) and then in round 2 you have four prospects with the same grade at the top of your board and in round 3 there are six with the same grade, etc., etc., etc.
Noone is "tied in knots", though I doubt you go to anywhere near as much pains as I do to be accurate when relating events.You're a snarky fuck, and it's unappreciated, particularly in a year when Reese went out of his way for the first time to mention need repeatedly in his press statements, as did Ross and TC. you can pretend they didn't, that they said they same thing they always do, but you'd be a liar.Me making note of it isn't being tied in knots, it's recognizing reality, which Giant management has at long last and you refuse to do.
Wow - touched a nerve, did I?
FWIW, I wasn't aware of who had posted what, and certainly wasn't pointing out an inability to think in any individual poster. I'm responding to this without even going back to see who you are, which side of this debate you're on, or what you've said. In fact I pay little attention to individuals on this site unless they are someone who's in some way earned my respect in the past. If that makes me everything you've called me here then so be it. You might want to note that I've made no personal criticisms of you and am hoping not to even remember which poster you are.
I was reacting to what I've noticed - a seeming trend of criticism about strategy with little recognition of the shades that exist. There are posters who debate the use of "BPA" vs. "Need" strategy, as though what happens with the Giants is clearly one or the other. My point was to be as ridiculous with the logic as possible to illustrate that there isn't an either/or going on here. What happens in the Giants draft room is clearly shaded in the grey. You've pointed that out well, perhaps better than I was able to.
Again - the "tied in knots" comment wasn't directed at you. What I will say is that you are a bit high-strung in reacting as you did.
I agree. But why do they trumpet this BPA business. It's BPA unless your need is such that you reach down a bit. Who would disagree with that?
But yes, the Giants draft need. Not quite. They keep both need and talent in mind when drafting. Nothing is ever that black and white.
Just because they managed to draft positions of need doesn't mean they eschewed value and talent with these picks.
2008 - No one on the roster.
2007 - No one on the roster.
2006 - No one on the roster.
2005 - No one of the roster.
Your point is taken and valid but you carry it a bit too far. Going back ten years isn't really fair unless you can directly compare it to the rest of the league and see a difference. I'm not sure many teams still have many picks on the roster from 9 or 10 years ago, franchise QB perhaps.
I don't believe it unfair to go back 9 or 10 years at all. You really can't judge a draft until 2 or 3 years afterward. There are tons of time and resources that go into the draft every year. Tons. We've had a 16% success rate after the 1st three rounds and passed on multiple pro bowlers and very productive football players in the process. My biggest criticism is waiting too long to address positions of need that they don't consider important for some reason ie TE, O-line, LB, RB. We need to get better with that.
For any team to go truly BPA with every pick would be very difficult to impossible with injuries, contract negotiations etc. That's not really a issue. I think scheme, fit & measurables go into that discussion.
The top half of our draft the past couple years have been getting better. I hope we are trending upward in that direction. But when looking at the Giants draft history especially rounds 4-7 from 2005 on you don't see alot of success. The 2012 draft was pretty much a throw away draft. 2010 we took Chad Jones instead of Jimmy Graham. We could have got Kam Chancelor in the next round. 2011 was close to it. Prince dropped and was the saving grace there but we took James Brewer in the 4th round. Richard Sherman went in the 5th. It's hard to believe Sherman wasn't higher than Brewer on their board. They could have had Prince & Sherman starting for us.
Who we picked and who we could have picked.
Round 1.
Prince A. CB - Best available
Round 2.
Marvin Austin DT - Kenrick Ellis DT
Round 3.
Jarrel Jernigan WR - Julius Thomas TE
Round 4.
James Brewer OT - Richard Sherman CB
Round 5.
No Fifth Rounder
Round 6.
Greg Jones LB - Jason Kelce C
Round 6.
Tyler Sash - Best Available
Round 6.
Jacquian Williams - Best Available
Round 7. Da'Rel Scott - Best Available
Ellis, Sherman, Kelce and Thomas have been productive football players. That's one draft I took a look at that could have turned out a lot differently. Now will the Giants get it right like that every draft you hope so but of course not. I think when you go almost a decade without getting anything out of your picks you start missing the playoffs and become a below .500 team. At that point you need a different philosophy even if it means moving up to get that one great player or you need to change up your scouting personnel. That said, I feel like the needles starting to point upward with some of the new coordinators and free agents we brought in and if we can stay healthy we should have a great year. Go Spags & Mcadoo!