from Jordan, but he should be a little careful here. One could argue, as Reese probably would, that his hits in rounds 1-2 far out weight the number of misses he has had in the later rounds..
For example, drafting Hakeem Nicks and Jason Pierre-Paul. These draft picks dominated and helped lead us to a Super Bowl. Nicks was the best player on the field (other than Eli) in those playoffs in 2011.
I'd argue that picks like this far outweigh multiple and damning misses in the later rounds. That is just me though. And, I concede that pointing out Jerry's hits are not the point of this exercise.
by Ranaan but it would be more telling if UDFA "hits" were also included in the calculation. It might make JR look slightly better but maybe not compared to his peers.
The Giants seem to view the middle/late rounds as call options - they want to go after someone with some sort of concern - injury issues, maybe a lack of performance due to youth, or even slight character concerns. They'll probably fail a bit more often there, but should hit some home runs, like they did with Bradshaw and Tuck.
I like this approach. Unfortunately, those home runs haven't happened for some time. I wonder if the approach changes going forward.
also makes it seem like Reese attacked him in the press conference. That didn't happen. Jordan came at him with a statement, to which Jerry said, have some evidence to back up your claim if you're going to throw that out there. Nothing wrong with that, and Jordan should know that.
and more than half produced less than 9. This just shows that rounds 3-7 doesn't really produce much, especially considering how many years he's including (2007-2013).
Interestingly enough the Pats have the same amount of hits Â
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard would seem to qualify and the 2 misses haven't been healthy long enough to know one way or the other.
RE: Interestingly enough the Pats have the same amount of hits Â
the Giants as being one of the best 1-2 rounds drafting teams, but only mentions Beckham and Cruz on Reese's resume. What about the 10-12 other players Reese has drafted that has directly helped us win championships?
What about the credit Reese should get for producing undrafted FA's Â
that Reese certainly must be aware that the players he's chosen in those rounds haven't panned out, and that truly he believe many of them would have had it not been for a) injuries or b) inconsistent/poor player development from the coaches. OR, a good number of those decisions were heavily influenced by Tom Coughlin and Reese didn't want to tattle.
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
History seems to indicate, he has some talent as a GM
This is my point. People are so unwilling to give Reese credit for anything. He has "some talent" as a GM? He's drafted great players for us that helped us win 2 Super Bowls.
from Jordan, but he should be a little careful here. One could argue, as Reese probably would, that his hits in rounds 1-2 far out weight the number of misses he has had in the later rounds...
Why would success in early rounds preclude success in middle rounds? Any team built on draft picks is going to count on its highest picks to produce the most, but consistently winning teams use mid-round picks to build depth.
Why would success in early rounds preclude success in middle rounds? Any team built on draft picks is going to count on its highest picks to produce the most, but consistently winning teams use mid-round picks to build depth.
Agreed, but it's not like Reese all of a sudden forgets how to scout and pick players in the middle rounds. They have just flat out missed on guys. It happens.
for calling Reese on his bullshit. What up now Reese?
This quote from the article:
"Plus, I don't think the Giants roster is as talentless as the vocal majority -- not with a quarterback like Eli Manning, a Top 10 non-QB star, like Beckham, a solid young core of an offensive line and two solid cornerbacks. "
Jordan, im sure u wouldn't see this but u dont even have to say that. eli was accorsi's guy. and we have 1 CB (prince is a UFA). yea - he hit on beckham and he's got 3 decent OL prospects. That's 4 of 53+. big deal
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
for calling Reese on his bullshit. What up now Reese?
This quote from the article:
"Plus, I don't think the Giants roster is as talentless as the vocal majority -- not with a quarterback like Eli Manning, a Top 10 non-QB star, like Beckham, a solid young core of an offensive line and two solid cornerbacks. "
Jordan, im sure u wouldn't see this but u dont even have to say that. eli was accorsi's guy. and we have 1 CB (prince is a UFA). yea - he hit on beckham and he's got 3 decent OL prospects. That's 4 of 53+. big deal
DRC played like a pro bowler this season. He's not on the team? Not a Reese signing?
RE: RE: Ought also to take into account what draft position a team holds. Â
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
The Patriots don't go to the playoffs every year because of the draft. If you think that, I just don't know what to tell you.
This is one of several studies I've seen in the past few years. Â
In one, Jerry Reese was rated as THE WORST drafting General Manager in the league. And I have never seen a single one with the GIANTS even rated mid-pack in drafting during the Reese / Ross years.
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
The Patriots don't go to the playoffs every year because of the draft. If you think that, I just don't know what to tell you.
Not what I said and no one else has said anything similar
RE: Lots here have very little understanding of how the draft works. Â
I appreciate your balance. The board gets a little "witch-hunty" at times like these. Like most two sided stories, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
and the difference between all the teams drafting success in the mid to late rounds -- it really doesn't appear to equate with anything to do about team success -- for instance the Patriots are tied with the Giants for the least productive drafts
and the Dolphns and Bucs are near the top of those lists and it hasn't helped them much
the difference from the top to the bottom of that is 8 players in total (1 player/year)
-- Raanan gives the Giants credit for super pick - Beckham and UDFA Cruz
- do those selections reduce the effective difference in that 8 player swing?
- also Nassib is considered a bust? -- is that really true?
- We all hope Nassib never gets used -- but he has taken up a valuable roster spot 3 years running now as the number 2 QB as opposed to a FA acquisition
- in that regard I would argue that Nassib should be included in the hits
-- this would give the giants 7 : 1 less than the Cards and the Broncos ; 2 less than the Bengals ; and 3 less than the Seahawks
-- add Cruz back in again -- and Cruz was a Superbowl run impact player -- and the difference is: same results as Cards and Broncos - and 1 less than the Bengals and 2 less than the Seahawks
8 players is 1 player per year --
Seems we could do better - but that particular analysis doesn't really prove that we needed to do better
also Reese's contention is that when you are not picking in the top 10 you have less to choose from -- the Giants picked in the bottom third in 3 of those 8 years - does that weigh the picks -- does that reflect why the Pats pick rate is so low
a lot of Superbowl teams are in the mid t0 lower range there -- so that would support Reese's contention that it's harder to get picks right when you pick at the bottom of the draft
I am no Reese defender and agree that we need significant improvement in the personnel area...BUT...
does the coaching staff deserve some blame for not getting more out of some of these players?
Why do we just assume these guys are horrible and irredeemable?
I look at guys like Prince and Collins and Hosely (who I hate)on Defense... granted it is only 3 names, but why did we not get better play from these guys? Coaching?
Might a batter coach gotten more out of some of these OLinemen that seem to be just mediocre? Schwartz was a big time FA Guard - he comes here and -injuries notwithstanding - plays mediocre to bad. Why?
I appreciate your balance. The board gets a little "witch-hunty" at times like these. Like most two sided stories, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Thanks - I'm all in on Reese depleting the roster from 2010-2012. But his picks in between have been very good, striking gold on a few that carry a lot of weight in that trophy room.
Jerry steps back and the coaches step forward for draft choices mid to late rounds?
It's been widely accepted that we haven't been doing much in the draft. Everyone wants to pin all the blame on Reese, when it was a group dynamic making the picks. that doesn't mean that Reese isn't part of the problem, but I do think that there are other parts of the equation that should share the blame. For the first time in a long time, we've shaken up that dynamic big time.
same goes for FA, probably more so as there's more time to get everyone's opinions. no doubt in my mind the coaches get a say. they may not get who they want all the time, but does anyone seriously think Flaherty, TC, and whoever the latest OC have told Reese that an OL player sucks donkeyballs, but Jerry goes out and signs him anyway?
giants#1 : 4:11 pm
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
and the difference between all the teams drafting success in the mid to late rounds -- it really doesn't appear to equate with anything to do about team success -- for instance the Patriots are tied with the Giants for the least productive drafts
and the Dolphns and Bucs are near the top of those lists and it hasn't helped them much
the difference from the top to the bottom of that is 8 players in total (1 player/year)
-- Raanan gives the Giants credit for super pick - Beckham and UDFA Cruz
- do those selections reduce the effective difference in that 8 player swing?
- also Nassib is considered a bust? -- is that really true?
- We all hope Nassib never gets used -- but he has taken up a valuable roster spot 3 years running now as the number 2 QB as opposed to a FA acquisition
- in that regard I would argue that Nassib should be included in the hits
-- this would give the giants 7 : 1 less than the Cards and the Broncos ; 2 less than the Bengals ; and 3 less than the Seahawks
-- add Cruz back in again -- and Cruz was a Superbowl run impact player -- and the difference is: same results as Cards and Broncos - and 1 less than the Bengals and 2 less than the Seahawks
8 players is 1 player per year --
Seems we could do better - but that particular analysis doesn't really prove that we needed to do better
also Reese's contention is that when you are not picking in the top 10 you have less to choose from -- the Giants picked in the bottom third in 3 of those 8 years - does that weigh the picks -- does that reflect why the Pats pick rate is so low
a lot of Superbowl teams are in the mid t0 lower range there -- so that would support Reese's contention that it's harder to get picks right when you pick at the bottom of the draft
Great post. The data is incomplete, it's not definitive proof, you need to get deeper than the surface numbers and include lots of missing context.
sight of the fact that Reese, by his own admission, SAID the team has missed on multiple draft picks. He didn't stand up there and say that the drafts have been good. Which is why this whole witch hunt against Reese's drafts just seem like empty noise, it doesn't prove anything other than what we know already.
What we do know for sure that is killing this team is injuries. Â
Speculation about how sucky our drafts have been and why doesn't really apply when all the good players you drafted end up on IR. IMO that is the sixty-four thousand dollar question here. How to solve the injury problem. Analyze that please.
You really need to take a look at what was available at the time Â
of selection. It's easy to look at Reese's picks in later rounds and label them as "misses", but if the round was full of shit talent, then what are you supposed to do?
Do people expect a GM to have a home run draft every year?
This team could have won 8 games this year with better coaching. I believe that.
RE: Well at least we draft better in the late rounds Â
Speculation about how sucky our drafts have been and why doesn't really apply when all the good players you drafted end up on IR. IMO that is the sixty-four thousand dollar question here. How to solve the injury problem. Analyze that please.
History seems to indicate, he has some talent as a GM
This is my point. People are so unwilling to give Reese credit for anything. He has "some talent" as a GM? He's drafted great players for us that helped us win 2 Super Bowls.
Clearly Reese held us back from winning 4-5 Superbowls.
I think in order to really review success for a GM Â
Is you also have to take into account the FA's obtained over the same time period. I have no idea how that works out in our case, but I think that aspect of FA signings takes the Pats out of the discussion
Reese got very short and defensive when challenged. If not an attack, it was an "aggressive reply", with Reese providing no data to back up his claim that Ranaan was wrong.
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
RE: Lots here have very little understanding of how the draft works. Â
I tweeted that link and that pic of the graph to him of the thread on BBI, so yes he did know the handle of the person who made that thread, which by the way has been deleted
RE: RE: it seem like Reese attacked him in the press conference Â
Reese got very short and defensive when challenged. If not an attack, it was an "aggressive reply", with Reese providing no data to back up his claim that Ranaan was wrong.
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
You ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over?
Go away. Find another team if it bothers you so much.
I knew Jordan was going to do this piece after Reese fired back Â
and interestingly enough - Jordan has a point
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
RE: RE: Lots here have very little understanding of how the draft works. Â
Reese got very short and defensive when challenged. If not an attack, it was an "aggressive reply", with Reese providing no data to back up his claim that Ranaan was wrong.
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
Oh poor Jordan, getting an "overly aggressive reply" from a GM that which he questioned. People need to lighten up around here. First it was Reese's dress code, now it's his aggressive reply. Christ.
RE: RE: RE: Lots here have very little understanding of how the draft works. Â
I never understood it. Time after time it's failed and they continue to do it. I hope they change their ways.
Of course they hit on the first three rounds. Those are the easiest. The later rounds is when you earn your stripes and the Giants fail. Drafting Nassib in the fourth and giving up picks to move to do it was also a waste in my opinion. Why take a chance on a rookie who may never see the field when you can get a veteran QB as a backup.
and I don't think he would ever do this because he's smart and knows how this whole thing works. But there's nothing I can't stand more than when a reporter asks a question, then gets a response that doesn't fit his or her narrative, then cries about it to twitter or whatever. God that is just the worst.
A few Jets guys are like this. Cimini did it for years under Rex, and that Mehta guy as well. Asking pestering question after question until the person just can't take it anymore.
Again, nothing related to Jordan. I just HATE when this happens.
RE: I knew Jordan was going to do this piece after Reese fired back Â
and interestingly enough - Jordan has a point
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
The problem is he'd have to do it for every team and does he have enough knowledge of every team to do that. Everyone's numbers might improve.
RE: I have been saying for years that the Giants love projects. Â
I never understood it. Time after time it's failed and they continue to do it. I hope they change their ways.
Of course they hit on the first three rounds. Those are the easiest. The later rounds is when you earn your stripes and the Giants fail. Drafting Nassib in the fourth and giving up picks to move to do it was also a waste in my opinion. Why take a chance on a rookie who may never see the field when you can get a veteran QB as a backup.
Nassib is a cost controlled backup QB with potential upside. If God forbid, Eli went down with an injury an Nassib went in and performed reasonable well you could have a Kolb, Flynn or Moore situation where that spell presents a trade opportunity. Having a proper developmental QB is never a bad thing.
You've got the likes of Moore and Hasslebeck with a $2.6 million and $3 million dollar cap hit respectively this year alone. That's more than Nassib will receive in his entire rookie contract.
Do I mind small school projects based on AA/measurables or productive guys who've been had some injury concerns after the 4th round? Nope not at all the success rate for all teams between 5-7 is pretty low you may as well swing. Not a fan though of similar thought processes in the 3rd and 4th rounds.
RE: RE: I knew Jordan was going to do this piece after Reese fired back Â
and interestingly enough - Jordan has a point
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
The problem is he'd have to do it for every team and does he have enough knowledge of every team to do that. Everyone's numbers might improve.
You know -- I'm not sure that's true Jeremy - maybe the Pats would - but 21 teams each year don't pick in the bottom third of the draft -- and the Giants have been there 3 times in the past 8 years - twice at the very bottom - almost half of the 8 years were drafts were there would be a very low percentage that the Giants could do well -- as opposed to 10 other teams in the top third -- and 10 teams in the middle third
I think the picks need to be weighed for all teams and see what happens -- it would be interesting in my opinion --
in any event -- the mere fact that the Giants and the Pats scale the same in that list is very interesting to me - and the Pats had many more picks than the Giants did.
about that "do the research" BullShit from Reese amidst all his other shit. what a freaking boob. unreal
I hadn't quite caught what JR was saying leading up to "do the research...give me the facts" statement. His preamble to Jordan's question to the effect that the better players are at Rounds 1 and 2 and players at 3 - 7 aren't as good, as an answer to the question, is pure arrogance, smug arrogance. It's factual, of course, but as an answer to how Reese does relative to the other teams it is arrogant in the extreme.
The author first presents the average value for players picked in that round for that year, before presenting the value for the Giants pick. IMHO, it gives the pick more context in terms of the value the rest of the league got at each pick.
Just to summarize: The only picks in round 4-7 for the 2011-2013 drafts that exceeded the average value for that round are Jacquin Williams (who only stuck with the team because they had no one better) and Zak DeOssie, a special teams specialist. For 2014, the numbers get better in that Andre Williams and Devon Kennard exceed the average by quite a bit.
"Having a proper developmental QB is never a bad thing."
such a simple concept, yet so many can't grasp it.
mid round backup QB's are taken all the time, but somehow Reese is excoriated as being a lunatic for daring to do it. a decent vet backup is expensive, and usually when called upon promptly show why they are no longer starters. a developmental QB is cheap and may possibly show upside. If you want a starting quality backup at QB, draft one in the first or second round, or shell out huge bucks for the rare one that hits FA. otherwise your choice is a cheap developmental QB, or a more expensive vet who is likely to not do much.
I suppose you could give the data additional context by only averaging the value that teams that picked behind the Giants got. That would show you the value left on the board after they picked. The average value in the current tables may be inflated due to much higher values at the top of the round, but I am leaning towards that not being true.
Its not that the coaches aren't coaching up the players Â
its that the selections are not what the coaches need or the team needs. This team had a blueprint of never have enough pass rushers, strong line play and being physical.
And since taking over as GM, Reese has altered that blueprint by repeatedly wasting picks on WRs and DB's and taking flyers on guys with medical question marks.
at Jon Robinson of Tampa Bay.
He was at N.E. for most of his career.
Check out the Edelman a 7th round pick - scouted by Jon.
Also he was involved with the Gronk pick.
Would have preferred firing both TC & JR, but looked at the disadvantages to the team of trying to replace both at the same time, and the potential hole it would have landed the Giants in at a time they are trying to build up the team for next year. Mara didn’t really give Jerry a ringing endorsement in that speech.
RE: Find another team if it bothers you so much. Â
No, I want my team, the Giants, to have a winning record, make the playoffs and win more championships. Even our owner acknowledged issues with talent / roster and "misses" in the draft.
I don't believe the Giants will be able to be successful with Reese/Ross at the helm. I want the Giants fixed, not another team.
Dolphins are high on the list, so are the Packers.. Â
the Packers are a mess right now other than Rodgers. Pats tied with us? The Redskins dead last but it's fair to say the Redskins have solid weapons.
This is all so overblown. EVERYONE is at fault for the last 3 years, including Tom Coughlin. Coaching matters. Player development matters. Drafting and free agency matters. A lot of people think TC had his head in the sand with personnel which is wildly off base.
I'm excited to get a new coach in here and have everyone surely on the same page going forward with one direction. If TC was 15 years younger, none of this is an issue, but I'm so glad the year to year operation is over.
RE: don't read anything that flies against your position do you? Â
Many/most fans anecdotally feel the Giants have done a poor job in the drafting department, especially in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe and particularly beyond round 3.
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
Thank you. Just responding to your haughty, and content free, accusation.
Yeah? You have yet to bring any content to support anything of note. You just wave pom poms at incomplete data and pretend that's good evidence. Learn the difference between data and information.
I'm not suggesting the late round draft results aren't horrendous. Â
It is very clear in hindsight that we had enormous talent in 2007 and our GM drafted in the late rounds trying to hit home runs instead of singles and he struck out a lot. We don't know the more recent results because no one can stay healthy.
Posted a thread on BBI and deleted after some responses poked holes in this nonsense.
The "games played" and "games started" column doesn't measure much. Why? Because not all are the same. Not close.
On the thread that was deleted I gave an example of Miles Burris. This is a LB drafted by the Raiders right after Giants took TE Robinson. Burris was an athletic LB. Raiders moved him to DE as a rookie. He started every game and was the worst starting DE in the NFL. Overmatched. They moved him back to LB. Starts every game in 2014. Guy was awful. They cut him before minicamp in 15. Nobody in the league signed him. Form every game starter to out of the league the next season.
He did nothing for the Raiders but certainly boosts the numbers in this spreadsheet for the team. 3 years. 38 starts. 40+ games played.
One guy like Bradshaw is worth 50 guys like Burris. All games played are not equal which explains why that spreadsheet ranks the Raiders at the top of the league in drafting.
It also doesn't factor the injuries which is a critical factor if you're trying to measure and compare drafting.
Until you have something that truly includes the quality of play (and it sure isn't pro bowls) and factor injuries into the equation then these numbers mean nothing.
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
RE: RE: don't read anything that flies against your position do you? Â
Many/most fans anecdotally feel the Giants have done a poor job in the drafting department, especially in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe and particularly beyond round 3.
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
I'm eagerly awaiting the data and analysis.
You are intentionally refusing to acknowledge that the data provided is incomplete. The reasons why have been detailed in this thread and the original thread about the spreadsheet. That thread was deleted because the smarter posters poked holes in the data, but of course, you're either not entertaining that because it flies against hte face of your narrative, or that you're just too stupid to understand why the metrics are incomplete and flawed.
Posted a thread on BBI and deleted after some responses poked holes in this nonsense.
The "games played" and "games started" column doesn't measure much. Why? Because not all are the same. Not close.
On the thread that was deleted I gave an example of Miles Burris. This is a LB drafted by the Raiders right after Giants took TE Robinson. Burris was an athletic LB. Raiders moved him to DE as a rookie. He started every game and was the worst starting DE in the NFL. Overmatched. They moved him back to LB. Starts every game in 2014. Guy was awful. They cut him before minicamp in 15. Nobody in the league signed him. Form every game starter to out of the league the next season.
He did nothing for the Raiders but certainly boosts the numbers in this spreadsheet for the team. 3 years. 38 starts. 40+ games played.
One guy like Bradshaw is worth 50 guys like Burris. All games played are not equal which explains why that spreadsheet ranks the Raiders at the top of the league in drafting.
It also doesn't factor the injuries which is a critical factor if you're trying to measure and compare drafting.
Until you have something that truly includes the quality of play (and it sure isn't pro bowls) and factor injuries into the equation then these numbers mean nothing.
Hey Choo Choo Boy, do you need someone to dumb this down for you?
I routinely see comments about how hard it is to find good players in rounds 3-7, but that's exactly what the good teams in the league do. That's why Reese and his staff get paid the big bucks to evaluate and acquire talent.
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
I routinely see comments about how hard it is to find good players in rounds 3-7, but that's exactly what the good teams in the league do. That's why Reese and his staff get paid the big bucks to evaluate and acquire talent.
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
John -- which Playoff teams would that be? Are we talking Pats? (0), Cards? (0), Washington? (0) Minnesota? (0) or Broncos? (2), Green Bay ? (2), Pittsburg ? (2), Houston ? (3)
or maybe Perennial Revolving DCs New Orleans? (10), Great Year, No Coach Niners? (8), Sliding Fast Baltimore? (6)
giants#1 : 4:11 pm
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
It is a bit baffling how it actually gets argued now like it has never been talked about over the last 2 years on BBI. Not once have i ever seen anyone defend that until now
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
Ranaan's standard for a "hit" is a player who has become a starter or made a significant contribution. It's not taking into account how many draft picks were leaped over on the depth chart due to injury . . . or even the more nuanced examination of how much preference these specific coaches had towards playing veterans acquired through FA over the younger drafted players.
As an example, Jerry Reese can't be held accountable for John Jerry starting over Bobby Hart unless you're willing to just accept that Hart isn't talented enough to play without actually seeing him perform on game day.
You say the data provided is incomplete etc. Fine. There are many ways to try to quantify the job Reese has done assembling the roster.
The only data that are virtually indisputable are the final results. No championships, no playoff wins, no playoff appearances or no winning records in the past 3 years.
The best argument I've heard to move on from Coughlin are along the lines of "3 years of poor performance; time for a change." The time management / late game decision making in 2015 (really a new issue this year) are also cited (i.e. the Giants could have won 2, 3, 4 more games etc.) with better late game management / decisions. Again, fair.
In my view, the talent on the roster for beginning of the 2015 was sub par and got worse as the injuries mounted. Reese felt otherwise, making this claim in on 8/3/15:
Quote:
“I think we’ll be really good defensively,” Reese said. “I think we’re going to surprise people. I think we have five defensive ends that we feel like can play and play at a high level at that position. I do think our defense is going to be a better unit than it was last year. I’m excited to see them out there playing.”
This from the same guy who put up the Super Bowl countdown clock for the 2013 team that started 0-6.
In my view, the fact that the Giants were still competitive late in so many games was a result of getting the most out of the poor talent. The fact that the talent is poor was acknowledged by Mara.
So if you want to move on from Coughlin due to the record over the last 3 years and the in game decision making in 2015, fine. The question that still comes up is why does Reese still have his job? Mara has confidence Reese can fix the roster, but apparently doesn't have the confidence that Coughlin can coach that roster going forward.
I think it is too early to judge the 2014 and 2015 drafts (obviously Beckham is a superstar, but we've been misled about mid / late round picks a year or two into their careers before). It think 2014 and 2015 having more, excessive later round misses is still possible.
For those that agree with Mara and have confidence the Reese can fix the roster going forward, would you supply the data and analysis that supports the position that Reese should be retained?
Given 3 consecutive non-championship, non-playoff, losing seasons, the burden of proof should be on those wanting to keep the GM, not the other way around IMHO.
Either keep the HC and GM or fire both. Getting rid of one and not the other is what frosts many of us.
Some teams play their draft picks even if they turn out not to be good.We know Coughlin didn't rush draft picks out there.This doesn't mean the Giants picks were good,but maybe these kind of stats on draft picks and games played are more a reflection on different teams philosophies on playing draft picks.
facts are that our drafting has improved over the last 3 years, while the coaching has not. When you know about the roster issues on defense, you know what you're up against as a coach. Why did we coach scared all season?
The problem is only one lost their job when they both deserved to. Reese's results have been dreadful. Look at this shit roster. He'll be gone soon enough.
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
Good point. Although admirable, TC's loyalty (or some may call it stubbornness) to some players instead of either give less minutes to some players (like Williams for example) or flat out puting out to pasture (like Diehl) is something I think frustrated both Reese and the owners. But as has been the way they've operated forever, they let the coach coach and stay in their respective lanes. Although a questionable player to say this about, I think Mara's comment about the WR from Troy (whose name escapes me at the moment) wondering why he wasn't playing more was telling as to their thinking with regards to TC either sticking with some players to long or not giving others more playing time.
you must include udfa......cruz must be counted. Â
I believe you're thinking of One Play JJ aka Jerrell Jernigan. Nice to see you posting, but I blame our lack of success this season on not having you do the playas only thread this year :-)
the variance between dead last and first in Jordaan's numbers is not that much. So if we had 3 more 'starters' in those rounds, that would not make much of a difference.
No one (or at least I'm not) is suggesting keeping Coughlin and firing Reese (although I believe Reese is more at fault).
The issue is firing Coughlin while retaining Reese. Keep both or fire both. If I'm given that choice, I keep a future HOF Head Coach and suffer through an average at best GM.
but who was with me when we discussed this and found that we also hit more than other teams in the other rounds and Undrafted?
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
Quote:
Jerry Reese refuses to own up to his failures | Politi
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
RE: RE: don't read anything that flies against your position do you? Â
Many/most fans anecdotally feel the Giants have done a poor job in the drafting department, especially in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe and particularly beyond round 3.
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
giants#1 : 4:11 pm
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
It is a bit baffling how it actually gets argued now like it has never been talked about over the last 2 years on BBI. Not once have i ever seen anyone defend that until now
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. But, lets not act like he was the supreme lord here and he was the only hand in everything that has went wrong.
JOrthman - what was it that you read or saw that caused you Â
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
I believe you're thinking of One Play JJ aka Jerrell Jernigan. Nice to see you posting, but I blame our lack of success this season on not having you do the playas only thread this year :-)
Yeah, Jernigan. Thanks David!
I only posted because I fail to see how Ranaan's (whose work I actually respect) article really proved anything. The game is about winning championships... and the two teams that have won the most championships the last decade and a half or so are at the bottom of his list (the other franchise led by a guy that gets routinely lauded for not only his coaching ability but also for his ability to find talent in the draft). So by going by that logic, you don't have to draft well in the later drafts in order to win championships right?
I only posted because I hadn't seen anyone mention the very simple fact that for all the preparation teams do when it comes to the draft... a lot of it comes down to just plain ole luck when trying to pick the right players... and the later you get in the draft, the luckier you need to be to find the gems. Yet, using Ranaan's logic, the team would be better off having a guy like Tannenbaum, and the other GMs Miami has gone through over the past several years, as the GM here instead of a guy who produced not one but two championships. Think about that.
Anyway, good to hear from you David and for the record you've been one of my favorite posters lately because you usually say what I would've on not just the team but a variety of topics. If I have more time I hope to be able to pick back up the Playa's Only threads next season (shout out to Rt 9 by the way for a job well done!). Peace and have a good night. Finally got the kid to sleep so I gotta get mine in when I can! LOL!
but who was with me when we discussed this and found that we also hit more than other teams in the other rounds and Undrafted?
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
Quote:
Jerry Reese refuses to own up to his failures | Politi
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
Nice post Seth!
RE: JOrthman - what was it that you read or saw that caused you Â
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
RE: RE: JOrthman - what was it that you read or saw that caused you Â
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
RE: RE: RE: JOrthman - what was it that you read or saw that caused you Â
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
Dude there is no way I'm going to through every thread I've read over the last three days and pick apart all the posts. I can almost guarantee even if I did, there would be little to no acknoweldgement of my point if I went back and found them. I've been down that road too many times on BBI. Even posting this now I'm not exactly sitting here bored with nothing to do. If you haven't seen those posts or threads I don't know what to tell you.
I never said anyone was claiming he was blameless, it was hyperbole to make a joke/point. People seem to be abolving him or giving him a pass on a lot that went wrong with personnel.
sight of the fact that Reese, by his own admission, SAID the team has missed on multiple draft picks. He didn't stand up there and say that the drafts have been good. Which is why this whole witch hunt against Reese's drafts just seem like empty noise, it doesn't prove anything other than what we know already.
The problem you have is Reese did a bunch of doublespeak in that presser. While admitting he missed earlier, he then demanded proof of the fact he missed when asked the question later on
but who was with me when we discussed this and found that we also hit more than other teams in the other rounds and Undrafted?
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
Quote:
Jerry Reese refuses to own up to his failures | Politi
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
Come on, this is a real melodramtic take on what occured. He talks only a few times a year to the press, this is not someone that these reporters have easy access to. Sitting there claiming he was attacked when asked follow-up questions to claims he and the owner both made is absurd. He then compounded the the line of questioning when he sat there one moment claiming he takes responsibility, and then comes right back and starts passing the blame all around. That is inviting the media to pick apart what he is saying because Reese himself sounded like he did not know what he was saying.
One other point, you list 4 timeframes of when the tide turned Â
Well let me ask you this: When did you become satisfied with our drafts and over the last 4 years? See the reason i ask that is because NO ONE on this board over the last 3 years defended Reese and his drafts until now.
So if your going to ask that question, you need to answer it yourself first
I routinely see comments about how hard it is to find good players in rounds 3-7, but that's exactly what the good teams in the league do. That's why Reese and his staff get paid the big bucks to evaluate and acquire talent.
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
John -- which Playoff teams would that be? Are we talking Pats? (0), Cards? (0), Washington? (0) Minnesota? (0) or Broncos? (2), Green Bay ? (2), Pittsburg ? (2), Houston ? (3)
or maybe Perennial Revolving DCs New Orleans? (10), Great Year, No Coach Niners? (8), Sliding Fast Baltimore? (6)
Are you serious?
Kirk Cousins and Jordan Reed were late round picks. Richard Sherman, Russell Wilson, and several starting LB's were late round picks. Stefon Diggs was a late round pick. Most of the starting OL for Green Bay were late round picks, along with Richard Rodgers, James Jones, and several defensive starters. Carolina has late round guys starting for them. David Johnson and John Brown were late round picks for the Cards. That's just the NFC, and that doesn't include guys like Gary Barnidge, Greg Hardy, etc. that were drafted late and ended up on another team.
If anyone thinks the Giants are doing OK in rounds 3-7, they're delusional.
You have to hit on some of those guys to be a contender -- not just "ok specials teamer" or "decent depth." You need some impact players from these spots.
is to convince a Cowher-type to coach again. A coach with a big personality, a proven leader and motivator who may be able to overcome an incompetent front office....
Because that's what it's going to take to overcome a GM on the wrong side of the production curve over a fairly good recent sample size. Now he's under even more duress - directly and publicly expressed by his boss, the owner - to deliver. Human nature likely dictates the guy is low on confidence, will press, and may even have the GM yips. One could argue it's unfair to keep him on the job because the culture is now too toxic to succeed. It should have been a mercy firing...
That press conference wasn't revealing because the media seemingly attacked precious Jerry Reese. That press conference was revealing because it showed a senior management guy who lacked confidence, poise, and control. To think he'll be able to recapture whatever mojo he once had is the biggest stretch.
Reese is the classic dead man walking...
its like all the homerism which was hitherto divided between Â
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
Good point. Although admirable, TC's loyalty (or some may call it stubbornness) to some players instead of either give less minutes to some players (like Williams for example) or flat out puting out to pasture (like Diehl) is something I think frustrated both Reese and the owners. But as has been the way they've operated forever, they let the coach coach and stay in their respective lanes. Although a questionable player to say this about, I think Mara's comment about the WR from Troy (whose name escapes me at the moment) wondering why he wasn't playing more was telling as to their thinking with regards to TC either sticking with some players to long or not giving others more playing time.
Yeah Jerrel Jernigan of Troy is a great example... But not of TC's stubbornness or incompetence but rather Reese's and Mara's!
Despite JJ's 2 or 3 good games, retrospect shows TC was correct to not play him and JR goofed badly selecting him over a very solid OL the Bengals grabbed a few picks later... Clint Boling out of Georgia. Jernigan's out of the league, and Boling has started on one of the NFL's best OL for four years....
It's interesting to me that you call my point melodramatic because it may be the perfect way to describe that conference.
The 4 time frames were a completely random set of dates but I did mean to half joke that one day Reese was a superb GM who missed on some picks and got screwed by injuries....then the tone took a turn towards TC and why he must suck because they blew games etc...and of course this season ended with a huge amount of people just wwanting both the coach and GM gone. Full turn from "love" to hate and its all happened fairly quickly.
For what its worth I have been unsatisfied with Reese and TC's results, moreso Reese's depth evalutation and the scary lack of talent at a couple positions that allowed for this year's defense (the single most nauseating and putrid unit on any team we have had in memory) Anyone who puts that team out there and watches them lose games in ways that almost seem impossible deserves to have to at least acknowledge that they will do everything in their power to not force fans to watch that garbage ever again.
Ok with that out of the way, I don't think it's melodramatic at all. I think it was extremely weird and as awkward a presser I can think of. What you said about how rare it is that the GM meets with the media is actually relevant to my point. Im not a huge fan of the media obviously (Jordan is an exception) but I made my point because yet again I see a media member saying that Reese was on the attack....which I think is ridiculous because what I saw was a highly regarded, highly respected (by the media's standards I think they have a great relationship with Reese actually) GM, sitting there at the resignation of his head coach (with whom he has a tremendous relationship - their words not mine), and having to answer for himself.
The whole thing was bizarre to watch. I don't mean to sound "melodramatic" but here is what I know and why I thought it was many things including uncomfortable, awkward, obnoxious and antagonistic...
- Everyday for weeks the media started their daily Fire Coughlin routine. You saw it, I saw it, we always see it. Many many fans eat that crap up. The whole fire everyone thing happens every year a team doesn't do well. For the media its excitement on the day a new coach is hired and then a time bomb to see how long they'll have to wait until they can talk abotu why so and so need to be fired. It's part of the business. It helps them gain lots of attention. I mean for instance, I'm talking about the media and I don't like or care what they have to say. Only care when they cause a crappy experience for a fan who doesn't enjoy the media telling you everyday why the team you root for is horrible or better yet dysfunctional. We all know they eat that up. If you're not a champion or a horror show, you're boring.
- Ok so TC actually does lose his job and the media can't wait to report on it the moment our last loss is complete. But then oddly enough, somehow the media manages to turn their points from FIRE TC to Wait they say the personnel is the problem ? Well then maybe its Jerry Reese. Everyone who watches the Giants knows that Reese is the GM but the coach is extremely involved with personnel decisions. WHy would he not be?
- The press conference happens and somehow the media that spent weeks craving the head of the coach, suddenly is horrified that TC is canned but Jerry Reese keeps his job. Mara says you can't go 4 years with no playoffs and thin that is acceptable. Mara says Jerry is in charge of personnel but works with a whole staff, and of course the coach is not just handed a roster and told to deal with it. TC and Reese worked hand in hand. This isn't new news and its obvious, plus that's why the team runs smoothly (contrary to what the media really doesn't want to portray because it's boring to have stability right?
- At the presser the media doens't ask questions in a way that just deals with football and how they will get better and why they weren't good. They want to know about the drama and the BS. About who screwed whom over. But I can't be the only Giant fan who sits there watching this or listening to it and wonders how the same media that wanted TC fired weeks ago is now creating this image that TC is an innocent bystander and Reese is THE problem. THere is something pretty awkward about asking Mara why Reese gets to keep his job WHILE THE GUY IS SITTING THERE, probably pretty unhappy that these reporters with whom he has a decent or good relationship, are demanding to know why he gets to stay. The guy has worked for this team for two decades and it's his whole life and the media is flippant about his career because he missed on a series of 4th and 5th round picks. Not only that but they want to hear from Mara right then and there why he isn't gone. Then when Reese steps to the podium he's supposed to be just thrilled at the situation? He has to answer to a bunch of reporters why he keeps his role as though they have the power to decide why he shouldn't. Of course he bites back when people ask antagonistic questions. The questions sound personal and don't exactly acknowledge the success Reese has found with many players. It's the usual crap: "yeah you found Bradshaw and Cruz and Beckham and JPP etc etc etc but why couldn't you find depth to cover for that 4th string free safety spot and how do you explain yourself for that!??? Better yet if you pick the players then poor Tom was just kicked to the curb and here you are as though everything is fine ." But maybe worst of all is they act like they know exactly what goes on in those draft rooms or in free agency discussions, to the point where when Reese says that he isn't the only opinion in the room they turn (and plenty of BBI too) that into "shifting blame". It's complete BS. He accepts responsibility but explains that there is more to it than Jerry Reese being the sole player decision maker.
I think the last couple drafts have been pretty good actually compared to the couple prior to that. It's unfortunate but that David WIlson draft was one of those years that sets a team back. But you don't like Beckham, Richburg, Pugh, Kennard, Collins, Hankins? Beckham and Richburg alone could be franchise core. It's not a given you find that. Yet I would have fired Reese over Coughlin, even if I felt more annoyed seeing TC roam the sidelines during another embarrassing game. Reality is both have not done extremely well but unlike the media I don't crave their shitcanning. I do however know why it needs to happen sometimes.
SOrry for the massive word mass but this whole thing gets me going and Jordan's point that Reese was "on the attack" seemed to be more than a little hypocritical. That presser was quite an attack.
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
Dude there is no way I'm going to through every thread I've read over the last three days and pick apart all the posts. I can almost guarantee even if I did, there would be little to no acknoweldgement of my point if I went back and found them. I've been down that road too many times on BBI. Even posting this now I'm not exactly sitting here bored with nothing to do. If you haven't seen those posts or threads I don't know what to tell you.
That's not just hyperbole, it's an outright lie. "Blameless JR", everything falls on to TC. The posts right now on BBI break down to 3 simple categories:
1. TC took the fall, JR was mostly to blame.
2. TC was partly to blame, JR should have gone with him.
3. TC was partly to blame, JR should be given another chance.
I don't think I've seen anyone come remotely close to making a case for JR being blameless, or for TC being wholly responsible. If you see that one, let me know.
We've reached another one of those BBI moments, where the emotion of the situation causes people to post outright stupidity. How many 'Eff Reese' posts do we have? Plenty. When all is said and done, he's as responsible for the 2 titles as TC is - and if you said 'Eff TC' on his way out the door, shame on you. Reese deserves the same place with Giants fans.
but as others have pointed out, I too think its incomplete. You can't determine GM success or failure based solely on rounds 3-7 of the draft because that is not the only source of your talent pool. Absolutely FA acquisitions and UDFA signings play a part in this and THAT'S where the grading should be done.
And, as others have also pointed out, he didn't address the anomalies that counter the point he's trying to make, ie., how the patriots could be as inept as the giants in these rounds but have so much continued success. I'd also like to see details for each team to see who he considers hits and misses. As one poster pointed out, is Nassib a miss? Maybe he hasn't contributed on the field, but he clearly has shown enough to remain the primary backup to one of the top QBs in the league.
To me, this analysis points to a lack of player development in the later rounds, and that's not on the GM. That's on the coaching staff; positional, coordinators and HC all bear some responsibility in this area, imho.
way to go Jordan!! Many of us have done similar analysis Â
on this topic. Maybe Jerry should replace some of his staff with BBI contributors. :-)
The Reese pattern, 2007 excepted, has been Solid to excellent Rd 1, hit or miss Round 2 and zilch in rounds 3-7. Consistently missing in Round 3 is painful. Being only coin flip effective in Rd 2 isn't helping either.
I haven't read through this whole thread, but... Â
It seems to me that Jordan is overstating things a bit.
It's incredibly hard to quantify something like this, but I think Jordan's method is severely lacking. First, looking at raw number of "hits" doesn't mean much when you don't know how many draft picks a team had or which round the picks were in (a third round pick is a lot different than a seventh round pick). This is especially true when you are talking about something with small numbers ranging (a range of 3 to 14 is pretty small). It is also true when you have some teams that have received a lot of compensatory picks and other teams that have traded away a lot of picks.
His definition of a "hit" is also problematic. How does he define, "significant contributors?" It is harder for a late round pick to make a team like the Patriots that have better talent on the team already. It also treats marginal players the same as star players.
A better way to look at this would be to look at how many players got a second contract in the league, and how much they signed for. This would require waiting longer to actually evaluate, but it would be a lot more meaningful way of looking at how well a team has evaluated talent in the draft.
but as others have pointed out, I too think its incomplete. You can't determine GM success or failure based solely on rounds 3-7 of the draft because that is not the only source of your talent pool. Absolutely FA acquisitions and UDFA signings play a part in this and THAT'S where the grading should be done.
And, as others have also pointed out, he didn't address the anomalies that counter the point he's trying to make, ie., how the patriots could be as inept as the giants in these rounds but have so much continued success. I'd also like to see details for each team to see who he considers hits and misses. As one poster pointed out, is Nassib a miss? Maybe he hasn't contributed on the field, but he clearly has shown enough to remain the primary backup to one of the top QBs in the league.
To me, this analysis points to a lack of player development in the later rounds, and that's not on the GM. That's on the coaching staff; positional, coordinators and HC all bear some responsibility in this area, imho.
Rd 3 is not "low rounds" and Reese misses consistently. He also missed far to often in Rd 2, but that seems to be turning around with the last 3 drafts
round 3 DNB. (to borrow a term from rousey)
of course several of the next picked players (travis swanson *starting C for lions, 3 down MLB chris borland, spencer long *starting G for redskins, gabe jackson *starting G for the Raiders, will sutton dt - not a great player but better than bromley so far at the same position, WR/KR Josh Huff legit role player for eagles, cb phillip gaines looked good for chiefs, G chris watt legit OL for chargers, G brandon linder *starting for Jags, G Trai Turner - starting for panthers
pretty sickening. we take bromley who does absolutely zilch when there are 4 or 5 starting G's available, starting MLB. and we needed G's bad when we took him. just one example of stupidity in the 3rd round.
We are tied with the Patriots according to Ranaan's stat Â
drafting? yes. BBs recent drafts haven't been great. ANd he's had a ton of picks. But obviously they are doing a better job in FA. Players have to be coming from somewhere. And he is coaching the shit out of them
the other day someone brought bill walsh up to defend McAdoo. now belichick to defend Reese. just stop.
bill b can afford to have not so good drafts because overall he is a mastermind that dominates the NFL. that's not us. McAdoo is not bill walsh and mara/reese/whoever our head coach is not bill belichick.
Seth, there is one easy answer to the press issue you see Â
Its NYC.
That's it, that is what anyone who takes a job with the Giants is going to have to deal with, the NYC Media. Greatest city when you win, hardest when you lose. Every single employee of the NY Giants knew that prior to signing on board.
As far as being a weird PC, I agree. It came across to me as if this was done off the cuff, which is odd because the Giants don't do things that way. Were it got weird was you have a "farewell speech" that knocked it out of the park, a "what do we do now as we move forward" speech, and then a "I'm accountable for the issues, but not really" speech. Pinning it on the media is where i think you get derailed. They asked nothing but football questions, questions that were evolved from the speeches given themselves. Then add Reese getting pissy and you have an element of "ah-ha we are on to something". I think this was done by Mara on purpose, I think that he felt pushed into making a move and he was not really sure he made the right one.
The problem for the Reese defense is that its made up of guesses (how much input do other have?, how much influence did Coughlin have. etc..etc) Yet the bottom line is that Reese is the final say and in charge of that aspect of the team, so those excuses are worthless. The other factor I find ironic is this new defense of him based on "well he did not do that bad, look at the Pats" nonsense. Per the owner and Reese himself is an admittance that they have been bad in the later stages, so how on Earth is that a defense?
Now move from the draft to FA signings. You have DRC as a great signing. Harris was good but there is a legit claim we paid too much, Vereen could be a great one, time will tell. But what else have we gotten over the last 3 years?
How long have we held onto Beason and got nothing from him? Scwartz? Why did we let go of Marcellus Bennett? What exactly has Ogletree, Reynolds, John Jerry, Fells, and Ellis done for this team? Where you confident of the talent we had on this team?
The bottom line here is that the GM has the final say on the roster, the GM made excuses over the talent of this team, some legit, some ridiculous, but the same excuses for keeping him also apply to Coughlin for the most part. That is why he got grilled, and fairly so.
Is cherry picking a few players and ranting about how other teams find good players in late rounds. Ridiculous is pointing to the TE Rogers in GB as an example of the type of guys NYG doesn't find. Our FA finds Donnell and Tye are better than that slug.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
because it's so hard to quantify using the old-fashioned method of isolating variables. A large organization like an NFL team is more like an ecosystem with interdependence and feedback loops than a set of equations that are static and can be picked apart. If the team performs poorly, there could be one thing wrong or 10 things wrong. And some things can be more wrong than others. And sometimes fixing a problem in one place creates a bigger problem somewhere else. It's hard to figure out. I think analyses like Raanan's are valuable and necessary because while they probably won't ever pinpoint the issue, they can direct your focus within a reasonable bound.
One thought I had based on many data points I looked at (stats, analyses like Raanan's, comments on this board, etc.) is that Reese's perceived preference for "projects" may have been OK once but not under the new CBA that allows for much less practice time to develop those projects into NFL-ready players. Perhaps a switch to more "NFL-ready" players - even with less theoretical upside - works better in the current framework. For all we know, maybe Coughlin could have turned some of these recent busts into decent players if he could run camps like he used to.
the other day someone brought bill walsh up to defend McAdoo. now belichick to defend Reese. just stop.
bill b can afford to have not so good drafts because overall he is a mastermind that dominates the NFL. that's not us. McAdoo is not bill walsh and mara/reese/whoever our head coach is not bill belichick.
I'm not using the pats to defend Reese, just using the fact that the Pats and Giants have the same number as a way to indicate that Ranaan's use of just that measure is a questionable way to measure 'draft success'. The teams at the top of that list aren't all model franchises and the ones at the bottom aren't all Browns-esque.
But that's really an academic point. Perhaps the Pats have that number because they've done better at locking up players long term, trading and (definitely) better at their pro scouting than the Giants
I think Reese has done a good job as GM. There's no doubt there were a few bad drafts but even the best performers have slumps. Also, I'd have to guess that Reese must be in the top 5 of GM's in terms of aggregate drafted talent lost to injury (Nicks, Phillips, Wilson, TT, JPP). 4 of these 5 played Pro Bowl-worthy football and Wilson certainly had a realistic shot (he was already among the best kick returners in the NFL).
I also can't find too much wrong with his FA signings as a whole. His perceived biggest busts - Baas and Schwartz - got hurt. As far as I can remember, he never gave anyone a Byron Maxwell type contract (unless you count Plax's extension but you probably shouldn't). He extended Jacobs, Tuck, Bradshaw and Osi at team-friendly deals.
Is cherry picking a few players and ranting about how other teams find good players in late rounds. Ridiculous is pointing to the TE Rogers in GB as an example of the type of guys NYG doesn't find. Our FA finds Donnell and Tye are better than that slug.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
Actually Rodgers as an example of good piucks is a reach, but the release of Benett is an example of a good FA we let go and tried to up for with Donnell and Tye
RE: Seth, there is one easy answer to the press issue you see Â
Harris was good but there is a legit claim we paid too much
Montana, looking back now at the season, did we really pay too much for Harris? Guy was worth every penny. In fact we didn't get max value because TC used Preston Parker the first few games!
This was what i mean to say:
""Actually Rodgers as an example of a good pick is a reach, but the release of Bennett is an example of a good FA we let go and tried to make up for it with Donnell and Tye""
RE: RE: Seth, there is one easy answer to the press issue you see Â
Harris was good but there is a legit claim we paid too much
Montana, looking back now at the season, did we really pay too much for Harris? Guy was worth every penny. In fact we didn't get max value because TC used Preston Parker the first few games!
Valid point Danny, in relation to needing a player like that then No, absolutely not. But the fact we had that need is why he cost what he did, so in one way no, the other way somewhat
RB, I'm unwilling to give Reese a total pass on Schwartz and Baas because I think it reflects something that should be modified going forward - our best signings have come from guys getting their second contracts: Robbins, Canty, Pierce, McKenzie - Burress may be the exception, as he was 27 going on 28 when signed here.
Baas was 28 going on 29 when signed and Schwartz was 28 with injury history. Despite the thinking that you can plug guys in along the line and they're fine for a decade, the peaks of offensive linemen is ~27 - so we signed these guys off of peak/near-peak performance. Further, we experienced guys declining 'early' with McKenzie, Diehl, and Snee.
We've been allocating cap space to guys off peak years while their play is projected to decline. We got unlucky with injuries and their inability to bounce back from them - but I think it's a flawed process to pick free agents like that.
I rarely hear anyone here acknowledge the strange fact that he went from playing in the Pro Bowl in January 2013 to playing his last game for the Giants just a few months later. As a GM how do you account for something like that?
Same thing with Beatty, Baas and Schwartz - of course you expect injuries from players, regardless of their injury history, but there's very few teams that would be able to recover from so many guys in one unit not only getting hurt but missing enormous chunks of time, entire seasons.
The injury bug is brought up frequently in these discussions, but I think the actual impact that it has had on this team and the huge challenge it has presented Jerry Reese continues to be understated.
Certainly mistakes were made. My issues is the constant ripping for the mid and late round picks. People have unrealistic expectations with these picks and this spreadsheet feeds into it (with completely useless data).
This spreadsheet doesn't say a damn thing about Reese and the Giants FO. Just like it doesn't say a thing about the drafting of NE or OAK.
It was clear the OL needed significant investment as early as 2009.
3 things happened very quickly from the end of 2010 to the end of 2011.
Seubert tore up his leg in that Washington game in Week 17 and never played again. He was a tremendous player. Even though Boothe took his place the next 3 years, he was never the player Seubert was.
O'Hara also played his last NFL game that day too. That forced the Giants to then need a replacement at center.
Snee and McKenzie in 2011 began to slip. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate the fall was coming. Both were highly productive players we never had to worry about.
So in a span of 12 months, from the Week 17 game in DC to the end of the next season, suddenly 4/5th's of the o-line was set to undergo turnover/age/decline.
I have to admit, that is a fast way to be forced to turn around a unit that had been so good for the 3 to 4 seasons they were prior.
Is cherry picking a few players and ranting about how other teams find good players in late rounds. Ridiculous is pointing to the TE Rogers in GB as an example of the type of guys NYG doesn't find. Our FA finds Donnell and Tye are better than that slug.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
Who do we have as a 3-7 round guy that can impact?
For example, drafting Hakeem Nicks and Jason Pierre-Paul. These draft picks dominated and helped lead us to a Super Bowl. Nicks was the best player on the field (other than Eli) in those playoffs in 2011.
I'd argue that picks like this far outweigh multiple and damning misses in the later rounds. That is just me though. And, I concede that pointing out Jerry's hits are not the point of this exercise.
I like this approach. Unfortunately, those home runs haven't happened for some time. I wonder if the approach changes going forward.
according to research Giants tied with Pats with 6 players
#StatFail
So don't quite know what to make of this data..
So don't quite know what to make of this data..
NE does a good job in FA. We do not.
Quote:
3 through 7 are rounds that build winners.
according to research Giants tied with Pats with 6 players
#StatFail
**cheating not factored into final results
History seems to indicate, he has some talent as a GM
OBJR
Richburgh
Bromley
Kennard
Nat Berhe ???
History seems to indicate, he has some talent as a GM
This is my point. People are so unwilling to give Reese credit for anything. He has "some talent" as a GM? He's drafted great players for us that helped us win 2 Super Bowls.
Why would success in early rounds preclude success in middle rounds? Any team built on draft picks is going to count on its highest picks to produce the most, but consistently winning teams use mid-round picks to build depth.
Quote:
Why would success in early rounds preclude success in middle rounds? Any team built on draft picks is going to count on its highest picks to produce the most, but consistently winning teams use mid-round picks to build depth.
Agreed, but it's not like Reese all of a sudden forgets how to scout and pick players in the middle rounds. They have just flat out missed on guys. It happens.
This quote from the article:
"Plus, I don't think the Giants roster is as talentless as the vocal majority -- not with a quarterback like Eli Manning, a Top 10 non-QB star, like Beckham, a solid young core of an offensive line and two solid cornerbacks. "
Jordan, im sure u wouldn't see this but u dont even have to say that. eli was accorsi's guy. and we have 1 CB (prince is a UFA). yea - he hit on beckham and he's got 3 decent OL prospects. That's 4 of 53+. big deal
Miami, by Jordan's account, have drafted quality players in the middle rounds. They have an average QB and poor coaching.
The beat goes on.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
This quote from the article:
"Plus, I don't think the Giants roster is as talentless as the vocal majority -- not with a quarterback like Eli Manning, a Top 10 non-QB star, like Beckham, a solid young core of an offensive line and two solid cornerbacks. "
Jordan, im sure u wouldn't see this but u dont even have to say that. eli was accorsi's guy. and we have 1 CB (prince is a UFA). yea - he hit on beckham and he's got 3 decent OL prospects. That's 4 of 53+. big deal
DRC played like a pro bowler this season. He's not on the team? Not a Reese signing?
Quote:
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
The Patriots don't go to the playoffs every year because of the draft. If you think that, I just don't know what to tell you.
If you don't understand the data is incomplete and it conveniently fits your narrative.
I would agree and extend the argument to doing it better than every other coach in the league.
Quote:
In comment 12748167 jsuds said:
Quote:
To me it seems that this data needs some weighting for the fact that a crappy team has a higher selection position compared to a SB winner. Therefore the pool of talent is already smaller by the time the higher ranked team gets to pick. So I think it would make sense that a consistently good team would have a lower number of hits because they would always have a lower pick. Also, some of the hits might be due to better player development and/or a better player selection method. Just saying it isn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. See the Packers rank and the Browns rank for example. Note during this time frame the Pats are right down there with the Giants, and both the Pats and Giants had two SB appearances during this time frame and thus lower picks.
I think your point isn't proving what you'd like it to in regards to the Pats. The Pats don't just win SB's they go to the playoffs every years to they always pick at the back end of the draft. The Giants haven't went in years and have two, the Pats have more.
The Patriots don't go to the playoffs every year because of the draft. If you think that, I just don't know what to tell you.
Not what I said and no one else has said anything similar
So Dr. I take it you're implying that you do sir?
So go on Mr. Helper why don't you tell us a readers digest version of exactly what you we should know about the draft.
and the Dolphns and Bucs are near the top of those lists and it hasn't helped them much
the difference from the top to the bottom of that is 8 players in total (1 player/year)
-- Raanan gives the Giants credit for super pick - Beckham and UDFA Cruz
- do those selections reduce the effective difference in that 8 player swing?
- also Nassib is considered a bust? -- is that really true?
- We all hope Nassib never gets used -- but he has taken up a valuable roster spot 3 years running now as the number 2 QB as opposed to a FA acquisition
- in that regard I would argue that Nassib should be included in the hits
-- this would give the giants 7 : 1 less than the Cards and the Broncos ; 2 less than the Bengals ; and 3 less than the Seahawks
-- add Cruz back in again -- and Cruz was a Superbowl run impact player -- and the difference is: same results as Cards and Broncos - and 1 less than the Bengals and 2 less than the Seahawks
8 players is 1 player per year --
Seems we could do better - but that particular analysis doesn't really prove that we needed to do better
also Reese's contention is that when you are not picking in the top 10 you have less to choose from -- the Giants picked in the bottom third in 3 of those 8 years - does that weigh the picks -- does that reflect why the Pats pick rate is so low
a lot of Superbowl teams are in the mid t0 lower range there -- so that would support Reese's contention that it's harder to get picks right when you pick at the bottom of the draft
does the coaching staff deserve some blame for not getting more out of some of these players?
Why do we just assume these guys are horrible and irredeemable?
I look at guys like Prince and Collins and Hosely (who I hate)on Defense... granted it is only 3 names, but why did we not get better play from these guys? Coaching?
Might a batter coach gotten more out of some of these OLinemen that seem to be just mediocre? Schwartz was a big time FA Guard - he comes here and -injuries notwithstanding - plays mediocre to bad. Why?
Thanks - I'm all in on Reese depleting the roster from 2010-2012. But his picks in between have been very good, striking gold on a few that carry a lot of weight in that trophy room.
It's been widely accepted that we haven't been doing much in the draft. Everyone wants to pin all the blame on Reese, when it was a group dynamic making the picks. that doesn't mean that Reese isn't part of the problem, but I do think that there are other parts of the equation that should share the blame. For the first time in a long time, we've shaken up that dynamic big time.
same goes for FA, probably more so as there's more time to get everyone's opinions. no doubt in my mind the coaches get a say. they may not get who they want all the time, but does anyone seriously think Flaherty, TC, and whoever the latest OC have told Reese that an OL player sucks donkeyballs, but Jerry goes out and signs him anyway?
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
and the Dolphns and Bucs are near the top of those lists and it hasn't helped them much
the difference from the top to the bottom of that is 8 players in total (1 player/year)
-- Raanan gives the Giants credit for super pick - Beckham and UDFA Cruz
- do those selections reduce the effective difference in that 8 player swing?
- also Nassib is considered a bust? -- is that really true?
- We all hope Nassib never gets used -- but he has taken up a valuable roster spot 3 years running now as the number 2 QB as opposed to a FA acquisition
- in that regard I would argue that Nassib should be included in the hits
-- this would give the giants 7 : 1 less than the Cards and the Broncos ; 2 less than the Bengals ; and 3 less than the Seahawks
-- add Cruz back in again -- and Cruz was a Superbowl run impact player -- and the difference is: same results as Cards and Broncos - and 1 less than the Bengals and 2 less than the Seahawks
8 players is 1 player per year --
Seems we could do better - but that particular analysis doesn't really prove that we needed to do better
also Reese's contention is that when you are not picking in the top 10 you have less to choose from -- the Giants picked in the bottom third in 3 of those 8 years - does that weigh the picks -- does that reflect why the Pats pick rate is so low
a lot of Superbowl teams are in the mid t0 lower range there -- so that would support Reese's contention that it's harder to get picks right when you pick at the bottom of the draft
Great post. The data is incomplete, it's not definitive proof, you need to get deeper than the surface numbers and include lots of missing context.
Do people expect a GM to have a home run draft every year?
This team could have won 8 games this year with better coaching. I believe that.
And yet the Giants are golfing and the Redskins are preparing for Green Bay.
Agreed. It's 1/3 coaching 1/3 talent 1/3 injuries.
Jerry Reese would be a top 5 general manager
Quote:
History seems to indicate, he has some talent as a GM
This is my point. People are so unwilling to give Reese credit for anything. He has "some talent" as a GM? He's drafted great players for us that helped us win 2 Super Bowls.
Clearly Reese held us back from winning 4-5 Superbowls.
YOu don't ready anything that flies against your position do you?
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
Including Jerry.
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
You ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over?
Go away. Find another team if it bothers you so much.
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
Quote:
.
Including Jerry.
That's fantastic analysis. Keep up the good work.
We can only hope that the HC candidates indicate they have a problem working with / under Reese and Mara comes to his senses and gives Reese the boot.
Oh poor Jordan, getting an "overly aggressive reply" from a GM that which he questioned. People need to lighten up around here. First it was Reese's dress code, now it's his aggressive reply. Christ.
Quote:
In comment 12748194 drkenneth said:
Quote:
.
Including Jerry.
That's fantastic analysis. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Just responding to your haughty, and content free, accusation.
It's a lot of work. I would need to see if we are really "missing" on picks, or is the talent not there?
Of course they hit on the first three rounds. Those are the easiest. The later rounds is when you earn your stripes and the Giants fail. Drafting Nassib in the fourth and giving up picks to move to do it was also a waste in my opinion. Why take a chance on a rookie who may never see the field when you can get a veteran QB as a backup.
A few Jets guys are like this. Cimini did it for years under Rex, and that Mehta guy as well. Asking pestering question after question until the person just can't take it anymore.
Again, nothing related to Jordan. I just HATE when this happens.
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
The problem is he'd have to do it for every team and does he have enough knowledge of every team to do that. Everyone's numbers might improve.
Of course they hit on the first three rounds. Those are the easiest. The later rounds is when you earn your stripes and the Giants fail. Drafting Nassib in the fourth and giving up picks to move to do it was also a waste in my opinion. Why take a chance on a rookie who may never see the field when you can get a veteran QB as a backup.
Nassib is a cost controlled backup QB with potential upside. If God forbid, Eli went down with an injury an Nassib went in and performed reasonable well you could have a Kolb, Flynn or Moore situation where that spell presents a trade opportunity. Having a proper developmental QB is never a bad thing.
You've got the likes of Moore and Hasslebeck with a $2.6 million and $3 million dollar cap hit respectively this year alone. That's more than Nassib will receive in his entire rookie contract.
Do I mind small school projects based on AA/measurables or productive guys who've been had some injury concerns after the 4th round? Nope not at all the success rate for all teams between 5-7 is pretty low you may as well swing. Not a fan though of similar thought processes in the 3rd and 4th rounds.
Quote:
and interestingly enough - Jordan has a point
-- it's an annoying point -- but it's a point --
however Reese also has a point and that point is really not explored in Raanan's piece
-- and that is how does draft position effect your ability to draft well in the mid to late rounds of the draft
-- I have always maintained that it does impact what you have available
- I would be interested in knowing if the there is a weighted factor of 3 for the Giants representing: their 2 bottom of each round mid to late round draft picks and their 1 lower third middle to late rounders -
does that factor of three make a difference?
that handicaps them to now 9 picks - 10 including Nassib and 11 including Cruz - that kind of makes the Giants look above average in that department.
The problem is he'd have to do it for every team and does he have enough knowledge of every team to do that. Everyone's numbers might improve.
You know -- I'm not sure that's true Jeremy - maybe the Pats would - but 21 teams each year don't pick in the bottom third of the draft -- and the Giants have been there 3 times in the past 8 years - twice at the very bottom - almost half of the 8 years were drafts were there would be a very low percentage that the Giants could do well -- as opposed to 10 other teams in the top third -- and 10 teams in the middle third
I think the picks need to be weighed for all teams and see what happens -- it would be interesting in my opinion --
in any event -- the mere fact that the Giants and the Pats scale the same in that list is very interesting to me - and the Pats had many more picks than the Giants did.
I hadn't quite caught what JR was saying leading up to "do the research...give me the facts" statement. His preamble to Jordan's question to the effect that the better players are at Rounds 1 and 2 and players at 3 - 7 aren't as good, as an answer to the question, is pure arrogance, smug arrogance. It's factual, of course, but as an answer to how Reese does relative to the other teams it is arrogant in the extreme.
eff him.
[url]http://www.bigblueview.com/2016/1/6/10721282/ny-giants-nfl-draft-jerry-reese-mid-to-late-roundpicks[url]
The author first presents the average value for players picked in that round for that year, before presenting the value for the Giants pick. IMHO, it gives the pick more context in terms of the value the rest of the league got at each pick.
Just to summarize: The only picks in round 4-7 for the 2011-2013 drafts that exceeded the average value for that round are Jacquin Williams (who only stuck with the team because they had no one better) and Zak DeOssie, a special teams specialist. For 2014, the numbers get better in that Andre Williams and Devon Kennard exceed the average by quite a bit.
such a simple concept, yet so many can't grasp it.
mid round backup QB's are taken all the time, but somehow Reese is excoriated as being a lunatic for daring to do it. a decent vet backup is expensive, and usually when called upon promptly show why they are no longer starters. a developmental QB is cheap and may possibly show upside. If you want a starting quality backup at QB, draft one in the first or second round, or shell out huge bucks for the rare one that hits FA. otherwise your choice is a cheap developmental QB, or a more expensive vet who is likely to not do much.
http://www.bigblueview.com/2016/1/6/10721282/ny-giants-nfl-draft-jerry-reese-mid-to-late-roundpicks
I suppose you could give the data additional context by only averaging the value that teams that picked behind the Giants got. That would show you the value left on the board after they picked. The average value in the current tables may be inflated due to much higher values at the top of the round, but I am leaning towards that not being true.
And since taking over as GM, Reese has altered that blueprint by repeatedly wasting picks on WRs and DB's and taking flyers on guys with medical question marks.
He was at N.E. for most of his career.
Check out the Edelman a 7th round pick - scouted by Jon.
Also he was involved with the Gronk pick.
I don't believe the Giants will be able to be successful with Reese/Ross at the helm. I want the Giants fixed, not another team.
This is all so overblown. EVERYONE is at fault for the last 3 years, including Tom Coughlin. Coaching matters. Player development matters. Drafting and free agency matters. A lot of people think TC had his head in the sand with personnel which is wildly off base.
I'm excited to get a new coach in here and have everyone surely on the same page going forward with one direction. If TC was 15 years younger, none of this is an issue, but I'm so glad the year to year operation is over.
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
I'm eagerly awaiting the data and analysis.
You (and the Reese sucks crowd) is looking to blame one person. Problem is, it's not that simple.
Maybe that's the problem you're having.
Quote:
In comment 12748293 jeff57 said:
Quote:
In comment 12748194 drkenneth said:
Quote:
.
Including Jerry.
That's fantastic analysis. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Just responding to your haughty, and content free, accusation.
Yeah? You have yet to bring any content to support anything of note. You just wave pom poms at incomplete data and pretend that's good evidence. Learn the difference between data and information.
The "games played" and "games started" column doesn't measure much. Why? Because not all are the same. Not close.
On the thread that was deleted I gave an example of Miles Burris. This is a LB drafted by the Raiders right after Giants took TE Robinson. Burris was an athletic LB. Raiders moved him to DE as a rookie. He started every game and was the worst starting DE in the NFL. Overmatched. They moved him back to LB. Starts every game in 2014. Guy was awful. They cut him before minicamp in 15. Nobody in the league signed him. Form every game starter to out of the league the next season.
He did nothing for the Raiders but certainly boosts the numbers in this spreadsheet for the team. 3 years. 38 starts. 40+ games played.
One guy like Bradshaw is worth 50 guys like Burris. All games played are not equal which explains why that spreadsheet ranks the Raiders at the top of the league in drafting.
It also doesn't factor the injuries which is a critical factor if you're trying to measure and compare drafting.
Until you have something that truly includes the quality of play (and it sure isn't pro bowls) and factor injuries into the equation then these numbers mean nothing.
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
I'm eagerly awaiting the data and analysis.
You are intentionally refusing to acknowledge that the data provided is incomplete. The reasons why have been detailed in this thread and the original thread about the spreadsheet. That thread was deleted because the smarter posters poked holes in the data, but of course, you're either not entertaining that because it flies against hte face of your narrative, or that you're just too stupid to understand why the metrics are incomplete and flawed.
The "games played" and "games started" column doesn't measure much. Why? Because not all are the same. Not close.
On the thread that was deleted I gave an example of Miles Burris. This is a LB drafted by the Raiders right after Giants took TE Robinson. Burris was an athletic LB. Raiders moved him to DE as a rookie. He started every game and was the worst starting DE in the NFL. Overmatched. They moved him back to LB. Starts every game in 2014. Guy was awful. They cut him before minicamp in 15. Nobody in the league signed him. Form every game starter to out of the league the next season.
He did nothing for the Raiders but certainly boosts the numbers in this spreadsheet for the team. 3 years. 38 starts. 40+ games played.
One guy like Bradshaw is worth 50 guys like Burris. All games played are not equal which explains why that spreadsheet ranks the Raiders at the top of the league in drafting.
It also doesn't factor the injuries which is a critical factor if you're trying to measure and compare drafting.
Until you have something that truly includes the quality of play (and it sure isn't pro bowls) and factor injuries into the equation then these numbers mean nothing.
Hey Choo Choo Boy, do you need someone to dumb this down for you?
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
John -- which Playoff teams would that be? Are we talking Pats? (0), Cards? (0), Washington? (0) Minnesota? (0) or Broncos? (2), Green Bay ? (2), Pittsburg ? (2), Houston ? (3)
or maybe Perennial Revolving DCs New Orleans? (10), Great Year, No Coach Niners? (8), Sliding Fast Baltimore? (6)
Quote:
giants#1 : 4:11 pm
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
It is a bit baffling how it actually gets argued now like it has never been talked about over the last 2 years on BBI. Not once have i ever seen anyone defend that until now
Even of Reese gets canned it still will never sink into fans heads as to how the Giants make selections.
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
As an example, Jerry Reese can't be held accountable for John Jerry starting over Bobby Hart unless you're willing to just accept that Hart isn't talented enough to play without actually seeing him perform on game day.
The only data that are virtually indisputable are the final results. No championships, no playoff wins, no playoff appearances or no winning records in the past 3 years.
The best argument I've heard to move on from Coughlin are along the lines of "3 years of poor performance; time for a change." The time management / late game decision making in 2015 (really a new issue this year) are also cited (i.e. the Giants could have won 2, 3, 4 more games etc.) with better late game management / decisions. Again, fair.
In my view, the talent on the roster for beginning of the 2015 was sub par and got worse as the injuries mounted. Reese felt otherwise, making this claim in on 8/3/15:
This from the same guy who put up the Super Bowl countdown clock for the 2013 team that started 0-6.
In my view, the fact that the Giants were still competitive late in so many games was a result of getting the most out of the poor talent. The fact that the talent is poor was acknowledged by Mara.
So if you want to move on from Coughlin due to the record over the last 3 years and the in game decision making in 2015, fine. The question that still comes up is why does Reese still have his job? Mara has confidence Reese can fix the roster, but apparently doesn't have the confidence that Coughlin can coach that roster going forward.
I think it is too early to judge the 2014 and 2015 drafts (obviously Beckham is a superstar, but we've been misled about mid / late round picks a year or two into their careers before). It think 2014 and 2015 having more, excessive later round misses is still possible.
For those that agree with Mara and have confidence the Reese can fix the roster going forward, would you supply the data and analysis that supports the position that Reese should be retained?
Given 3 consecutive non-championship, non-playoff, losing seasons, the burden of proof should be on those wanting to keep the GM, not the other way around IMHO.
Either keep the HC and GM or fire both. Getting rid of one and not the other is what frosts many of us.
Quote:
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
Good point. Although admirable, TC's loyalty (or some may call it stubbornness) to some players instead of either give less minutes to some players (like Williams for example) or flat out puting out to pasture (like Diehl) is something I think frustrated both Reese and the owners. But as has been the way they've operated forever, they let the coach coach and stay in their respective lanes. Although a questionable player to say this about, I think Mara's comment about the WR from Troy (whose name escapes me at the moment) wondering why he wasn't playing more was telling as to their thinking with regards to TC either sticking with some players to long or not giving others more playing time.
Yep. The Dolphins (#1 in rounds 3-7) are living proof.
The issue is firing Coughlin while retaining Reese. Keep both or fire both. If I'm given that choice, I keep a future HOF Head Coach and suffer through an average at best GM.
Bingo!
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
A BBI poster did an assessment and provided lots of data via an Excel spreadsheet OneDrive account showing Reese was "sub par" relative to most other teams.
Ranaan did his own analysis, provided data and came to the same conclusion that Reese has been "sub par".
We all know there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". One of my favorite expressions is, "If you torture numbers long enough, they will admit to anything."
So we have two independent analyses showing Reese has done a subpar job drafting in the middle rounds.
Any one going to provide data and analysis showing the opposite conclusion (i.e. Reese has done an excellent or at least above average job)?
I'm eagerly awaiting the data and analysis.
Good post
Quote:
Quote:
giants#1 : 4:11 pm
already from the '14 draft: Bromley, Williams, and Kennard.
...Williams and Kennard as hits? That's some generous grading on a curve imo. One guy flat out hasn't been productive. The other has missed more games with injuries than he's played. At best you could label them incomplete now and revisit it after next season.
WE all knew we've been bad outside of Rounds 1 & 2. This info has been posted and discussed here on BBI previously.
It is a bit baffling how it actually gets argued now like it has never been talked about over the last 2 years on BBI. Not once have i ever seen anyone defend that until now
Yep
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. But, lets not act like he was the supreme lord here and he was the only hand in everything that has went wrong.
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
Yeah, Jernigan. Thanks David!
I only posted because I fail to see how Ranaan's (whose work I actually respect) article really proved anything. The game is about winning championships... and the two teams that have won the most championships the last decade and a half or so are at the bottom of his list (the other franchise led by a guy that gets routinely lauded for not only his coaching ability but also for his ability to find talent in the draft). So by going by that logic, you don't have to draft well in the later drafts in order to win championships right?
I only posted because I hadn't seen anyone mention the very simple fact that for all the preparation teams do when it comes to the draft... a lot of it comes down to just plain ole luck when trying to pick the right players... and the later you get in the draft, the luckier you need to be to find the gems. Yet, using Ranaan's logic, the team would be better off having a guy like Tannenbaum, and the other GMs Miami has gone through over the past several years, as the GM here instead of a guy who produced not one but two championships. Think about that.
Anyway, good to hear from you David and for the record you've been one of my favorite posters lately because you usually say what I would've on not just the team but a variety of topics. If I have more time I hope to be able to pick back up the Playa's Only threads next season (shout out to Rt 9 by the way for a job well done!). Peace and have a good night. Finally got the kid to sleep so I gotta get mine in when I can! LOL!
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
Quote:
Jerry Reese refuses to own up to his failures | Politi
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
Nice post Seth!
Quote:
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
Quote:
to draw this conclusion:
Quote:
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
Quote:
In comment 12749164 jcn56 said:
Quote:
to draw this conclusion:
Quote:
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
Dude there is no way I'm going to through every thread I've read over the last three days and pick apart all the posts. I can almost guarantee even if I did, there would be little to no acknoweldgement of my point if I went back and found them. I've been down that road too many times on BBI. Even posting this now I'm not exactly sitting here bored with nothing to do. If you haven't seen those posts or threads I don't know what to tell you.
The problem you have is Reese did a bunch of doublespeak in that presser. While admitting he missed earlier, he then demanded proof of the fact he missed when asked the question later on
My question remains the same...Jordan if you're around maybe you can explain to me why you say this:
"But he didn't. He attacked."
COnsidering the fact that I'm not sure what others think they saw but I saw a media session that basically was a little gathering of the media to go on the full attack about Reese's livelihood and career accomplishments and why he is even "allowed" to keep his job. Even looking at the other things on the page of this article:
THe link to Politi's article
Quote:
Jerry Reese refuses to own up to his failures | Politi
It will be Reese, not the new head coach or Eli Manning or anyone else, who takes the heat if the Giants are in the same position a year from now.
This is completely untrue as I heard the man own up to his own failures while fighting back a barrage of questioning that seemed like a demand for him to explain himself and how awful he has been, from people he doesn't answer to at all.
Putting myself in that position -- standing in front of a room of people who you've spoken to in trust and confidentiality with the idea that trust equals respect I assume, and then having to answer in front of my bosses and every other person involved in the organization and media and fans watching on tv, why I am allowed to continue working for the franchise I've been a part of for 21 years -- those same people really want me to mess up or say something wrong or insult anyone by accident so the story can be bigger. So who really is on the attack? And who didn't say he's made mistakes? Not to mention what it must be like to hear media telling you how your organization is and should be arranged and who picked who in the draft when and why etc.. when they likely in fact don't know the half of it. Yet he has to sit up there and take on quesions that he likely wants to answer like: "Kim you have no clue whatsoever who worked on a single thing nor when nor how. Yet here you are calling me out in front of my boss and asking why my career goes on?"
Sweet little poll at the bottom of the page too
"What was Jerry Reese's biggest blunder?"
should also be one for fans: "When did Jerry Reese go from beloved Giants architect of 21 years to loser with no clue how to run a team and fraud who keeps his job while he sends his coach to the slaughter?"
1. THe day after Super Bowl 46
2. Last week
3. Yesterday
4. I kind of liked him today but he got a little angry at this conference so he can take a damn walk
Point is, this conference was literally one big challenge of Reese's job. Not just a little challenge of data on midrounders. Why should or would he sit up there like a shy dog taking heat from the notorious NYC Metro Area media horde?
Come on, this is a real melodramtic take on what occured. He talks only a few times a year to the press, this is not someone that these reporters have easy access to. Sitting there claiming he was attacked when asked follow-up questions to claims he and the owner both made is absurd. He then compounded the the line of questioning when he sat there one moment claiming he takes responsibility, and then comes right back and starts passing the blame all around. That is inviting the media to pick apart what he is saying because Reese himself sounded like he did not know what he was saying.
So if your going to ask that question, you need to answer it yourself first
Quote:
I routinely see comments about how hard it is to find good players in rounds 3-7, but that's exactly what the good teams in the league do. That's why Reese and his staff get paid the big bucks to evaluate and acquire talent.
Jordan used a pretty low standard to evaluate our picks in the later rounds and it was still bad. The playoff teams aren't just finding "starters for a year or more," they're finding core players.
John -- which Playoff teams would that be? Are we talking Pats? (0), Cards? (0), Washington? (0) Minnesota? (0) or Broncos? (2), Green Bay ? (2), Pittsburg ? (2), Houston ? (3)
or maybe Perennial Revolving DCs New Orleans? (10), Great Year, No Coach Niners? (8), Sliding Fast Baltimore? (6)
Are you serious?
Kirk Cousins and Jordan Reed were late round picks. Richard Sherman, Russell Wilson, and several starting LB's were late round picks. Stefon Diggs was a late round pick. Most of the starting OL for Green Bay were late round picks, along with Richard Rodgers, James Jones, and several defensive starters. Carolina has late round guys starting for them. David Johnson and John Brown were late round picks for the Cards. That's just the NFC, and that doesn't include guys like Gary Barnidge, Greg Hardy, etc. that were drafted late and ended up on another team.
If anyone thinks the Giants are doing OK in rounds 3-7, they're delusional.
You have to hit on some of those guys to be a contender -- not just "ok specials teamer" or "decent depth." You need some impact players from these spots.
Because that's what it's going to take to overcome a GM on the wrong side of the production curve over a fairly good recent sample size. Now he's under even more duress - directly and publicly expressed by his boss, the owner - to deliver. Human nature likely dictates the guy is low on confidence, will press, and may even have the GM yips. One could argue it's unfair to keep him on the job because the culture is now too toxic to succeed. It should have been a mercy firing...
That press conference wasn't revealing because the media seemingly attacked precious Jerry Reese. That press conference was revealing because it showed a senior management guy who lacked confidence, poise, and control. To think he'll be able to recapture whatever mojo he once had is the biggest stretch.
Reese is the classic dead man walking...
Quote:
In comment 12748544 T-Bone said:
Quote:
I've consistently read on this site from multiple posters... even some of the very ones condemning Reese now... that picks in the later rounds are 'throw away picks'. Now they're not? I've consistently read from multiple posters say this when it comes to trading for a player, when discussing taking a chance on a player, etc... but now these 'throw away picks', and Reese's inability to hit on more of them than everyone else, is a reason why he should be fired? Everyone knows and acknowledges that a large percentage of late round picks don't make it in the league and yet Reese's supposed inability to hit on THAT much more than the league average is the reason to fire a guy who also played a big part in two titles? Seriously?
It's hilarious to me how some are damn near weeping over Coughlin being let go (which I wasn't totally against but after some of the questionable calls this past season I can understand) because he delivered two titles to this franchise meanwhile conveniently forgetting that Coughlin was involved in the selection process too. As has been said many times over the past few weeks... blame can and should be spread around when it comes to the acquisition of players on this team... but the questionable play calls and collapses in games (not to mention supposedly not being aware of shit that's going on during the game like Beckham's personal fouls against Carolina) we had no business losing falls on the coach.
Or the continued use of Ron Dayne 2.0 aka Andre Williams!
Good point. Although admirable, TC's loyalty (or some may call it stubbornness) to some players instead of either give less minutes to some players (like Williams for example) or flat out puting out to pasture (like Diehl) is something I think frustrated both Reese and the owners. But as has been the way they've operated forever, they let the coach coach and stay in their respective lanes. Although a questionable player to say this about, I think Mara's comment about the WR from Troy (whose name escapes me at the moment) wondering why he wasn't playing more was telling as to their thinking with regards to TC either sticking with some players to long or not giving others more playing time.
Yeah Jerrel Jernigan of Troy is a great example... But not of TC's stubbornness or incompetence but rather Reese's and Mara's!
Despite JJ's 2 or 3 good games, retrospect shows TC was correct to not play him and JR goofed badly selecting him over a very solid OL the Bengals grabbed a few picks later... Clint Boling out of Georgia. Jernigan's out of the league, and Boling has started on one of the NFL's best OL for four years....
The 4 time frames were a completely random set of dates but I did mean to half joke that one day Reese was a superb GM who missed on some picks and got screwed by injuries....then the tone took a turn towards TC and why he must suck because they blew games etc...and of course this season ended with a huge amount of people just wwanting both the coach and GM gone. Full turn from "love" to hate and its all happened fairly quickly.
For what its worth I have been unsatisfied with Reese and TC's results, moreso Reese's depth evalutation and the scary lack of talent at a couple positions that allowed for this year's defense (the single most nauseating and putrid unit on any team we have had in memory) Anyone who puts that team out there and watches them lose games in ways that almost seem impossible deserves to have to at least acknowledge that they will do everything in their power to not force fans to watch that garbage ever again.
Ok with that out of the way, I don't think it's melodramatic at all. I think it was extremely weird and as awkward a presser I can think of. What you said about how rare it is that the GM meets with the media is actually relevant to my point. Im not a huge fan of the media obviously (Jordan is an exception) but I made my point because yet again I see a media member saying that Reese was on the attack....which I think is ridiculous because what I saw was a highly regarded, highly respected (by the media's standards I think they have a great relationship with Reese actually) GM, sitting there at the resignation of his head coach (with whom he has a tremendous relationship - their words not mine), and having to answer for himself.
The whole thing was bizarre to watch. I don't mean to sound "melodramatic" but here is what I know and why I thought it was many things including uncomfortable, awkward, obnoxious and antagonistic...
- Everyday for weeks the media started their daily Fire Coughlin routine. You saw it, I saw it, we always see it. Many many fans eat that crap up. The whole fire everyone thing happens every year a team doesn't do well. For the media its excitement on the day a new coach is hired and then a time bomb to see how long they'll have to wait until they can talk abotu why so and so need to be fired. It's part of the business. It helps them gain lots of attention. I mean for instance, I'm talking about the media and I don't like or care what they have to say. Only care when they cause a crappy experience for a fan who doesn't enjoy the media telling you everyday why the team you root for is horrible or better yet dysfunctional. We all know they eat that up. If you're not a champion or a horror show, you're boring.
- Ok so TC actually does lose his job and the media can't wait to report on it the moment our last loss is complete. But then oddly enough, somehow the media manages to turn their points from FIRE TC to Wait they say the personnel is the problem ? Well then maybe its Jerry Reese. Everyone who watches the Giants knows that Reese is the GM but the coach is extremely involved with personnel decisions. WHy would he not be?
- The press conference happens and somehow the media that spent weeks craving the head of the coach, suddenly is horrified that TC is canned but Jerry Reese keeps his job. Mara says you can't go 4 years with no playoffs and thin that is acceptable. Mara says Jerry is in charge of personnel but works with a whole staff, and of course the coach is not just handed a roster and told to deal with it. TC and Reese worked hand in hand. This isn't new news and its obvious, plus that's why the team runs smoothly (contrary to what the media really doesn't want to portray because it's boring to have stability right?
- At the presser the media doens't ask questions in a way that just deals with football and how they will get better and why they weren't good. They want to know about the drama and the BS. About who screwed whom over. But I can't be the only Giant fan who sits there watching this or listening to it and wonders how the same media that wanted TC fired weeks ago is now creating this image that TC is an innocent bystander and Reese is THE problem. THere is something pretty awkward about asking Mara why Reese gets to keep his job WHILE THE GUY IS SITTING THERE, probably pretty unhappy that these reporters with whom he has a decent or good relationship, are demanding to know why he gets to stay. The guy has worked for this team for two decades and it's his whole life and the media is flippant about his career because he missed on a series of 4th and 5th round picks. Not only that but they want to hear from Mara right then and there why he isn't gone. Then when Reese steps to the podium he's supposed to be just thrilled at the situation? He has to answer to a bunch of reporters why he keeps his role as though they have the power to decide why he shouldn't. Of course he bites back when people ask antagonistic questions. The questions sound personal and don't exactly acknowledge the success Reese has found with many players. It's the usual crap: "yeah you found Bradshaw and Cruz and Beckham and JPP etc etc etc but why couldn't you find depth to cover for that 4th string free safety spot and how do you explain yourself for that!??? Better yet if you pick the players then poor Tom was just kicked to the curb and here you are as though everything is fine ." But maybe worst of all is they act like they know exactly what goes on in those draft rooms or in free agency discussions, to the point where when Reese says that he isn't the only opinion in the room they turn (and plenty of BBI too) that into "shifting blame". It's complete BS. He accepts responsibility but explains that there is more to it than Jerry Reese being the sole player decision maker.
I think the last couple drafts have been pretty good actually compared to the couple prior to that. It's unfortunate but that David WIlson draft was one of those years that sets a team back. But you don't like Beckham, Richburg, Pugh, Kennard, Collins, Hankins? Beckham and Richburg alone could be franchise core. It's not a given you find that. Yet I would have fired Reese over Coughlin, even if I felt more annoyed seeing TC roam the sidelines during another embarrassing game. Reality is both have not done extremely well but unlike the media I don't crave their shitcanning. I do however know why it needs to happen sometimes.
SOrry for the massive word mass but this whole thing gets me going and Jordan's point that Reese was "on the attack" seemed to be more than a little hypocritical. That presser was quite an attack.
Reese hitting on OBJ and Cruz doesnt outweigh his misses
Quote:
In comment 12749172 JOrthman said:
Quote:
In comment 12749164 jcn56 said:
Quote:
to draw this conclusion:
Quote:
Because frankly, I'm not sure what exactly Reese does. I thought he was the GM in charge of players, FA aquisitions, the cap, etc... However, it seems TC did everything and JR is blameless. If you wanted TC fired for not making the playoffs the last three years and his losing record lately then fine. ...
BBI/media and Giants fans had issues with drafting, talent and FA aquisitions for this team for years. I don't think anyone can dispute that. During the conference a few days ago, Mara/JR acknoledged talent/cap issues this team has had over the years which seemed to be consistant with the consensus. Now when Mara and/or JR are being taken to task in the media outlets or threads like this everything is being pushed back on TC as the talent evaluator. My post isn't just for this thread, but everything I've been reading on BBI over the last three days or so.
So, everything you've read on BBI says Reese is blameless, but you have no examples?
Dude there is no way I'm going to through every thread I've read over the last three days and pick apart all the posts. I can almost guarantee even if I did, there would be little to no acknoweldgement of my point if I went back and found them. I've been down that road too many times on BBI. Even posting this now I'm not exactly sitting here bored with nothing to do. If you haven't seen those posts or threads I don't know what to tell you.
That's not just hyperbole, it's an outright lie. "Blameless JR", everything falls on to TC. The posts right now on BBI break down to 3 simple categories:
1. TC took the fall, JR was mostly to blame.
2. TC was partly to blame, JR should have gone with him.
3. TC was partly to blame, JR should be given another chance.
I don't think I've seen anyone come remotely close to making a case for JR being blameless, or for TC being wholly responsible. If you see that one, let me know.
We've reached another one of those BBI moments, where the emotion of the situation causes people to post outright stupidity. How many 'Eff Reese' posts do we have? Plenty. When all is said and done, he's as responsible for the 2 titles as TC is - and if you said 'Eff TC' on his way out the door, shame on you. Reese deserves the same place with Giants fans.
And, as others have also pointed out, he didn't address the anomalies that counter the point he's trying to make, ie., how the patriots could be as inept as the giants in these rounds but have so much continued success. I'd also like to see details for each team to see who he considers hits and misses. As one poster pointed out, is Nassib a miss? Maybe he hasn't contributed on the field, but he clearly has shown enough to remain the primary backup to one of the top QBs in the league.
To me, this analysis points to a lack of player development in the later rounds, and that's not on the GM. That's on the coaching staff; positional, coordinators and HC all bear some responsibility in this area, imho.
The Reese pattern, 2007 excepted, has been Solid to excellent Rd 1, hit or miss Round 2 and zilch in rounds 3-7. Consistently missing in Round 3 is painful. Being only coin flip effective in Rd 2 isn't helping either.
It's incredibly hard to quantify something like this, but I think Jordan's method is severely lacking. First, looking at raw number of "hits" doesn't mean much when you don't know how many draft picks a team had or which round the picks were in (a third round pick is a lot different than a seventh round pick). This is especially true when you are talking about something with small numbers ranging (a range of 3 to 14 is pretty small). It is also true when you have some teams that have received a lot of compensatory picks and other teams that have traded away a lot of picks.
His definition of a "hit" is also problematic. How does he define, "significant contributors?" It is harder for a late round pick to make a team like the Patriots that have better talent on the team already. It also treats marginal players the same as star players.
A better way to look at this would be to look at how many players got a second contract in the league, and how much they signed for. This would require waiting longer to actually evaluate, but it would be a lot more meaningful way of looking at how well a team has evaluated talent in the draft.
And, as others have also pointed out, he didn't address the anomalies that counter the point he's trying to make, ie., how the patriots could be as inept as the giants in these rounds but have so much continued success. I'd also like to see details for each team to see who he considers hits and misses. As one poster pointed out, is Nassib a miss? Maybe he hasn't contributed on the field, but he clearly has shown enough to remain the primary backup to one of the top QBs in the league.
To me, this analysis points to a lack of player development in the later rounds, and that's not on the GM. That's on the coaching staff; positional, coordinators and HC all bear some responsibility in this area, imho.
Rd 3 is not "low rounds" and Reese misses consistently. He also missed far to often in Rd 2, but that seems to be turning around with the last 3 drafts
of course several of the next picked players (travis swanson *starting C for lions, 3 down MLB chris borland, spencer long *starting G for redskins, gabe jackson *starting G for the Raiders, will sutton dt - not a great player but better than bromley so far at the same position, WR/KR Josh Huff legit role player for eagles, cb phillip gaines looked good for chiefs, G chris watt legit OL for chargers, G brandon linder *starting for Jags, G Trai Turner - starting for panthers
pretty sickening. we take bromley who does absolutely zilch when there are 4 or 5 starting G's available, starting MLB. and we needed G's bad when we took him. just one example of stupidity in the 3rd round.
drafting? yes. BBs recent drafts haven't been great. ANd he's had a ton of picks. But obviously they are doing a better job in FA. Players have to be coming from somewhere. And he is coaching the shit out of them
bill b can afford to have not so good drafts because overall he is a mastermind that dominates the NFL. that's not us. McAdoo is not bill walsh and mara/reese/whoever our head coach is not bill belichick.
That's it, that is what anyone who takes a job with the Giants is going to have to deal with, the NYC Media. Greatest city when you win, hardest when you lose. Every single employee of the NY Giants knew that prior to signing on board.
As far as being a weird PC, I agree. It came across to me as if this was done off the cuff, which is odd because the Giants don't do things that way. Were it got weird was you have a "farewell speech" that knocked it out of the park, a "what do we do now as we move forward" speech, and then a "I'm accountable for the issues, but not really" speech. Pinning it on the media is where i think you get derailed. They asked nothing but football questions, questions that were evolved from the speeches given themselves. Then add Reese getting pissy and you have an element of "ah-ha we are on to something". I think this was done by Mara on purpose, I think that he felt pushed into making a move and he was not really sure he made the right one.
The problem for the Reese defense is that its made up of guesses (how much input do other have?, how much influence did Coughlin have. etc..etc) Yet the bottom line is that Reese is the final say and in charge of that aspect of the team, so those excuses are worthless. The other factor I find ironic is this new defense of him based on "well he did not do that bad, look at the Pats" nonsense. Per the owner and Reese himself is an admittance that they have been bad in the later stages, so how on Earth is that a defense?
Now move from the draft to FA signings. You have DRC as a great signing. Harris was good but there is a legit claim we paid too much, Vereen could be a great one, time will tell. But what else have we gotten over the last 3 years?
How long have we held onto Beason and got nothing from him? Scwartz? Why did we let go of Marcellus Bennett? What exactly has Ogletree, Reynolds, John Jerry, Fells, and Ellis done for this team? Where you confident of the talent we had on this team?
The bottom line here is that the GM has the final say on the roster, the GM made excuses over the talent of this team, some legit, some ridiculous, but the same excuses for keeping him also apply to Coughlin for the most part. That is why he got grilled, and fairly so.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
One thought I had based on many data points I looked at (stats, analyses like Raanan's, comments on this board, etc.) is that Reese's perceived preference for "projects" may have been OK once but not under the new CBA that allows for much less practice time to develop those projects into NFL-ready players. Perhaps a switch to more "NFL-ready" players - even with less theoretical upside - works better in the current framework. For all we know, maybe Coughlin could have turned some of these recent busts into decent players if he could run camps like he used to.
bill b can afford to have not so good drafts because overall he is a mastermind that dominates the NFL. that's not us. McAdoo is not bill walsh and mara/reese/whoever our head coach is not bill belichick.
I'm not using the pats to defend Reese, just using the fact that the Pats and Giants have the same number as a way to indicate that Ranaan's use of just that measure is a questionable way to measure 'draft success'. The teams at the top of that list aren't all model franchises and the ones at the bottom aren't all Browns-esque.
But that's really an academic point. Perhaps the Pats have that number because they've done better at locking up players long term, trading and (definitely) better at their pro scouting than the Giants
I also can't find too much wrong with his FA signings as a whole. His perceived biggest busts - Baas and Schwartz - got hurt. As far as I can remember, he never gave anyone a Byron Maxwell type contract (unless you count Plax's extension but you probably shouldn't). He extended Jacobs, Tuck, Bradshaw and Osi at team-friendly deals.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
Montana, looking back now at the season, did we really pay too much for Harris? Guy was worth every penny. In fact we didn't get max value because TC used Preston Parker the first few games!
""Actually Rodgers as an example of a good pick is a reach, but the release of Bennett is an example of a good FA we let go and tried to make up for it with Donnell and Tye""
Quote:
Harris was good but there is a legit claim we paid too much
Montana, looking back now at the season, did we really pay too much for Harris? Guy was worth every penny. In fact we didn't get max value because TC used Preston Parker the first few games!
Valid point Danny, in relation to needing a player like that then No, absolutely not. But the fact we had that need is why he cost what he did, so in one way no, the other way somewhat
Baas was 28 going on 29 when signed and Schwartz was 28 with injury history. Despite the thinking that you can plug guys in along the line and they're fine for a decade, the peaks of offensive linemen is ~27 - so we signed these guys off of peak/near-peak performance. Further, we experienced guys declining 'early' with McKenzie, Diehl, and Snee.
We've been allocating cap space to guys off peak years while their play is projected to decline. We got unlucky with injuries and their inability to bounce back from them - but I think it's a flawed process to pick free agents like that.
Same thing with Beatty, Baas and Schwartz - of course you expect injuries from players, regardless of their injury history, but there's very few teams that would be able to recover from so many guys in one unit not only getting hurt but missing enormous chunks of time, entire seasons.
The injury bug is brought up frequently in these discussions, but I think the actual impact that it has had on this team and the huge challenge it has presented Jerry Reese continues to be understated.
It was clear the OL needed significant investment as early as 2009.
This spreadsheet doesn't say a damn thing about Reese and the Giants FO. Just like it doesn't say a thing about the drafting of NE or OAK.
The problem was they didn't use him more on offense. He should have been used in that Cobb role in this offense.
It was clear the OL needed significant investment as early as 2009.
3 things happened very quickly from the end of 2010 to the end of 2011.
Seubert tore up his leg in that Washington game in Week 17 and never played again. He was a tremendous player. Even though Boothe took his place the next 3 years, he was never the player Seubert was.
O'Hara also played his last NFL game that day too. That forced the Giants to then need a replacement at center.
Snee and McKenzie in 2011 began to slip. Prior to that, there was nothing to indicate the fall was coming. Both were highly productive players we never had to worry about.
So in a span of 12 months, from the Week 17 game in DC to the end of the next season, suddenly 4/5th's of the o-line was set to undergo turnover/age/decline.
I have to admit, that is a fast way to be forced to turn around a unit that had been so good for the 3 to 4 seasons they were prior.
This 3rd to 7th round problem of Reese may be the most overplayed topic on BBI in the last 5 years. And now its backed by these incomplete numbers that prove absolutely nothing? Great.
Who do we have as a 3-7 round guy that can impact?