Car - cover & rush 5 or 4
Sea - strictly rush 4 & cover
Den - strictly rush 4 & man cover
Ari & pats- mix up schemes
What are you basing this off of? These may be the case in base packages but all of these teams utilize a multitude of blitz packages and sometimes bring more than 4 or 5.
Also, drafting for talent is a far better approach than drafting for position. The draft isn't all about filling a hole on the depth chart for the next season, you need to think for the year beyond.
The Denver defense had one special player and everybody else played their role in the defense. The DL got pressure up the field but did not loose sight of Cam and allow him to get outside the pocket. The LB's filled the passing and running lanes very quickly but most important the TE's where held in check. In the secondary rule one was stay aggressive but don't allow your man to get behind you make the QB complete the short throws in front of you.
It was not so much the talent on defense it was the desire and ability to perform as a unit by the entire defense. One man made some big plays but the defense made the stops to get off the field the entire game. You can't build a defense full of superstars but you can build one where everyone has a role in being a good defense. Know your role play fast make the open field tackle and arrive with bad intentions play after play. They won the game by taking the MVP out of his element and now the NFL has a blue print for beating Cam.
Nicks, Wilson, Pugh, Flowers
Just hope that talent matches up with need. Theres nothing wrong with that. When you are a team without any needs you can take the best player regardless of need. Giants are pretty far from that.
And to say Denver had one special player and a lot of desire it way off base. Demarcus Ware may be past his prime, but he is still a big time pass rusher, Malik Jackson and Derek Wolfe are GREAT players. Travathan and Marshall are both excellent LBs. The Secondary has above average/elite talent at every position. These guys are good and driven. Not everyone is MVP hall of famers like Von Miller will be, but they are all good.
reasonable value and address a need within single picks, and therefor want to believe that nobody else can do it, then within that group, want to shut those who believe that its possible up.
RE: there are also factors that go beyond value and
For example, team style fit, or synergistic fit within a unit of a certain type of player.
Its really a drastic oversimplification to look at it as a binary thing, need vs quality.
Yes, which is why the OP is being lambasted for doing exactly that:
Quote:
You're still picking the best DE/DT/S on your board regardless of your grade.
IOW, need over all.
It's been pointed out that the Giants, like most other teams, don't look at it binary either. Hell, there was an entire TV program dedicated to it. They assemble a board, grade each player, list them by position, and then when they're on the clock compare the top graded players and decide how much need plays a role vs. the relative difference in weightings.
The Giants need one of everything, save for a QB and C. Even the presence of Beckham doesn't mean you should overlook a top flight WR if he's the highest rated player by a good margin. If there's a DE ranked a point or two below, and you expect the impact to be similar at each position, then you factor in need.
What the OP is proposing is a good way to build a losing club.
Given the way the defense performed last season I'd be fine saying that every single position on that side is a need position. While that may paint a dire picture, there is also freedom and opportunity there.
The Giants aren't tied down to having to build a defense one way or the other. It's not as though they are committed to building around a highly paid 4-3 DE or 3-4 NT. Given that, I'd like to see them just sign as many quality free agents on that side as is realistic, and then scheme the defense accordingly. I'm sure that Spags and every other DC in the league know the ins and outs of every defensive look, and that it's just a matter of each man's preference.
But my basic point is that I'd like to see what I don't think we saw in 2015: I want to see the coaches tailor the schemes to what best suits the players on the team. That's the essence of effective management and it was sorely lacking at the end under Coughlin.
I like the RB a lot but why would they pick that over a CB/S player?
I don't agree with the idea they don't value that spot. Last year they offered McCourty a record deal. That tells me they place a very high value on the spot if the player is there.
Yes it is.
At #10 there's no such thing as a reach.
You're still picking the best DE/DT/S on your board regardless of your grade.
Every year many fans miss the point, the same fans who screamed "NO WR!!" in 2014 when OB was drafted ...
Sea - strictly rush 4 & cover
Den - strictly rush 4 & man cover
Ari & pats- mix up schemes
What are you basing this off of? These may be the case in base packages but all of these teams utilize a multitude of blitz packages and sometimes bring more than 4 or 5.
Also, drafting for talent is a far better approach than drafting for position. The draft isn't all about filling a hole on the depth chart for the next season, you need to think for the year beyond.
seattle never blitzes
i say this in relative terms of course
arizona probably has highest blitz rate out of all the teams listed.
seattle never blitzes
i say this in relative terms of course
arizona probably has highest blitz rate out of all the teams listed.
Denver never blitzes? Miller and Ware are OLBs - seems they were in the backfield most downs...
LOL
Relative to ... what?
The Giants draft need all the time.
It was not so much the talent on defense it was the desire and ability to perform as a unit by the entire defense. One man made some big plays but the defense made the stops to get off the field the entire game. You can't build a defense full of superstars but you can build one where everyone has a role in being a good defense. Know your role play fast make the open field tackle and arrive with bad intentions play after play. They won the game by taking the MVP out of his element and now the NFL has a blue print for beating Cam.
Just hope that talent matches up with need. Theres nothing wrong with that. When you are a team without any needs you can take the best player regardless of need. Giants are pretty far from that.
And to say Denver had one special player and a lot of desire it way off base. Demarcus Ware may be past his prime, but he is still a big time pass rusher, Malik Jackson and Derek Wolfe are GREAT players. Travathan and Marshall are both excellent LBs. The Secondary has above average/elite talent at every position. These guys are good and driven. Not everyone is MVP hall of famers like Von Miller will be, but they are all good.
Giants need to draft a DE and they will.
There's also significant fan confirmation bias involved when discussing the topic of drafting for need.
'what the professionals do and how they do it.'
However, fans will continue to do what fans do, which is to say to discuss:
'how it could be done better'
....which has long been a key factor in the (dwindling rapidly this year) popularity of BBI. So chill out on the bird dogging.
Why on Earth would *anyone* advocate that?
BBI is here for discussion - and a bad idea merits criticism.
Feel free to argue against it, but nobody can see the future values in 3 years of these guys, not the professionals, that's for sure.
For example, team style fit, or synergistic fit within a unit of a certain type of player.
Its really a drastic oversimplification to look at it as a binary thing, need vs quality.
For example, team style fit, or synergistic fit within a unit of a certain type of player.
Its really a drastic oversimplification to look at it as a binary thing, need vs quality.
Yes, which is why the OP is being lambasted for doing exactly that:
IOW, need over all.
It's been pointed out that the Giants, like most other teams, don't look at it binary either. Hell, there was an entire TV program dedicated to it. They assemble a board, grade each player, list them by position, and then when they're on the clock compare the top graded players and decide how much need plays a role vs. the relative difference in weightings.
The Giants need one of everything, save for a QB and C. Even the presence of Beckham doesn't mean you should overlook a top flight WR if he's the highest rated player by a good margin. If there's a DE ranked a point or two below, and you expect the impact to be similar at each position, then you factor in need.
What the OP is proposing is a good way to build a losing club.
The Giants aren't tied down to having to build a defense one way or the other. It's not as though they are committed to building around a highly paid 4-3 DE or 3-4 NT. Given that, I'd like to see them just sign as many quality free agents on that side as is realistic, and then scheme the defense accordingly. I'm sure that Spags and every other DC in the league know the ins and outs of every defensive look, and that it's just a matter of each man's preference.
But my basic point is that I'd like to see what I don't think we saw in 2015: I want to see the coaches tailor the schemes to what best suits the players on the team. That's the essence of effective management and it was sorely lacking at the end under Coughlin.
But, if the opinion is flawed and repeatedly shown as such, any poster can expect to hear it.
Well you do if you want to pass the opportunity to draft elite players and settle.
I don't agree with the idea they don't value that spot. Last year they offered McCourty a record deal. That tells me they place a very high value on the spot if the player is there.
I think they'd value Elliott (impact prospect) over Ramsey (overrated imo), not purely RB over CB/S.
Free agency is going to be very interesting this year. This is where they really have to find some talent.