It's been well-documented that for the past 20+ years the Giants have been burned, badly, in the 3rd Round of the draft. Underachievers, out-and-out busts, career-ending injuries, it's absolutely ridiculous just how little success they've had with their 3rd Round picks (with Justin Tuck being one notable exception), so much so that not too long ago I half-seriously suggested that should trade their 3rd Round pick every year, for whatever they could get for it.
Heading into the 2016 season, the Giants have a lot riding on their three most recent 3rd Round picks - FS Darian Thompson, DE Owamagbe Odighizuwa, and DT Jay Bromley. Thompson is the presumptive starter at FS, and Odighizuwa and Bromley are expected to be the first guys off the bench at their respective positions in the D-Line rotation. Injuries (God forbid, knock on wood) could press either one (or both) into a starting role.
For a defense looking to rebound from a historically bad year, and irrespective of the team's free agent acquisitions, the Giants need these three players to provide a decent return on their 3rd Round investments. Thompson must show the leadership, intelligence, and production that the Giants are counting on. Odighizuwa must stay healthy and prove himself to be a force off the edge or up the middle. Bromley must show that he's the penetrating 3-tech the Giants have needed for years.
It's imperative that they justify the Giants' faith in them. It's imperative that they do not allow history to repeat itself. It's imperative that they break the dreaded Curse of the 3rd Round.
You can complain about an offensive line that aged and disintegrated under Reese's watch, but he's drafted in the top two rounds 3 times in the past four years, all of those picks are considered by the coaches and people around the team as the core and best players in that position group. We've drafted a top 3 WR. We drafted our best LB. And if Moore wasn't a total retard headcase, he could have been a huge pickup for the defense from that third round spot. He has/d the talent.
Our drafts are far from weak. Even this year with all the big signings and seemingly great picks, our biggest hole is a lack of signing of a FA RT. I think these types of threads do a disservice to our FO and also ignore the more important aspect of their faults: missing the boat in some of the FA market. Hopefully, we can pick up someone else's scraps in July/August. Either way, I'm hoping we can secure that RT in the draft next year. That seems to be our most effective way of acquiring talent that produces and stays on the field (unlike Schwartz).
But it does provide interesting data:
67% of 1st round picks succeed.
40% of 2nd round
27% of 3rd round.
17% of 4th round and less than 10% each round thereafter.
This over a recent 10 year period and success defined as starting half the games one has been available for - a pretty low bar for success.
Nitwits blasting Reese could have a look at those numbers and rethink their opinions.
Those with half a brain here are truly exhausted at pointing out that injuries to the Giants'premium picks are far more the cause of the club's lack of talent than poor drafting is, relative to league norms.
Do un-drafted free agents make up that many starts in the NFL?
And how many undrafted kickers, punters, and long snappers are "starters" for STs?
Obviously few of these guys were + starters, but they did start games
- Cruz
- our Tight End
- Jennings
- Harrison
- 1-2 of our LBs
Not counting Specials, I count 5-6 guys that will likely start for the Giants that were undrafted. That is much lower than the result portrayed by that article.
Now I know injuries will force reserves to come in and get starts but that doesn't equal the definition they provided as lasting half their career.
What am i missing?
Are the Giants a bad example, meaning most teams have many more undrafted free agents playing?
I don't think you can ignore the PK and punter positions, they were in the data cited.
Go through the math more carefully and double check if I copied it accurately.
It is just a fairly surprising how many undrafted guys make such an impact in terms of starts.
I know many here on BBI often give props to GMs when they find valuable undrafted free agents, but it is also a two-edged sword since you could say they a) should have drafted them outright and/or b) the guy they drafted got beat by the UDFA.
Do un-drafted free agents make up that many starts in the NFL?
Jimmy,
the article describes it as half the career, not only the team that drafted them.
Greg
The article so far as I am willing to look at it further DOES NOT give % of players that suceed from each round overall but only position by position, so far as I see now on 2nd quick read through.
It gives success rates by rounds only position by position, which frankly is by and large a moronic analysis.
Pardon I apparently misquoted it.
what leads you to write 'with literally zero basis to the conclusions statistically.'? The source data for the conclusions in the report come from Pro-Football-Reference.com. Do you find those numbers to be inaccurate or wrong? If so, please explain.
In comment 13028017 BlueLou said:
But it does provide interesting data:
67% of 1st round picks succeed.
40% of 2nd round
27% of 3rd round.
17% of 4th round and less than 10% each round thereafter.
This over a recent 10 year period and success defined as starting half the games one has been available for - a pretty low bar for success.
Nitwits blasting Reese could have a look at those numbers and rethink their opinions.
Those with half a brain here are truly exhausted at pointing out that injuries to the Giants'premium picks are far more the cause of the club's lack of talent than poor drafting is, relative to league norms.
Quote:
in a career or just with the first team that drafted them?
Do un-drafted free agents make up that many starts in the NFL?
Jimmy,
the article describes it as half the career, not only the team that drafted them.
Greg
Thanks Greg. That's why my point is those % starts by draftees seems really low because someone's actually got to be starting these games and it only leaves UDFAs to do so.
Difficult to translate the %s to a weighted-average across 24 starters but nevertheless...
what leads you to write 'with literally zero basis to the conclusions statistically.'? The source data for the conclusions in the report come from Pro-Football-Reference.com. Do you find those numbers to be inaccurate or wrong? If so, please explain.
The data would be MUCH BETTER presented if it included the overall success rate of all position players round by round.
I thought I saw that in the link but on 2nd view didn't see that information at all.
By breaking it up into position groups without having the baseline % of players who succeeded in each round it's ridiculous to suggest a team should draft this or that position in this or that round as the author of the link suggests.
And the link doesn't offer another link to examine the original source material, which is a shame...
I found it interesting to read nonetheless and thank you for linking it.
Breaking success rates down by position though, doesn’t mean there is zero basis for them statistically. You can get to the website of the source data here.
pro-football-reference.com
Greg
Greg