We have awful reporters. 90% of the questions resulted in asking the same questions about QBs or they just don't listen when he says we are taking the best player available. We are in the media capital of the worls yet we get such awful questions asked. I feel when I read transcripts from other teams the questions are less hypothetical and are actually intelligent.
I wish someone would pin him down on what he means by rows Â
If there are 32 players in a row but not all are first rounders and five or six of them are blue chips, what the hell is the point of it being a row and not a column? The natural assumption is that each row represents a grade level with the top row having the five or six blue chips and the next row having however many prospects are similarly graded before dropping down to the next row. But to read what Reese just said, it makes no fucking sense.
If anyone can make heads or tails out of this... Â
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
And I absolutely do NOT believe there are 32 players in the Giants' first row. I think he said as much when he said there are about 6 blue-chip prospects. THAT's the top row.
Q: How do you personally evaluate this team’s draft performance over the last three or four years?
A: It is not my job to do that. You guys can do that. We go in every year and do our best to draft the best players available and try to develop the kids that we get on the roster, so if you win, it is a good draft and if you don’t win, then it is a bad draft. You guys can evaluate that. I am not here to talk about how we are evaluating what the drafts are.
Reese doesn't evaluate the team's draft performance? It isn't his job ?
That's a problem.
Q: How do you personally evaluate this team’s draft performance over the last three or four years?
A: It is not my job to do that. You guys can do that. We go in every year and do our best to draft the best players available and try to develop the kids that we get on the roster, so if you win, it is a good draft and if you don’t win, then it is a bad draft. You guys can evaluate that. I am not here to talk about how we are evaluating what the drafts are.
Reese doesn't evaluate the team's draft performance? It isn't his job ?
That's a problem.
He didn't mean that they don't critique each pick to see where they went wrong and where they went right, but that he doesn't give himself a "grade" for a draft as a whole or group of drafts. That's my interpretation.
RE: If anyone can make heads or tails out of this... Â
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
RE: RE: If anyone can make heads or tails out of this... Â
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
He also said "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" So, it seems like they group them together in some way. Probably as much info as we'll get.
We have players on our board, we have all of our players on our team currently on the board as well to see how they fit, but we are just trying to pick the best player available when we are on the clock.
Now everyone here might have already known that their board included their current players, but I didn't. I know the photo that leaked Dallas' board didn't include their current players.
I think it is very informative because it strengthens a suspicion that the drafts following the SB wins contained more high-ceiling low-floor guys, which is in part why there were a lot of busts. Here's why.
When you have a high confidence in the current players on your roster and you compare draft picks to those players, they better have a high ceiling. If they are safer picks, (high-floor lower-ceiling) they are not as appealing and may not even be able to make your squad. The quality of the team and its depth requires you to gamble on players with upside.
When the talent on your roster is comparatively low, you can take safer choices, as we began to do a few years ago. That's when you see guys who may have limited athleticism but are high-character, team-captain type guys getting selected. I think it was Bromley's draft where every player selected was a team captain, iirc.
Anyway, that's been my suspicion, that the TYPE of draft choices you make are influenced heavily by the quality of your current roster, and the news (to me) that they have the current roster right on the board alongside the potential draftees really confirms it.
I'm not a great wordsmith and I'm tired, so this is probably rambling and not making sense to anyone. Sorry.
We have awful reporters. 90% of the questions resulted in asking the same questions about QBs or they just don't listen when he says we are taking the best player available. We are in the media capital of the worls yet we get such awful questions asked. I feel when I read transcripts from other teams the questions are less hypothetical and are actually intelligent.
What questions would you have liked us to ask? Also, just an FYI: The questions listed on a transcript are often not the actual wording of the question that was asked.
What questions would you have liked us to ask? Also, just an FYI: The questions listed on a transcript are often not the actual wording of the question that was asked.
It may not have gotten much of a reply, but I would've asked about some of the prospects that visited who had character question marks. For example, "Cam Robinson was arrested last year on gun and weed charges, but not prosecuted, were you satisfied with his response to questions on it?" Something similar could've been asked about Bolles's checkered past and Ramczyk's medical records. I get that Reese might not be so loose-lipped when it comes to questions about individual prospects, but if the questions were about something specific (like an arrest or a surgery) and wasn't "talent" related, he might offer up a nugget.
p.s.--I recognize it's a tough job when you are asking questions of someone who's job it is to not answer meaningful questions, but that being said, are you at all related to the former 3rd round pick?
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Jerry gives nothing up. His conferences are as boring as they can be. If the best nugget we have to discuss is who's job it is to evaluate the draft he jedi mind tricked us again.
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
That's what I got it. It sounds like they fill out each pick on a chart and then have rows by round with the number of picks in the round in the row. So, players get crossed off as the picks come in. The actual number assigned to each player may not be absolute and binding, i.e. the lowest number is automatically the pick seems to not hold per se. As Dan said, the current roster - presumably with ratings for each player - may reveal that e.g. an 88.5 rated OT is a better pick than a 89.9 rated corner because we already have 3 such corners but only 1 OT of comparable value. That's my interpretation of Reese, Bill, and Dan.
I suppose he could just be bald face lying, in which case, I just wasted all our times. Good night all.
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
Apparently you're the one who is clueless...
Quote:
We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
p.s.--In case you failed grammar in grade school, I should point out that the "it" in my sentence refers to the row. I'm not saying the Giants don't divide up the players by grade levels, but that "the row" doesn't divide them up, which is what Reese indicated when he said "we have 32 names in the first row." And please, rather than just disappear from the thread, show a little class and apologize to me.
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
Apparently you're the one who is clueless...
Quote:
We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
p.s.--In case you failed grammar in grade school, I should point out that the "it" in my sentence refers to the row. I'm not saying the Giants don't divide up the players by grade levels, but that "the row" doesn't divide them up, which is what Reese indicated when he said "we have 32 names in the first row." And please, rather than just disappear from the thread, show a little class and apologize to me.
He also said this Milton "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" It doesn't matter how they arrange the rows. That's up to them. It's clear they also have them graded by talent within the rows so your complaint is just stupid.
Who is the best player in this draft today?
Who do you see as a player that would be the BPA if for some reason he was to drop on draft day other than the #1 rated player?
Who are your top five dream players in this draft?
He also said this Milton "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" It doesn't matter how they arrange the rows. That's up to them. It's clear they also have them graded by talent within the rows so your complaint is just stupid.
I know what he also said, that's why the confusion. If each row represented a grade level, it would make perfect sense. But clearly it doesn't, so what is the point of the rows? What is their meaning? Reese has continually made this reference to rows as if there is something meaningful to it and I'm just trying to understand the meaning. There was a natural assumption that each row represented a grade level but that's not the case.
And there is nothing "stupid" or "clueless" about my questions (which you refer to as "complaints"). I imagine many on BBI have the same questions. We're all trying to understand the process.
p.s.--It's all good, you don't need to apologize and we don't need to get into a "you're wrong and I'm right" battle that drags on. I love the draft season but it does have a tendency to create ill will between disagreeing fans, which is a bummer because ultimately we all want the same thing.
With all due respect. Whether the players are arranged in rows by talent level or if they're arranged in rows by draft round and then by talent level with those rows makes no difference. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. You think the former makes more sense, the Giants choose the later. And over this you're making a big deal like the Giants don't know what they're doing?
With all due respect. Whether the players are arranged in rows by talent level or if they're arranged in rows by draft round and then by talent level with those rows makes no difference. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. You think the former makes more sense, the Giants choose the later. And over this you're making a big deal like the Giants don't know what they're doing?
What is your problem? I never said the Giants don't know what they're doing, I'm just trying to understand the significance of the rows. I'm willing to bet that every other member of BBI understands exactly what I'm saying and has the same question. Why is it so difficult for you?
p.s.--And don't try to twist my words just to save face. I already gave you a graceful out, take it.
With all due respect. Whether the players are arranged in rows by talent level or if they're arranged in rows by draft round and then by talent level with those rows makes no difference. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. You think the former makes more sense, the Giants choose the later. And over this you're making a big deal like the Giants don't know what they're doing?
What is your problem? I never said the Giants don't know what they're doing, I'm just trying to understand the significance of the rows. I'm willing to bet that every other member of BBI understands exactly what I'm saying and has the same question. Why is it so difficult for you?
p.s.--And don't try to twist my words just to save face. I already gave you a graceful out, take it.
So you said "And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!" But that's not questioning whether the Giants know what their doing even though it was completely obvious what Reese was saying and Reese further explained it in his interview. (Did you not read that part?)
So you said "And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!" But that's not questioning whether the Giants know what their doing even though it was completely obvious what Reese was saying and Reese further explained it in his interview. (Did you not read that part?)
He doesn't explain the significance of arranging the players in rows. If it isn't to divide them into grade levels, what is it? That's my question. And I'm sure it's a question on the minds of the rest of BBI (and the beat writers as well) because we've been referring to the rows in our discussions and apparently we've all been wrong about their meaning. If all 32 in the first row don't have first round grades, why does there need to be 32 of them? What separates the 32nd prospect from the 33rd that they should be on different rows? There is no one else but you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. And nobody but you thinks it's me saying the Giants don't know what they're doing. If there is, I'd love to hear from them.
p.s.--Instead of spending effort trying to twist my words in order to save face, why not use that same amount of effort to understand my words?
obviously they realise that its a bit of a crap shoot Â
so, accepting that the grades are guesses, especially after the 'first 6 or 7 guys' and prior to the 'next row', you then, within that, look at 'opportunity for improvements', not letting arbitrary numbers (round designation 32 to 33) throw you:
''Q: How many players have a draftable grade on your board?
A: I am not going to talk about how many players have draftable grades, guys.
Q: Do you consider the depth chart as one of the tools in your decision-making?
A: We are just picking the best players available. We have players on our board,
>>>>>>>>>> we have all of our players on our team currently on the board as well to see how they fit
<<<<<<<<<<
, but we are just trying to pick the best player available when we are on the clock. ''
So, obviously if position x on starting roster grades a (19) and draftee in row (x) grades a (29, similar to but not below his row mates), then your margin of improvement is greater than it would be at some other positions.
All within a very specific rubric of 'what style of play is this team using and what does coach, side coach or position coach want to do that seems doable given the realities and opportunities'?
- Guesses - wild guesses probably, regarding those types of considerations have always informed my own mocks for example.
How many times does it need to be explained to you Milton Â
"He doesn't explain the significance of arranging the players in rows. If it isn't to divide them into grade levels, what is it?"
The rows correspond to the draft rounds. The players are arraigned within those rows by talent level. That's just what Reese explained in his replies. That's just what I said in my back to back posts at 6:32 and 6:41 You're asking what had already been answered by both Reese and even in my posts.
You obviously want to continue pretending these questions have't been answered because if they were (and they were) it makes your 8:49 post seem a little ridiculous (and it was).
RE: How many times does it need to be explained to you Milton Â
"He doesn't explain the significance of arranging the players in rows. If it isn't to divide them into grade levels, what is it?"
The rows correspond to the draft rounds. The players are arraigned within those rows by talent level. That's just what Reese explained in his replies. That's just what I said in my back to back posts at 6:32 and 6:41 You're asking what had already been answered by both Reese and even in my posts.
You obviously want to continue pretending these questions have't been answered because if they were (and they were) it makes your 8:49 post seem a little ridiculous (and it was).
I'm not stupid and neither are you so don't keep pretending you don't know what I'm saying or what my question is. I get that there are 32 picks in the first round and 32 prospects in a row, but explain to me what separates the 32nd from the 33rd prospect if they both have the same exact grade? Do they then switch to alphabetical order to determine who goes in the 1st row and who goes in the 2nd row? And explain to me the purpose of having 32 prospects in a row? And don't tell me it's because there are 32 players that will be taken in the 1st round, because that doesn't explain anything.
p.s.--If someone else wants to share their take on the discussion it would be appreciated, but I understand if you don't want to waste your time arguing with someone who will choose to twist what you're saying rather than admit he is wrong.
"but explain to me what separates the 32nd from the 33rd prospect if they both have the same exact grade?"
You think they can't figure out what to do if the situation arises that the break between rows happens to occur between players graded the same? Add one, subtract one, do neither. Whatever. You think Reese and crew are so dumb they can't make an accommodation for that circumstance. Only you can see the absolute mayhem that this situation would present. Reese never thought of it before. Thank goodness you're here to parse this unfathomable issue.
And explain to me the purpose of having 32 prospects in a row? Â
More rocket science. Yes, Milton it's because there are 32 picks in a round. That explains it Milton. That's all there is. I'm so sorry you feel that doesn't explain anything but that's obviously the way they do it and why they do it that way. Perhaps a Congressional investigation is in order.
You're not going to cull much insight imo by asking for specifics. He's not going to give that up.
What you can hope for is some analysis into how they think and plan for the draft.
Better questions would have pointed to past draft mistakes and asked what they've learned from them and how they can avoid repeating those mistakes. Specifics should be provided. You can ask about how they settle on a single score, when probable outcomes on a player are clearly a range (possible HOF talent, major bust potential vs. likely starter-level talent, low bust potential). You can ask him about how his approach changes when you have a team that is young and recently made the playoffs vs. a team of aging vets with limited depth. Is there a point where you begin to value those with higher ceilings but lower floors?
I'd love to have a discussion where he doesn't have to give up specifics that might hurt the Giants draft now or in the future, but can safely reveal more about how they approach the valuation of prospects and the likelihood of drafting them.
Also - in general, what are some of the things that likely take a player completely off the draft board? We often hear about a guy failing a urine test and later the rumor is that they come completely off the board. Is that what really happens, or do they simply regrade the prospect and move them down several rows?
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
And I absolutely do NOT believe there are 32 players in the Giants' first row. I think he said as much when he said there are about 6 blue-chip prospects. THAT's the top row.
Q: How do you personally evaluate this team’s draft performance over the last three or four years?
A: It is not my job to do that. You guys can do that. We go in every year and do our best to draft the best players available and try to develop the kids that we get on the roster, so if you win, it is a good draft and if you don’t win, then it is a bad draft. You guys can evaluate that. I am not here to talk about how we are evaluating what the drafts are.
Reese doesn't evaluate the team's draft performance? It isn't his job ?
That's a problem.
Quote:
Q: How do you personally evaluate this team’s draft performance over the last three or four years?
A: It is not my job to do that. You guys can do that. We go in every year and do our best to draft the best players available and try to develop the kids that we get on the roster, so if you win, it is a good draft and if you don’t win, then it is a bad draft. You guys can evaluate that. I am not here to talk about how we are evaluating what the drafts are.
Reese doesn't evaluate the team's draft performance? It isn't his job ?
That's a problem.
Quote:
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
Quote:
Quote:
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
He also said "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" So, it seems like they group them together in some way. Probably as much info as we'll get.
Now everyone here might have already known that their board included their current players, but I didn't. I know the photo that leaked Dallas' board didn't include their current players.
I think it is very informative because it strengthens a suspicion that the drafts following the SB wins contained more high-ceiling low-floor guys, which is in part why there were a lot of busts. Here's why.
When you have a high confidence in the current players on your roster and you compare draft picks to those players, they better have a high ceiling. If they are safer picks, (high-floor lower-ceiling) they are not as appealing and may not even be able to make your squad. The quality of the team and its depth requires you to gamble on players with upside.
When the talent on your roster is comparatively low, you can take safer choices, as we began to do a few years ago. That's when you see guys who may have limited athleticism but are high-character, team-captain type guys getting selected. I think it was Bromley's draft where every player selected was a team captain, iirc.
Anyway, that's been my suspicion, that the TYPE of draft choices you make are influenced heavily by the quality of your current roster, and the news (to me) that they have the current roster right on the board alongside the potential draftees really confirms it.
I'm not a great wordsmith and I'm tired, so this is probably rambling and not making sense to anyone. Sorry.
What questions would you have liked us to ask? Also, just an FYI: The questions listed on a transcript are often not the actual wording of the question that was asked.
p.s.--I recognize it's a tough job when you are asking questions of someone who's job it is to not answer meaningful questions, but that being said, are you at all related to the former 3rd round pick?
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
Quote:
Quote:
You never know how the players are going to come off of the board. You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys and you never know how they are going to come off.
Q: Do you have 23 names in your first row?
A: We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
...I'm all ears.
That's interesting. It seems like the rows are round by round. 32 names in each. Then they must be arraigned (left to right?) by grade or possible grouped together by grades that are close enough to be considered "equal" talent wise. That's my best guess and I'm sticking to it until someone's got a better idea. Then I'm agreeing with that.
That's what I got it. It sounds like they fill out each pick on a chart and then have rows by round with the number of picks in the round in the row. So, players get crossed off as the picks come in. The actual number assigned to each player may not be absolute and binding, i.e. the lowest number is automatically the pick seems to not hold per se. As Dan said, the current roster - presumably with ratings for each player - may reveal that e.g. an 88.5 rated OT is a better pick than a 89.9 rated corner because we already have 3 such corners but only 1 OT of comparable value. That's my interpretation of Reese, Bill, and Dan.
I suppose he could just be bald face lying, in which case, I just wasted all our times. Good night all.
Quote:
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
p.s.--In case you failed grammar in grade school, I should point out that the "it" in my sentence refers to the row. I'm not saying the Giants don't divide up the players by grade levels, but that "the row" doesn't divide them up, which is what Reese indicated when he said "we have 32 names in the first row." And please, rather than just disappear from the thread, show a little class and apologize to me.
Quote:
In comment 13436542 Milton said:
Quote:
And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!
Just where did Reese say this. In fact, he said just the opposite as I posted just above. You can be really clueless, Milton.
Apparently you're the one who is clueless...
Quote:
We have 32 names in the first row. That is why we call them rows. They are not all first round picks, but they are in the first row.
p.s.--In case you failed grammar in grade school, I should point out that the "it" in my sentence refers to the row. I'm not saying the Giants don't divide up the players by grade levels, but that "the row" doesn't divide them up, which is what Reese indicated when he said "we have 32 names in the first row." And please, rather than just disappear from the thread, show a little class and apologize to me.
He also said this Milton "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" It doesn't matter how they arrange the rows. That's up to them. It's clear they also have them graded by talent within the rows so your complaint is just stupid.
Who do you see as a player that would be the BPA if for some reason he was to drop on draft day other than the #1 rated player?
Who are your top five dream players in this draft?
He also said this Milton "You look at this draft and you have five or six blue chip players and then you have the second level of your first round guys" It doesn't matter how they arrange the rows. That's up to them. It's clear they also have them graded by talent within the rows so your complaint is just stupid.
And there is nothing "stupid" or "clueless" about my questions (which you refer to as "complaints"). I imagine many on BBI have the same questions. We're all trying to understand the process.
p.s.--It's all good, you don't need to apologize and we don't need to get into a "you're wrong and I'm right" battle that drags on. I love the draft season but it does have a tendency to create ill will between disagreeing fans, which is a bummer because ultimately we all want the same thing.
p.s.--And don't try to twist my words just to save face. I already gave you a graceful out, take it.
Quote:
With all due respect. Whether the players are arranged in rows by talent level or if they're arranged in rows by draft round and then by talent level with those rows makes no difference. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. You think the former makes more sense, the Giants choose the later. And over this you're making a big deal like the Giants don't know what they're doing?
What is your problem? I never said the Giants don't know what they're doing, I'm just trying to understand the significance of the rows. I'm willing to bet that every other member of BBI understands exactly what I'm saying and has the same question. Why is it so difficult for you?
p.s.--And don't try to twist my words just to save face. I already gave you a graceful out, take it.
So you said "And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!" But that's not questioning whether the Giants know what their doing even though it was completely obvious what Reese was saying and Reese further explained it in his interview. (Did you not read that part?)
So you said "And could somebody pin him down on what the hell the point is of having a row if it doesn't divide up the talent by grade level? You guys must be as confused by his explanations as we are!" But that's not questioning whether the Giants know what their doing even though it was completely obvious what Reese was saying and Reese further explained it in his interview. (Did you not read that part?)
p.s.--Instead of spending effort trying to twist my words in order to save face, why not use that same amount of effort to understand my words?
''Q: How many players have a draftable grade on your board?
A: I am not going to talk about how many players have draftable grades, guys.
Q: Do you consider the depth chart as one of the tools in your decision-making?
A: We are just picking the best players available. We have players on our board,
>>>>>>>>>> we have all of our players on our team currently on the board as well to see how they fit
<<<<<<<<<<
, but we are just trying to pick the best player available when we are on the clock. ''
So, obviously if position x on starting roster grades a (19) and draftee in row (x) grades a (29, similar to but not below his row mates), then your margin of improvement is greater than it would be at some other positions.
All within a very specific rubric of 'what style of play is this team using and what does coach, side coach or position coach want to do that seems doable given the realities and opportunities'?
- Guesses - wild guesses probably, regarding those types of considerations have always informed my own mocks for example.
The rows correspond to the draft rounds. The players are arraigned within those rows by talent level. That's just what Reese explained in his replies. That's just what I said in my back to back posts at 6:32 and 6:41 You're asking what had already been answered by both Reese and even in my posts.
You obviously want to continue pretending these questions have't been answered because if they were (and they were) it makes your 8:49 post seem a little ridiculous (and it was).
The rows correspond to the draft rounds. The players are arraigned within those rows by talent level. That's just what Reese explained in his replies. That's just what I said in my back to back posts at 6:32 and 6:41 You're asking what had already been answered by both Reese and even in my posts.
You obviously want to continue pretending these questions have't been answered because if they were (and they were) it makes your 8:49 post seem a little ridiculous (and it was).
p.s.--If someone else wants to share their take on the discussion it would be appreciated, but I understand if you don't want to waste your time arguing with someone who will choose to twist what you're saying rather than admit he is wrong.
You think they can't figure out what to do if the situation arises that the break between rows happens to occur between players graded the same? Add one, subtract one, do neither. Whatever. You think Reese and crew are so dumb they can't make an accommodation for that circumstance. Only you can see the absolute mayhem that this situation would present. Reese never thought of it before. Thank goodness you're here to parse this unfathomable issue.
What you can hope for is some analysis into how they think and plan for the draft.
Better questions would have pointed to past draft mistakes and asked what they've learned from them and how they can avoid repeating those mistakes. Specifics should be provided. You can ask about how they settle on a single score, when probable outcomes on a player are clearly a range (possible HOF talent, major bust potential vs. likely starter-level talent, low bust potential). You can ask him about how his approach changes when you have a team that is young and recently made the playoffs vs. a team of aging vets with limited depth. Is there a point where you begin to value those with higher ceilings but lower floors?
I'd love to have a discussion where he doesn't have to give up specifics that might hurt the Giants draft now or in the future, but can safely reveal more about how they approach the valuation of prospects and the likelihood of drafting them.
Also - in general, what are some of the things that likely take a player completely off the draft board? We often hear about a guy failing a urine test and later the rumor is that they come completely off the board. Is that what really happens, or do they simply regrade the prospect and move them down several rows?