Alright lets try that again then!!
Afternoon guys: Just 8 days to go! I personally decided to give up on commenting on the myriad of the 'its going to be Darnold or Barkley' threads; we'll find out soon enough. However, I have asked several times how long I think the Giants rebuild will take and that has set me thinking about the concept. The simple answer is it will take as long as it takes. Indeed, ask fans from teams like Buffalo, Miami, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Tennessee, San Diego, Kansas City, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, and Arizona how long it takes to build a true championship team and they'd probably tell you it feels like forever.
In fact, I have even started to wonder if in an era of salary caps and free agency if one can truly rebuild at all. Certainly it is almost impossible to do they way teams did it is the 1980s which is the way I suspect most people are thinking. In those days, for example, once you drafted a player he was pretty much tied to you contractually for the rest of his career. Indeed, it was not unusual for drafted players, even first rounders, to be back-ups for 2-3 years before finishing their careers as starters.
Thinking about a 2-3 year rebuild in the current era, though, by the time you get to the 3rd year, the first players that you brought in are coming up on free agency. In fact, you get to keep your 1st round players for 5 years and if they are any good at all they are going to cost you an arm and a leg to keep. And for players drafted in other rounds its just 4 years. As a result, you are almost always going to be in a 2 steps forward, one back throughout the process.
So what does it mean for team-building in the current milieu. I suspect that teams are more and more starting to resort to a model in which they try and fill core positions with players that they are going to be willing to break the bank (at least within reason) to resign when they hit free agency and plug and play as best as they can everywhere else.
What are the core positions: primarily QB, LT, a go-to receiver, and (on more than one team) C on offense, and at least one, and maybe two, edge rushers and a shutdown corner on defense. Obviously, these are necessarily hard and fast rules as teams will also want to keep players at non-core positions - like a Landon Collins with the Giants - as they approach free agency, but those guys generally are going to be really, really good impact players.
This could also have implications for the draft in that it is not a stretch to figure that if in fact those are the core positions that you want to build around, then those are the positions that you also want to draft, at least in the early going. And we ran a little piece on BPA at the GBN yesterday with some numbers that kind of bear that out. In particular, 24 of the 30 players selected with top three picks in the past ten years were either QBs (12), DEs (7) or LTs (5). The distribution evens out a little for top ten picks, but still players at those likely core positions are significantly over-represented among top ten picks while other positions are under-represented.
I'm much higher on the top rated positional players this year. Not as high on Chubb as I am Barkley and Nelson (2 best players in draft IMO) but factoring in Chubb as the NYG interest seems real, we know they value the position, and have gaping hole after JPP departure.
Barkley at 2
Chubb at 4
Nelson in 5-7 range
I think the rush to get the Edge guys, the RB's, OT and a couple of the top tier G/C's, that we may see DB's drop some. Somebody is going to get Derwin James lower than first thought, Jackson, Oliver, Hughes, Alexander, Donte Jackson, and Harrison all could be had a lower spot than first thought.
For all the talk of Edge rushers on defense, we need a few young solid CB's to build on and a FS who can really help Collins.
Colin, if the Giants stay at #2 and take Barkley where do you see them looking at #34?
So why were we so good?
Well, the schedule for one.....
But it was our DB's that really made the difference.....Jenkins just about shut down everyone he faced.....DRC played great in the slot.....and Apple believe it or not, played well, much better than last season where he seemed to just give up on plays.....Collins played lights out that year.....and Adams played adequate at best, and I think better than Thompson did this past season....
So for all the money that was spent on those three guys, on the DL, they seemed to get way more credit than the DB's got.....yes they shut down the Running game, especially Snacks, but the DB's shut down the passing more than the other 7 did......most times a good pass rush covers the shortcomings of the pass coverage......but that year, it was the pass coverage that covered the shortcomings of the line and linebackers in trying to get to the qb....
So why were we so good?
Well, the schedule for one.....
But it was our DB's that really made the difference.....Jenkins just about shut down everyone he faced.....DRC played great in the slot.....and Apple believe it or not, played well, much better than last season where he seemed to just give up on plays.....Collins played lights out that year.....and Adams played adequate at best, and I think better than Thompson did this past season....
So for all the money that was spent on those three guys, on the DL, they seemed to get way more credit than the DB's got.....yes they shut down the Running game, especially Snacks, but the DB's shut down the passing more than the other 7 did......most times a good pass rush covers the shortcomings of the pass coverage......but that year, it was the pass coverage that covered the shortcomings of the line and linebackers in trying to get to the qb....
I think this is spot on. But I see no negativity in the post, what's up with that Doomster?
We are just one Saquon Barkley away from that (along with NFL-caliber O-linemen,obviously...which will take longer to rebuild).
Just look at the recent playoff teams and how long it took to get back to the playoffs compared to other teams that seem to never get there.
OK. Sure. Progression bud, that's it.
My guess though is the selection will be QB. If I had to guess either Darnold or Rosen.
For offense, that would be, draft a top end WR, then a QB in a following year, then eventually a RB in a following year (Irvin, then Aikman, then Emmett; Harrison, the Peyton, the Edgerrin James), while also sprinkling in a first round pick with a LT and hopefully making really good mid round choices on interior o-linemen.
Defensively, pass rushers and cornerbacks are key. I have always preferred 3-4 pass rushing OLBs to defensive ends, partly b/c I grew up in the heyday of Lawrence Taylor, but also because I think you can do more things with those guys, put them all over the field, drop into coverage at times -- things that are harder to do with most defensive ends. So push come to shove, I'd prefer a Von Miller to a J.J. Watt. I also think the teams that have the best defenses year in and year out tend to be 3-4 defenses -- Baltimore, Pittsburgh. I don't know if that's because of the scheme or because they are able to draft and sign in free agency high talent players that other teams value less because they don't fit their scheme as well. And in the modern NFL, you need at least one shutdown corner. That could be one of the most important things the Rams did -- getting Talib and Marcus Peters. I do love having a great safety though -- makes the defense exciting to watch.
Jay and Ivan: I don't know who the Giants will ultimately take with their opening round pick, but reading the tea leaves tells you that the Giants have invested more time and resources checking out this year's top QBs than any other team in the league and the QB they appeared to have invested the most time and resources was Rosen. And given that you have a 37-year-old QB coming off a 26th QB ranking this year and it is hard to see why they wouldn't be looking that way.
And the fact is that if the Giants did opt to take another position it just means that in all likelihood they will be needing a QB in 2-3 years if not sooner and they just aren't likely to get a look at a better prospect than what they will be seeing on the 26th.
Chris: If they don't take a QB I could see them taking Chubb at some point. I could actually also see them looking at a Tremnaine Edmunds if they dropped down a few spots as a potentially better fit with the new defense.
Personally I would think taking Barkley at #2 would be about the worst option I could think off. Not that Barkley isn't a very good prospect who would undoubtably make the Giants a better offense, but no RB has made a team a championship contender ever and if you go RB there you are still going to need to find a QB to get to that next level in the next couple of years. It would be a bad pick because the value of that pick is the QBs. You either take one or trade the pick to someone willing to pay up for the privilege. Beware though you are probably going to have to give most if not all of those picks back when you have to get your own QB upgrade in a year or two.
Summary Version of this post:
I believe teams are doing economic modeling to value each position. The results can be seen in the behavior of the NFL in how they are allocating cap dollars.
The resulting trends in cap allocation clearly show that you are correct in what you are seeing. The positions that are perceived to have the most impact on wins and are in the shortest supply are getting paid more. QB, DE/ER, LT, and CB. The next tier are C, FS, G, TE and DT then WR, S then LB and RB.
It makes sense to not only allocate cap dollars to the premium positions, it also makes sense to allocate draft choices to these positions in the hopes that you can get an impact player for below market value for a period of years. If the draft slot forces you to pay more than your price model indicates for the position, then its probably not a wise decision to draft that position at that slot.
Furthermore you should look to fill positions that have lesser impact on winning with replacement value players, and pay them as such. I.E. have a pipeline of low draft choices, UDFAs, and cheap FAs...
Additional comments on economic modeling (ignore if you don't care for this sort of thing)
The best way to allocate your resources is to build some sort of model that provides a relative measure of how much individual players and positions contribute to wins.
This is a basic question of economics.
First you have to understand the base impact of the league average player at a position. Then you determine the impact on wins of incrementally improved performance. Then you have to determine the current and future supply, and the expected demand (which you can derive from base an incremental impacts). Factoring in the total size of the market (total cap allowed in this case) and inflation (the increasing cap) and you can finally model fair market price.
Sites like Football Outsiders have attempted chart the impact on winning (% chance of a win) based on the results of each and every play. They have also charted their interpretation of the impact that each player made on the play.
With such data I believe that teams have started doing just this kind of analysis. We can see the result based on the trends of overall cap allocations being assigned to various positions. And the slots that players at various positions are being drafted.
You can break your model, but you do so at greater risk without the likelihood of greater returns.
Its like going to the casino and playing blackjack and counting cards and being good enough to get an expected rate of return of about 100.01% of your bet. Or you can go to the roulette table and bet on 00 every time, which will give you about a 92% expected return... The first method and you will slowly make money over time (you might get tossed from the casino but you can go to another one). The second method, you might get lucky and hit 00 more than usual and go home with a nice payday, however that is extremely rare, a far more likely result is you will go bust quickly.
T. Davis gave Elways his
Big Ben got his first on the back of Bettis
Rams without Faulk????....just s few
I respect your opinion but that sound like an absurd comment....please explain.
T. Davis gave Elways his
Big Ben got his first on the back of Bettis
Rams without Faulk????....just s few
I respect your opinion but that sound like an absurd comment....please explain.
So two that were like 20 years ago?
The other was on the back of Bettis? Might want to recheck that.
That's exactly his point though. It was poorly worded. You don't need a RB in the 1st round let alone top 5 to win a SB. It's a fact. The Steelers leading rusher was Willie Parker. He was an UDFA. Terrell Davis was a 6th round pick.
I understand the lack of longevity and supply of talented RB....found in every round.
I suspect your graph will also show QB taken in 1st and 6th rounds win the most Super Bowls....
If Peterson would have won Super Bowls....the theory would have blown up....
This what I know...get a franchise QB, a stud wr and a stud RB....with a strong defense....wins championships.
The Cowboy without Emmit Smith ....zero championships. Elway w/o Davis zero championships...Marimo....
Fix OL...give them Barkley...see what the New d-cooridnator does....gives Eli best shot at another ring.imo
Quote:
Lead a team to be super bowl contender?
T. Davis gave Elways his
Big Ben got his first on the back of Bettis
Rams without Faulk????....just s few
I respect your opinion but that sound like an absurd comment....please explain.
So two that were like 20 years ago?
The other was on the back of Bettis? Might want to recheck that.
That's exactly his point though. It was poorly worded. You don't need a RB in the 1st round let alone top 5 to win a SB. It's a fact. The Steelers leading rusher was Willie Parker. He was an UDFA. Terrell Davis was a 6th round pick.
Careful Rick... Like me... Believing in such absurd notions is likely to make you an object of scorn and derision of those that believe themselves to be BBI elite, and that their unsubstantiated opinions should be taken as gospel.
T. Davis gave Elways his
Big Ben got his first on the back of Bettis
Rams without Faulk????....just s few
I respect your opinion but that sound like an absurd comment....please explain.
I just have him examples... and used Elway specifically. Saquon Barkley and OBJ will make us deadly.
I say Eli has at minimum 3 impactful years left, and maybe an additional 2 as a serviceable game manager.
Davis late round....fine. so the point is you do not need to draft a RB in the 1st Rd to win a championship. I agree with that.....but a stud running game can win championships... especially with a declining QB.
So go ahead.. find one...please send stud RB to meadowlands asap. Thanks.....
I do not need a chart to tell me that Barkley is a pretty good one....and will help the Giants find their winning ways
T. Davis gave Elways his
Big Ben got his first on the back of Bettis
Rams without Faulk????....just s few
I respect your opinion but that sound like an absurd comment....please explain.
Those teams had good QBs and got the final pieces of the puzzle with RBs. We need to get a new QB. You don't draft a RB when you don't have a young QB in place; it's simply not the right move to make.
We are just one Saquon Barkley away from that (along with NFL-caliber O-linemen,obviously...which will take longer to rebuild).
I want what you're smoking. Is that you Mrs's John Mara?
We are just one Saquon Barkley away from that (along with NFL-caliber O-linemen,obviously...which will take longer to rebuild).
I want what you're smoking. Is that you Mrs John Mara?
I understand the lack of longevity and supply of talented RB....found in every round.
I suspect your graph will also show QB taken in 1st and 6th rounds win the most Super Bowls....
If Peterson would have won Super Bowls....the theory would have blown up....
This what I know...get a franchise QB, a stud wr and a stud RB....with a strong defense....wins championships.
The Cowboy without Emmit Smith ....zero championships. Elway w/o Davis zero championships...Marimo....
Fix OL...give them Barkley...see what the New d-cooridnator does....gives Eli best shot at another ring.imo
For the present and the future. We were 3-13 and had a lousy team with a ton of holes yet Barkley and this draft is going to fix it? Have you been drinking again? Lay off the Koolaid.
I say Eli has at minimum 3 impactful years left, and maybe an additional 2 as a serviceable game manager.
I'll put it in writing. And it's not so much quitting on Eli; it's simply an economic reality of the NFL with the rookie cap. Eli will cost $25 million+ the next couple years at age 37-38, and then you want to extend him, when he's been declining? Please. Now is our time to pick a QB, and we can still use our other picks to build around Eli and see if he has anything left. But I'm not betting the franchise on it. So you can mark it down. My name is Greg - Giants34.
Going into last year, we were super bowl favorite.
And yes, that balloon popped early...and we find ourselves here.
I contend that there are no great teams in the NFL.
We were 10seconds and a miracle kick from beating the eventual super bowl champions....and we sucked. Couldn't get out of our own way....disfunctional. I even suspect, we are right now worse then last year....I still feel it can all be fixable
Now, are we hopeless? I do not think so....
But there are plenty of worst to 1st examples.....and who knows....
Do I believe we can still win a super bowl with Eli....yes. is it unlikely, yes. Do things need to bounce our way, yes.
Do we need a dynomite draft, yes.
Going into last year, we were super bowl favorite.
And yes, that balloon popped early...and we find ourselves here.
I contend that there are no great teams in the NFL.
We were 10seconds and a miracle kick from beating the eventual super bowl champions....and we sucked. Couldn't get out of our own way....disfunctional. I even suspect, we are right now worse then last year....I still feel it can all be fixable
Now, are we hopeless? I do not think so....
But there are plenty of worst to 1st examples.....and who knows....
Do I believe we can still win a super bowl with Eli....yes. is it unlikely, yes. Do things need to bounce our way, yes.
Do we need a dynomite draft, yes.
My opinion FWIW, I agree, I think the roster as it stands right now is actually worse. There are some decent pieces that are difficult to get that have been put in place (well at least one).
There are wayyyy too many holes on this team for one draft to fix.
Its going to take at least one more offseason before we stand a chance at being competitive. Even then I we need good luck to be anything more than average.
If we make the right moves, year 3 is probably the best bet.
Quote:
that the guys that want QB #2 are officially quitting on Eli. At the most, giving him one year. Put your name on it, fellas.
I say Eli has at minimum 3 impactful years left, and maybe an additional 2 as a serviceable game manager.
I'll put it in writing. And it's not so much quitting on Eli; it's simply an economic reality of the NFL with the rookie cap. Eli will cost $25 million+ the next couple years at age 37-38, and then you want to extend him, when he's been declining? Please. Now is our time to pick a QB, and we can still use our other picks to build around Eli and see if he has anything left. But I'm not betting the franchise on it. So you can mark it down. My name is Greg - Giants34.
I have no idea what Eli has left in the tank. The problem isn't so much one of how much does he have in the tank, as it is the OL. While its a good idea to put a LT in place, the overall quality of the line in not significantly different that what the giants trotted out last year. Eli is still going to get killed, and he is still going to be antsy. Can't really blame him.
Then there's Eli. Should have two to three more years, 37, 38, and 39, because he has been durable, and its reasonable to expect that. Webb has arguably about as much potential, after a year in the league, as any of the raw rookie QBs. The question mark on Eli is his ineffectiveness over the past two years, the disappearance of his second half leadership, comebacks, clutch play, and determination. Also Eli has never been good at ball control, nor has he, in general been able to effectively use his receivers out of the backfield. (Vereen a bit, but generally not.) So Giant fans, there are serious question marks that are only resolvable with close-up observation, and wise decision making. Will we have it with our new staff?
Then there's Eli. Should have two to three more years, 37, 38, and 39, because he has been durable, and its reasonable to expect that. Webb has arguably about as much potential, after a year in the league, as any of the raw rookie QBs.
I am unwilling to speculate on how much Eli has left. Playing behind our dysfunctional OL makes it beyond my ability to evaluate or even speculate as to what he has. I think he deserves the opportunity to prove he still has it. I worry that he will not get it in 2018 because the OL is still putrid.
You and I are on the same page regarding Webb vs. the 2018 QB class. What we don't know about Webb, we don't know about any of these draftees. Its perhaps the most important quality a QB needs going from college to the pros. THat is their abilit to read defenses, pre & post snap, work through progressions quickly, make the right right decisions and throw with anticipation. THe Pro game is very different from college. These abilities are not apparent yet in anything the QBs have done so far. The only way to find out is to see how they perform in real NFL games.
If you are correct and Eli has 3+ years left, and he is not good at utilizing RBs as recievers, that would seem to argue that he will not be able to take advantage of the skill that supposedly separates Barkley from other RBs, his receiving ability... No?
I will say this. Tiki caught a lot of balls from Eli. But even then, we all criticized Eli for his lack of prowess throwing the short ball.