Gettleman explains his draft board process

he will need to explain his board some more.

In comment 13921758 averagejoe said:

Quote:

he will need to explain his board some more.

That would depend on whether he felt he could get one of them for certain by trading back without betting too cute.

In comment 13921765 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

In comment 13921758 averagejoe said: Quote: he will need to explain his board some more. That would depend on whether he felt he could get one of them for certain by trading back without betting too cute.

Exactly. Its like the Texans when they took Williams over Bush. I am pretty sure Casserly tried to trade out of the 1st pick, but couldnt getanything decent and just took his favorite player. Here, if the Giants have Chubb rated as their top guy, because Browns have 4, theres a real chance that the Browns will take their top player.

I forget the exact year, maybe '14, when a GM called a team asking "what will you give me for ____ (top 3 pick)?" The other GM responded with "what are YOU going to give ME (to take it off your hands)?"

If Gettleman feels strongly enough about Chubb but cant trade down to a readonable spot, the smart play is just to take your favorite player.

if he has Barkley as highly rated as Sy does on his list, they're going Barkley.

the way Reese constructed his board . What you hope is that he assigns more accurate rankings than JR , but the structural shell is the same . Move horizontally across rows of similar ranked talent to meld the choice to need .

If DG sees RB as an area of need?

it seemed like the board wasn't necessarily constructed differently, but the input into the score valued different things. It seemed Reese valued athletic measurements at a higher weight than other items. Will be interesting to understand what Gettleman has instructed his scouts to look for.

In comment 13921953 Tim in Eternal Blue said:

Quote:

If DG sees RB as an area of need?

This is a good question. The consensus here is that it is. I don’t see it. OL, DB, WR and LB would all seem to me to be more critical and that’s not to mention that a QB coukd be the first pick. I could see a draft with no RB.

Is there another way to organize an NFL draft board? Obviously you rank by position by order or some grade and looking across positions at your top grades seems pretty obvious too. Is there some other way to organize a board? Seems like every team is going to have the same essential x and y it’s just a matter of how you sort, how you grade and who’s the decider.

In comment 13922191 trueblueinpw said:

Quote:

Is there another way to organize an NFL draft board? Obviously you rank by position by order or some grade and looking across positions at your top grades seems pretty obvious too. Is there some other way to organize a board?

This is what struck me as well. I was expecting him to describe something new and interesting, instead we get the most obvious approach imaginable.

thing every team does. He assesses the players, then matches the highest remaining/potentially available players to team need.

a combination of BPA and need.

Barkley or Chubb if QB is a no.

Given, for example his example of a 74 vs 74 vs 74 choice, 'than discuss positional preference and intangibles to break the tie', fine, but:

If positional preference is already baked in to the numbers (hard to avoid, for example wrs in a year with poor wrs, one might tend to do comparison within the sub set rather than vs previous years or vs other positions)

If positional preference us already baked in, that might then prempt the classic tie breaker discussion which could unduly preclude positional or synergistic emphasis or intangibles.

Nit pick basically, this, but anyway.

Michael Dickson from the University of Texas

I thought he was so much more forthcoming than Reese, and this explanation of the new process was pretty interesting. He's also much more entertaining.

Of course, almost every scout and draft guru in the country has higher number grades on Barkley, Nelson and Chubb than any of the QBs -- even Darnold.

So if DG does take a QB, that either means something additional is at play --like value of the QB position (more likely), or that the Giants scouts have rated the QB different from everyone else (less likely).

Put another way, for him to take a QB based on what he said here:

Scenario 1: Cleveland takes a QB at 1

This means the Giants would have to have TWO QBs in their 1st/top 3 row, and they'd take the remaining one.

Scenario 2: Cleveland does NOT takes a QB at 1

This means the Giants would have to have one QB in heir 1st/top 3 row, and they take him.

Scenario 3: Whoever Cleveland takes at 1, the Giants don't have a QB left in row one, but they take one from row 2 because they value the QB position higher.

I personally don't have a problem with this if they have a conviction on the guy, but this would be breaking -- or at least bending the rules DG has outlined. And teams do this every draft to secure potential franchise QBs.

But that's the part of the process DG has not yet copped to. We'll know soon enough. I can imagine a scenario where, say, Rosen came in and wowed them on the whiteboard with his football IQ and moved himself up their board. The visits are the parts the scouts and draft gurus don't account for.

In comment 13922375 David B. said:

Quote:

Of course, almost every scout and draft guru in the country has higher number grades on Barkley, Nelson and Chubb than any of the QBs -- even Darnold.

This isn't really true. Plenty of them--including some of the best at it--don't have Barkley with their highest grade. For example, last year's winner of the Top 100 competition, Ryan McCrystal (DraftAce.com), has Rosen as his highest graded player.

Draft Ace Top 100
Draft Ace QB grades
Draft Ace RB grades

And there are several more examples. Barkley is far from a unanimous choice as the highest graded player in the draft. Draft Board Guru has Josh Allen number one and The Huddle Report's talent evaluator, Drew Boylhart, gives Barkley his 18th highest grade this year, with another RB, Guice, graded above him.

it does beg the question what the hell Reese and Ross were doing the last several years

a 31 yr old RB whose best years are pretty far behind him, would have any impact on whether or not DG considers RB a position of need - or on drafting Barkley.

I don't think Stewart was brought in to be our starting RB, more like veteran depth.

do the darts come in?