|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The Giants got their man in the NFL draft. Indeed, all roads led to Saquon Barkley. Still, there was intrigue involved in this long, detailed evaluation process. Here is what The Post learned before, during and especially after all the picks were in: Crushed it: As Dave Gettleman so profoundly put it, no team (at least publicly) finishes up the draft, scans the piece of paper listing all its picks and says, “We just drafted crap.’’ Each year brings about a different sensibility, though. Relief. Accomplishment. Satisfaction. Rarely have the Giants been this thrilled — “ecstatic’’ is the word one insider used — to get one specific player as the Giants were and are to land Saquon Barkley. The last time the room felt so energized to get a player in the first round of a draft? Jeremy Shockey in 2002. Quarterback was never an option: It is not as if the Giants viewed this quarterback class as trash. They liked three of them — Baker Mayfield was not in the discussion very long — a great deal but in order to justify the No. 2 overall pick, there had to be love, of which there was none. Most troubling, and telling, was there was no true consensus among the Giants coaches, scouts and front office as to the pecking order. Some liked Sam Darnold best. Others liked Josh Allen best. Darnold, Allen. Allen, Darnold. Around and around it went, and then, a little Josh Rosen sprinkled in. What does that tell you? Pat’s pick: If Barkley was gone, defensive end Bradley Chubb would have been the pick. The assumption that if the Giants were adamant about taking a quarterback it would have been Darnold is faulty. In fact, Pat Shurmur preferred Allen, believing he has the most upside. This is surprising, based on his assessment of why he likes Kyle Lauletta, the fourth-round selection. “Really, arm strength is about fourth on the list,’’ Shurmur said. “You have to be a good decision-maker, you have to have a sense of timing and you have to throw an accurate ball.’’ Allen, the gunslinger out of Wyoming, has the strongest arm and displayed the worst accuracy of the top prospects. This is further evidence Shurmur does not project greatness out of this group. Grading game: To state the Giants are smitten with Barkley is an understatement. To say they graded him top in this draft class is inaccurate. When the evaluation process was complete, the Giants assigned the same grade to Barkley and Chubb. On the draft board, though, Barkley was stacked ahead of Chubb. |
a. future performance grade
b. position value
c. need value (ie how soon could the player start?)
Based on salaries alone there is little doubt that an ER position is worth at least 1.3 times a RB.
The Giants current need value of a RB over a ER is about the same -- ie a very good player will likely start immediately at both positions for the Giants in 2018.
Conclusion: Barkley's performance grade would need to be 1.3 times greater than a top edge rusher for his draft tier value to be greater.
DG obviously says it was.
Based on Sy's performance rating of 94 for Barkley, Chubb would have had to have a performance rating of 72 or less to put Barkley higher on the draft tier.
Chubb was rated much higher than 72. So it is likely that DG probably made the wrong choice based on analytics alone.
The flaw in your decision matrix is your multiplier. Barkley can not be graded as a pure RB which is what the driver of that salary scale is. Since most RBs arent elite pass catchers and special teams aces, the salary doesnt do him justice. He has to looked at as an offensive weapon more on line with top WRs.
Lawrence Taylor is at a lower average salary position at LB. But you better bet of there was an LT his draft he is going in the top few picks. Why? He does things that very few LBs can do including elite pass rush.
if you have to fit some vague "needs are about the same" term into an equation.
Basically, you can fudge anything and that just ain't math.
is that besides the earlier excellent point that Chubb does pretty much one thing with excellence whereas Barkley rushes with excellence, blocks with excellence, catches with WR excellence and basically should count as 3 different players...
is that people describe Barkley as being the best RB to come out since..pretty much in recent memory..and comp him to all-time greats.
OTOH, I have heard Chubb is the best this year.
I've never heard anyone say he's better or speak of him in the same breath as even some of the recent top DE's.
Name some recent guys, name some all-time great pass rushers...how do you feel Chubb compares?
However, the comparison should be the net between Barkley and Gallman/Perkins versus the net between Chubb and Vernon.
It's a fact that they spent considerable time/resources scouting the QBs. So, by definition, they absolutely were looking at QB. Clearly, none of the QBs came close to Barkley on their board, but it wasn't for lack of scouting.
That should be reflected in the player's future performance ranking.
Ie Chubb's performance rating as a 3-4 OLB could well have been discounted to below 72.
Or as you suggest a separate 4th factor needs to be inserted to produce a draft tier rating: fit with the cuurent scheme.
This is an idiotic statement.
And when.
For example in need rating say a Qb say Rosen: for need you would look at the value replacing Eli in say 2020 ie a need factor of say 0.8. If you thought Eli needed to be replaced now, the need factor would be say 1.0.
Another example: say you had a bad nickel CB, say Gay. You needed only an avg CB to replace him. That would make the need factor 1.0.
etc.
That goes into your decision implicitly anyway,
Analytics just forces you to be explicit and see the consequences.
However, the comparison should be the net between Barkley and Gallman/Perkins versus the net between Chubb and Vernon.
Yes we can never have too many pass rushers. But what did our RB's look like before the draft?
Gallman and Perkins as you said plus Stewart.
Now our pass rushers:
Vernon
Mauro
Wynn
Martin
Moss
Ogletree
Not exactly world beaters I know, but that RB board is completely bare in comparison.
Now both crucial categories have major major upgrades in SB and Carter. I am thrilled!
The QBs got low performance scores from BG from those factors.
Also as Bill D pointed out Chubb's performane rating as a 3-4 OLB was de-rated because he is a classic 4-3 DE.
Vernon, Martin and Moss.
So that cupboard is pretty bare too
That goes into your decision implicitly anyway,
Analytics just forces you to be explicit and see the consequences.
Point is more that people want to tout analytics and that's fine. But the rationale is to add precision through math. So putting in vague, subjective variables renders that approach useless. If you think need is a variable that should be taken into account, and it likely is, then find some way to quantify it.
all those were already reflected in his humongous future performance ratung of 94.
a. future performance grade
b. position value
c. need value (ie how soon could the player start?)
Based on salaries alone there is little doubt that an ER position is worth at least 1.3 times a RB.
The Giants current need value of a RB over a ER is about the same -- ie a very good player will likely start immediately at both positions for the Giants in 2018.
Conclusion: Barkley's performance grade would need to be 1.3 times greater than a top edge rusher for his draft tier value to be greater.
DG obviously says it was.
Based on Sy's performance rating of 94 for Barkley, Chubb would have had to have a performance rating of 72 or less to put Barkley higher on the draft tier.
Chubb was rated much higher than 72. So it is likely that DG probably made the wrong choice based on analytics alone.
And that's why Gettleman puts less emphasis on Analytics than your average baseball GM, a point he stressed on WFAN the other day. Analytics simply don't tell as complete a story for football players as they do for baseball players, and while the Giants don't dismiss them completely, and they do factor into their player evaluations, they're much less of a be-all, end-all. There are just some things you can't quantify that way.
Also...Baseball vs. Football
You are absolutely right.
Needs some analysis to scale the differences accurately.
a. future performance grade
b. position value
c. need value (ie how soon could the player start?)
Based on salaries alone there is little doubt that an ER position is worth at least 1.3 times a RB.
You can't directly equate salaries with position value. Supply and demand also play a part in salaries. You may say that supports your argument, but the Giants (and many others) obviously don't see SB as just another RB.
They see him as an all time great versatile weapon that will have more of an impact on the entire team, including the defense, i.e., move the chains, increase time of possession, keep D rested, run out the clock, and oh yeah, score points, outscore the opponent and win games.
The goal is to win, not to get what someone might consider the best position value based on avg salaries. It seems obvious the Giants think SB will help them win more than any of the others including Chubb.
He is just being funny.
I am sure they de-rated Chubb's 4-3 performance rating in a 3-4 fit so that he fell a tier behind Barkley even after upgrading Chubb's position factor and possibly even his need factor compared to RB.
They made the right decision on analytics and it fit with the gut feel -- as it should.
You can still make the right decision and end up being wrong.
If you are forced to choose between playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a six gun (83% survival probability) or jumping off the George Washington Bridge (say 50% survival prob) you would choose RR and could stll die having made the right decision.
Who has Chubb been compared to? Sure, he's the best DE this year, but does he project to be an all time great?
He is just being funny.
I am sure they de-rated Chubb's 4-3 performance rating in a 3-4 fit so that he fell a tier behind Barkley even after upgrading Chubb's position factor and possibly even his need factor compared to RB.
They made the right decision on analytics and it fit with the gut feel -- as it should.
You can still make the right decision and end up being wrong.
If you are forced to choose between playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a six gun (83% survival probability) or jumping off the George Washington Bridge (say 50% survival prob) you would choose RR and could stll die having made the right decision.
One of the points DG made was that football is much more of a team game than baseball, and that you have to look at things collectively rather than individually. One reason why they took the best RB to come down the pike in recent memory, and then drafted a road-grader for him to run behind. Everything has to "fit," so to speak, more so in football than in baseball.
Oh, and I agree, he was just being flippant with his remarks about Analytics. I attributed that to lack of sleep and probably too much caffeine.
I agree - only difference for me would have been selecting either Crosby or Rankins instead of BJ Hill... But hopefully it is because Wheeler is progressing faster than anyone here understands.
Agreed, I thought that they should have taken a chance on Crosby or Jamarco Jones in round 5 but I fully understand the reasoning behind taking McIntosh. He has a nice upside and he will likely contribute early this year in the DE rotation. I have been a big Wheeler supporter since he was signed and I think he will win the RT job.
I actually can't think of another legit RT prospect that available, to be honest. There might have been none worth the pick.
You might be able to make a case for drafting one of the OTs that went after the Hill pick in the 3rd round - Christian, Noteboom, Okafor (I think). I believe their value was relatively similar to Hill's.
However, my guess is that DG and Shurmur liked what they saw from Wheeler at the workout just prior to the draft, and took that into consideration. Also, with the transition to the 3-4, a versatile guy like Hill becomes much more valuable than an OT with a limited upside.
After the 3rd round, you're really getting into project territory with the OTs.
My guess is that Wheeler is the starting RT, with Flowers as the backup. Bisnowaty is probably cut.
You can't fix all the problems in one year. This is a two year rebuild.
No one who played in the Shrine Game, either.
Quote:
I do not believe DG for a second re his pissing on analytics.
He is just being funny.
I am sure they de-rated Chubb's 4-3 performance rating in a 3-4 fit so that he fell a tier behind Barkley even after upgrading Chubb's position factor and possibly even his need factor compared to RB.
They made the right decision on analytics and it fit with the gut feel -- as it should.
You can still make the right decision and end up being wrong.
If you are forced to choose between playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a six gun (83% survival probability) or jumping off the George Washington Bridge (say 50% survival prob) you would choose RR and could stll die having made the right decision.
One of the points DG made was that football is much more of a team game than baseball, and that you have to look at things collectively rather than individually. One reason why they took the best RB to come down the pike in recent memory, and then drafted a road-grader for him to run behind. Everything has to "fit," so to speak, more so in football than in baseball.
Oh, and I agree, he was just being flippant with his remarks about Analytics. I attributed that to lack of sleep and probably too much caffeine.
Complementary football, tone, chemistry, intangibles, DG gets it. SB and Hernandez is greater than the sum of their parts and SB is a force multiplier.
Not Clint Sintim ffs.
Vernon, Martin and Moss.
So that cupboard is pretty bare too
That's why I called them pass rushers. There were still more pass rushing weapons in the quiver then running threats. And as I said, both areas were addressed in a major way.
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/25427/how-the-browns-became-sold-on-baker-mayfield
http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/76052/the-jets-fell-head-over-heels-for-sam-darnold-then-agonized
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/25427/how-the-browns-became-sold-on-baker-mayfield
http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/76052/the-jets-fell-head-over-heels-for-sam-darnold-then-agonized
I guess that means he is "doubly doomed"!
Poor guy.
what you said, would have been a remote thrower