analyzed the 5 drafts from 2010-2014 inclusive. The Giants ranked 23rd.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
analyzed the 5 drafts from 2010-2014 inclusive. The Giants ranked 23rd.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
Listing a bunch of mid round picks doesn't prove much. You're acting like he's supposed to hit all of those.
I tend to agree that mid round drafting has been poor, but the insinuation that these guys should have all panned out is incorrect.
It's not flag waving to point out the obvious holes in the "analysis".
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
RE: RE: shabu, I posted a similar analysis last week from the NY Post that
analyzed the 5 drafts from 2010-2014 inclusive. The Giants ranked 23rd.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
Listing a bunch of mid round picks doesn't prove much. You're acting like he's supposed to hit all of those.
I tend to agree that mid round drafting has been poor, but the insinuation that these guys should have all panned out is incorrect.
where posters are starting threads on Reese for the sole purpose of someone daring to disagree with them, or disagree with this hard "data" or "evidence." Honestly like...what's the point? His drafting was complete shit for multiple seasons in a row. Before that time and after it's been good. What else is there to say? Get over this "how can you not blame Reese for everything - look at the numbers!!" bullshit. It's completely transparent and getting diluted.
It's not flag waving to point out the obvious holes in the "analysis".
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
Hasn't this been done? None of these analysis take into account the long list of very good players that Reese has
e brought here and who's careers ended prematurely. Do you need the list again? Nicks, TT, Phillips, Wilson, etc, etc.
It's not flag waving to point out the obvious holes in the "analysis".
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
Data is not analysis - dumping lists of data, and ranking by some arbitrary measure (number of snaps, number of players still playing on the same roster) isn't necessarily a qualitative analysis of what Reese has done.
I'm not expecting much in response to your question, for one simple reason; there aren't a lot of people who deny Reese's drafts suffered from 2010-2012. It's apparent that the Giants realize that fact as well, although Reese's inexplicable pop at Ranaan during that press conference would make you wonder.
The thing is, the Giants past couple of drafts have been better. Much better? Remains to be seen, but better by any measure. He's been put on notice, and if they don't continue to improve, don't be surprised to see him follow TC out the door.
you should get is the info isn't close to complete. All of the posts had the same stuff. Number of probowls, games played, games started. Nothing different. It was all the same.
That doesn't come close to giving you enough info to make any conclusions on the success/failure of a teams drafting or team building.
A few people tried to point out the obvious problems of drawing conclusions of any kind from this. Again, it wasn't flag waving. It really should be as clear as day to you.
Victor, I guess you and this meathead shabu simply don't get it.
Fact is Reese and the new coach are on a two-year (minimum) lease. Best to root for both of them to be on a hot streak.
And we know Reese can do it. Witness 2007.
And if he does it a couple of times, how close are the rankings then? How much really separates the very worst from the very best? It's all about getting lucky with guys picked after the first two rounds.
Only 1/3 of those guys will contribute in a meaningful way to the teams that drafted them. A few will become stars.
You need to get lucky.
Shabu, please re-read JCN's post and let it marinate
Everyone knows even Reese and Mara agrees that the drafting could have been better from 2009-2012. The last three drafts have been much better. You guys are using the same BS data to show the Giants drafts are the worst in the league with no consideration for injuries or how the coach uses talent.
you have one good player, albeit an easy selection, the OT in 1. one ok player, arguable value in Collins the strong safety in 2...and nobody else did squat.
how is that better? I give you they finally hit the OL, but that has been an obvious play for ten years.
what exactly to Strahan, Osi, Toomer, heck even Phil Simms or Eli do in their first season??? Wasn't OO considered good value in the third round last year? Just because he didn't produce this year doesn't mean he was a bad pick. How about Bobby Hart? Played well in limited action, but TC in his infinite wisdom thought Dallas Reynolds was a better option in week 17? Was Reese responsible for that?
You can't fire him after 2 consecutive good years. If they fired him 2 years ago, that would have been fine. Too many hits in the last 2 years so they have to keep him on.
RE: shabu, I posted a similar analysis last week from the NY Post that
analyzed the 5 drafts from 2010-2014 inclusive. The Giants ranked 23rd.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
That's my fear , you can't absolve the front office from the drafts and Mara put Reese out front to bear the brunt of it after TC's presser.
So from the outside looking in coaches are going to look at TC and think great, I win a Super Bowl there and within 4 years, record setting injuries and a questionable roster I would be gone too.
you did not do that. What's the highest level of math you've learned?
I have a masters degree in computer science David and I was a calculus tutor in college.
What is your mathematics background ? Agian you said nothing. If you guys disagree with the data then say why, but none of you EVER do.
You just attack ppl personally because you have a hidden agenda here . Or you are just trolling to piss ppl off and up the post counts so the site makes more money. Lol
you should get is the info isn't close to complete. All of the posts had the same stuff. Number of probowls, games played, games started. Nothing different. It was all the same.
That doesn't come close to giving you enough info to make any conclusions on the success/failure of a teams drafting or team building.
A few people tried to point out the obvious problems of drawing conclusions of any kind from this. Again, it wasn't flag waving. It really should be as clear as day to you.
Victor, I guess you and this meathead shabu simply don't get it.
What would be the correct analysis ?
That's some coincidence, I used to tutor for calculus and differential
analytically - why do I have to tell you how to do it?
Because you and others, outside of your personal insults keep saying it's flawed yet can't suggest a different approach and I think it's valuable.
The data is there, the detail on the analysis is there. The one flaw that does stand out in there is that they don't measure beyond the first 2 years with ORGINAL team.. So if player X is gone from Team Y after 2 years but productive in the NFL, that does not factor.
A better way to look at it would be if those players are on NFL rosters, I started something on this at one point, but it's quite a bit of work.
I think some people on this site have a hard time seeing that the ownership and/or front office of the NYG has failures. In the end that's what it is, outside of the belligerent responses to threads.
but you can't explain why, or the significance in comparing those particular aspects of players, or why teams that did relatively poorly in those same metrics didn't do as poorly on the field.
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
Mara and Tisch (if he was really involved) looked into any of these type of stats. No because everyone is equally responsible. but the most knowledgeable football guy in the whole organization will bite the bullet. It is all BS. Everybody in the league knows that. Phonies all .
but you can't explain why, or the significance in comparing those particular aspects of players, or why teams that did relatively poorly in those same metrics didn't do as poorly on the field.
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
JCN, you raise a good point and maybe it's the difference we are all having here. This data shows that NYG had some bad drafts, it has been Acknowledged by the ownership last year and this year.... That is no argument.
Does it answer all questions ? HELL no. It just backs up what ownership has said, many have said on here that NYG had some bad years drafting and the talent on the team has suffered that is it. But there are people indicating the data is flawed, or it says nothing about Rees's drafting LOL..
Whatever you guys are smoking, pass me some !
Can a new coach do better with the same roster as this year ? Maybe, but from my perspective you are not winning a Super Bowl with the squad you have out there, not close as evidenced by the worst defense in the NFL and 4th worst in the history of the NFL.
Maybe it spags ? Or are there not enough talented players on the team ?
WOrst in the league. Can't argue that folks, it just happened and TC was supposed to make the playoffs with that squad LOL.
One of the reasons it's hard to compare the Giants' drafting record with that of other teams is that the Giants have had an extraordinary run of injuries. Given that everybody agrees about the injuries, I'm not sure why it's so hard to see why they complicate the draft analysis.
Here's a simple hypothetical to make the point: GMs A and B each have 8 draft picks. Over the course of the next four years, Team A's picks all stay healthy, while half of Team B's suffer career-ending injuries. Half of Team A's picks--in other words, 4--turn out to be meaningful contributors, while half of Team B's healthy picks--2--do the same. Does GM A have twice as good a drafting record as GM B? Or do we call the injuries bad luck and say the GMs were equally good because their success rate with healthy players was the same?
But when it comes to the Giants, the extraordinary extent to which they've suffered injuries complicates the question further. Two years in a row with by far the most injuries in the league (and maybe three this year?) doesn't seem explainable simply by bad luck. And if it's only partly luck, what else is to blame? Does the GM draft too many players who are injuries waiting to happen? Is the training staff culpable? Does the coach not know how to keep players healthy? Are the players themselves not willing enough to play with pain? (And if it's at least in part this last factor, who's to blame for that--the GM who's supposed to have an idea about the character of the players he drafts or the coach who's supposed to inspire them?)
This is not to absolve Jerry Reese, Giants mgt, or the scouts. Just to point out that the data, bad as they are, don't tell the whole story.
but you can't explain why, or the significance in comparing those particular aspects of players, or why teams that did relatively poorly in those same metrics didn't do as poorly on the field.
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
JCN, you raise a good point and maybe it's the difference we are all having here. This data shows that NYG had some bad drafts, it has been Acknowledged by the ownership last year and this year.... That is no argument.
Does it answer all questions ? HELL no. It just backs up what ownership has said, many have said on here that NYG had some bad years drafting and the talent on the team has suffered that is it. But there are people indicating the data is flawed, or it says nothing about Rees's drafting LOL..
Whatever you guys are smoking, pass me some !
Can a new coach do better with the same roster as this year ? Maybe, but from my perspective you are not winning a Super Bowl with the squad you have out there, not close as evidenced by the worst defense in the NFL and 4th worst in the history of the NFL.
Maybe it spags ? Or are there not enough talented players on the team ?
WOrst in the league. Can't argue that folks, it just happened and TC was supposed to make the playoffs with that squad LOL.
OK, so you continue to show very little understanding of the data you yourself posted. This is where I say goodnight, no sense in continuing this conversation.
Does it measure quality? No.
So try again.
What the fuck does that mean. you said nothing, well done. this article compares NYG drafting with that of the rest of the league.
As many have said 2008-2012 sucked. look at the comparisons accross the league.
But its what the wrong conclusion ?
Some of you on this site just can't admit that the Giants organization has issues at the TOP starting with the GM.
Now the new defense is "well its injured players" ... well doesn't that absolve coughlin.
Homers, will be Homers. simple as that.
Does it measure quality? No.
So try again.
OK MR quality.
enlighten us now to measure quality.. i will will research the data for you .
What does that mean ? If you get 1 odell beckham then your front office is absolved of all the players not playing in the NFL anymore ?
So 1 pro bowler > 1000 misses.
YOU ARE THE ONE RIPPING DATA, with NO ALTERNATIVE METHOD SUGGESTED.
thank you for trolling.
throw out 2014/15, too soon
YOu have still said nothing bro... what a joke
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
I would also like to see another analysis in 2 years i bet there has been much improvement for NYG.
It all coincides to when Marc Ross was hired.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
Listing a bunch of mid round picks doesn't prove much. You're acting like he's supposed to hit all of those.
I tend to agree that mid round drafting has been poor, but the insinuation that these guys should have all panned out is incorrect.
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
Quote:
analyzed the 5 drafts from 2010-2014 inclusive. The Giants ranked 23rd.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
Listing a bunch of mid round picks doesn't prove much. You're acting like he's supposed to hit all of those.
I tend to agree that mid round drafting has been poor, but the insinuation that these guys should have all panned out is incorrect.
not all. some. ANY
Quote:
It's not flag waving to point out the obvious holes in the "analysis".
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
Hasn't this been done? None of these analysis take into account the long list of very good players that Reese has
e brought here and who's careers ended prematurely. Do you need the list again? Nicks, TT, Phillips, Wilson, etc, etc.
Quote:
It's not flag waving to point out the obvious holes in the "analysis".
there have been 4 different draft analysis posted here in the past week, all from 3rd party sources. Every one of them comes to the same conclusion. Yet every thread is rife with the same "it's WRONG", "it's not his fault", It's injuries", "it's bad luck" torching the OP and the author of the piece and screaming that "it's just data" or "it's incomplete analysis".
Why don't you PRO JERRY REESE guys produce something, ANYTHING to refute the analysis that is critical of Reese as shabu and others have?
Data is not analysis - dumping lists of data, and ranking by some arbitrary measure (number of snaps, number of players still playing on the same roster) isn't necessarily a qualitative analysis of what Reese has done.
I'm not expecting much in response to your question, for one simple reason; there aren't a lot of people who deny Reese's drafts suffered from 2010-2012. It's apparent that the Giants realize that fact as well, although Reese's inexplicable pop at Ranaan during that press conference would make you wonder.
The thing is, the Giants past couple of drafts have been better. Much better? Remains to be seen, but better by any measure. He's been put on notice, and if they don't continue to improve, don't be surprised to see him follow TC out the door.
That doesn't come close to giving you enough info to make any conclusions on the success/failure of a teams drafting or team building.
A few people tried to point out the obvious problems of drawing conclusions of any kind from this. Again, it wasn't flag waving. It really should be as clear as day to you.
Victor, I guess you and this meathead shabu simply don't get it.
And we know Reese can do it. Witness 2007.
And if he does it a couple of times, how close are the rankings then? How much really separates the very worst from the very best? It's all about getting lucky with guys picked after the first two rounds.
Only 1/3 of those guys will contribute in a meaningful way to the teams that drafted them. A few will become stars.
You need to get lucky.
And the likes of Tom Zbikowski (64 games played) was a better pick than Kenny Phillips (59 games played)
how is that better? I give you they finally hit the OL, but that has been an obvious play for ten years.
Not needed here
Splendid work.
You can't argue rationally with the Reese flag wavers, it's all bad luck, not his fault. Because Brewer, McCants, Sintim, Petrus, Robinson, Jernigan, Hosley, Koets, Dillard, Herman, Cox, Moore, Mosley, Kuhn, Sash, Greg Jones, etc, etc, etc were ALL bad luck.
The Coughlin worshippers are equally blind..
I have no way of knowing this, but my gut tells me that all of these draft analyses (Ranaan, Grazian, this, the Post) coupled with Reese's awful "Beckham was all me"/"the bad stuff was everybody's fault" throwing the coaching staff under the bus is making it difficult to land new coaches, especially if the "secret big name" stuff is true. If you were Saban, would you come here without the guarantee that Reese is either gone or busted to his old job as Head of College Scouting?
That's my fear , you can't absolve the front office from the drafts and Mara put Reese out front to bear the brunt of it after TC's presser.
So from the outside looking in coaches are going to look at TC and think great, I win a Super Bowl there and within 4 years, record setting injuries and a questionable roster I would be gone too.
I have a masters degree in computer science David and I was a calculus tutor in college.
What is your mathematics background ? Agian you said nothing. If you guys disagree with the data then say why, but none of you EVER do.
You just attack ppl personally because you have a hidden agenda here . Or you are just trolling to piss ppl off and up the post counts so the site makes more money. Lol
That doesn't come close to giving you enough info to make any conclusions on the success/failure of a teams drafting or team building.
A few people tried to point out the obvious problems of drawing conclusions of any kind from this. Again, it wasn't flag waving. It really should be as clear as day to you.
Victor, I guess you and this meathead shabu simply don't get it.
What would be the correct analysis ?
So what is the correct way to analyze this ?
Because you and others, outside of your personal insults keep saying it's flawed yet can't suggest a different approach and I think it's valuable.
The data is there, the detail on the analysis is there. The one flaw that does stand out in there is that they don't measure beyond the first 2 years with ORGINAL team.. So if player X is gone from Team Y after 2 years but productive in the NFL, that does not factor.
A better way to look at it would be if those players are on NFL rosters, I started something on this at one point, but it's quite a bit of work.
I think some people on this site have a hard time seeing that the ownership and/or front office of the NYG has failures. In the end that's what it is, outside of the belligerent responses to threads.
Anyway, have a good day everyone 1
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
LOL
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
JCN, you raise a good point and maybe it's the difference we are all having here. This data shows that NYG had some bad drafts, it has been Acknowledged by the ownership last year and this year.... That is no argument.
Does it answer all questions ? HELL no. It just backs up what ownership has said, many have said on here that NYG had some bad years drafting and the talent on the team has suffered that is it. But there are people indicating the data is flawed, or it says nothing about Rees's drafting LOL..
Whatever you guys are smoking, pass me some !
Can a new coach do better with the same roster as this year ? Maybe, but from my perspective you are not winning a Super Bowl with the squad you have out there, not close as evidenced by the worst defense in the NFL and 4th worst in the history of the NFL.
Maybe it spags ? Or are there not enough talented players on the team ?
WOrst in the league. Can't argue that folks, it just happened and TC was supposed to make the playoffs with that squad LOL.
Here's a simple hypothetical to make the point: GMs A and B each have 8 draft picks. Over the course of the next four years, Team A's picks all stay healthy, while half of Team B's suffer career-ending injuries. Half of Team A's picks--in other words, 4--turn out to be meaningful contributors, while half of Team B's healthy picks--2--do the same. Does GM A have twice as good a drafting record as GM B? Or do we call the injuries bad luck and say the GMs were equally good because their success rate with healthy players was the same?
But when it comes to the Giants, the extraordinary extent to which they've suffered injuries complicates the question further. Two years in a row with by far the most injuries in the league (and maybe three this year?) doesn't seem explainable simply by bad luck. And if it's only partly luck, what else is to blame? Does the GM draft too many players who are injuries waiting to happen? Is the training staff culpable? Does the coach not know how to keep players healthy? Are the players themselves not willing enough to play with pain? (And if it's at least in part this last factor, who's to blame for that--the GM who's supposed to have an idea about the character of the players he drafts or the coach who's supposed to inspire them?)
This is not to absolve Jerry Reese, Giants mgt, or the scouts. Just to point out that the data, bad as they are, don't tell the whole story.
Quote:
but you can't explain why, or the significance in comparing those particular aspects of players, or why teams that did relatively poorly in those same metrics didn't do as poorly on the field.
So basically, the only value in the data is that if you look at it with the paper oriented in the right direction it might support your narrative.
And that's from someone who's said in numerous places that he'd have no problem with Reese being dismissed based on performance.
I don't think you're capable of drawing a causal link between Reese's drafting and the team's misfortunes without including a number of other data points. It does become a pretty significant effort at some point, but if you're going to do it analytically, you've got to actually prove your point. Otherwise, you're better off just pointing to the results on the field and saying 'not good enough', because that has about as much credence as whatever this is supposed to be, and then some.
JCN, you raise a good point and maybe it's the difference we are all having here. This data shows that NYG had some bad drafts, it has been Acknowledged by the ownership last year and this year.... That is no argument.
Does it answer all questions ? HELL no. It just backs up what ownership has said, many have said on here that NYG had some bad years drafting and the talent on the team has suffered that is it. But there are people indicating the data is flawed, or it says nothing about Rees's drafting LOL..
Whatever you guys are smoking, pass me some !
Can a new coach do better with the same roster as this year ? Maybe, but from my perspective you are not winning a Super Bowl with the squad you have out there, not close as evidenced by the worst defense in the NFL and 4th worst in the history of the NFL.
Maybe it spags ? Or are there not enough talented players on the team ?
WOrst in the league. Can't argue that folks, it just happened and TC was supposed to make the playoffs with that squad LOL.
OK, so you continue to show very little understanding of the data you yourself posted. This is where I say goodnight, no sense in continuing this conversation.
An even bigger lol to your comment about the "one flaw". Yeah. It's the only flaw with this nonsense.
Quote:
The correct way to analyze the data is to conclude the data offers no conclusive evidence, one way or the other, about the quality of Reese drafting.
LOL
He was not agreeing with you, but I'm not at all surprised that went over your head.