this morning on NFL Radio on Sirius. They talked about how, after losing his job, he showed absolutely no interest in fighting to get his job back. He would stand on the sidelines, totally uninterested, chewing sunflower seeds.
They also talked about how the Giants (aka Reese/Ross etc.) basically sided with Flowers over well respected offensive line coaches such as Flaherty and Solari. Apparently, both tried to get through to Flowers that his technique was awful (dropping his head, grabbing) and Flowers steadfastly refused to alter his technique or change his approach. Flats and Flowers butted heads on numerous occasions. They basically said Flowers is a mental midget.
They suspect someone may take a flyer on him just as depth. They said it says a lot when a team that has OL issues or has had them is willing to cut ties with a player who was a no. 9 overall draft pick.
I think we gain on this strictly by not having him around. My son and I have been talking about this...that getting rid of him would send a message to the locker room and this was definitely a case of addition by subtraction.
I have no problem skipping the player at #9 overall in such a spot.
Btw, we wound up with a tailback with even more upside, imo.
Coach Red Beaulieu : 10:14 am : link : reply
Reese threw under the bus respected Oline coaches Flaherty and Solari, and we're kind of stuck with meh n00b Hunter. Line might have gelled guider this year with some continuity.
As far as Solari goes, it wasn't just Flowers.....he couldn't teach the Jerry/Hart to handle a simple stunt.....he couldn't teach anyone how to run a screen.....
As for Flowers not listening to him as far as not changing his technique, that is all on the coach, unless you bench his ass....
And what continuity? A different player at each of the 5 positions?
Solari showed nothing.....
BBI was hopefull that a young big OL could turn out to be something, but not many were "stoked" about the pick.
Maybe drafting is more akin to hitting in baseball. You're going to strike out a lot more often than you'll hit a home run.
Position dependent (not surprisingly). Slightly old data (2005-2014), but interesting:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
Also, notable with Barkley picked this year (and contrary to popular belief):
Running Back
The position has been devalued over the years but the statistics still show that it is better to draft early if you are looking for a starter.
Of the 207 players drafted 33 have become starters for half their careers. This gives an indication that there is a lot of Running Back By Committee (RBBC).
There is a very high bust rate for RBs. The first round gives you a 58% chance of finding a starter followed by 25% in the second, 16% in the third, 11% in the fourth, 9% in the fifth, 6% in the sixth and 0% in the 7th.
... (more in article)
Though the "success" criteria the article uses is quite debatable and would technically consider Flowers a success (for now):
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most.
Link - ( New Window )
Well, one of the scouts they hired was Chris Snee, who told them buyer beware.
Conversely, the title of the graph could be "Draft round matters for QBs the least.
Link - ( New Window )
Also even mediocre o-line coaches should be able to coach a player up a bit if the player has any interest in improving.
This was a mistake by the scouting Dept., by the GM and the coaching. But mosstly it was a mistake of and by the player himself. No one can get into every player’s psyche. Best thing that can happen now is that he can’t sign anywhere, works to change in the off season, and gets a look in Miami next year.
We don't know the whole story behind the Flaherty firing, just as we don't know the whole story behind why they finally let him go and now. If the whole line sucked then it would point to a coach (or some truly bad personnel decisions in that area). I THINK the final push out the door for Flowers was our 1 and 4 record. With a ship thats trying to right itself, you want all oars in the water and, at least appearing to be, rowing in the same direction. Players busting their a$$e$, seeing him on the sideline, spitting sunflower seeds, can maybe be written off if your 4 and 1 or 3 and 2. When youre struggling like this team is, when Odell is speaking out (whom I believe is busting his a$$) the newer players as well as 'fringe' players may look over at EF and say, well whats going on there. Coaches and management have a tough time defending it. So he's shown the door. They'll take their chances with a less 'gifted' player.
Conversely, the title of the graph could be "Draft round matters for QBs the least. Link - ( New Window )
I'm confused about the QB line in that graph. It doesn't appear to add up to 100% or even close. 10% in round 1, 5% in round 2, 5% in round 6, everywhere else is like 0% or less, so how does that add up to 100%?
As far as Solari goes, it wasn't just Flowers.....he couldn't teach the Jerry/Hart to handle a simple stunt.....he couldn't teach anyone how to run a screen.....
As for Flowers not listening to him as far as not changing his technique, that is all on the coach, unless you bench his ass....
And what continuity? A different player at each of the 5 positions?
Solari showed nothing.....
Bingo. Kill Reese for over-drafting Flowers, but the previous o-line coaches had PLENTY of failures aside from #76. That just sounds like unnecessary piling on of Reese/Ross by Papa.
He has all the physical tools if he ever wants to put it together and get his technique right.
However, I still think the chart is a bit misleading, because it doesn't account for the fact that QBs tend to be drafted higher than the other positions due to QB being a premium position, so naturally you are going to have more QBs who are 1st round busts. Also, an all-pro QB is a rare breed, and it isn't that draft round is a poor predictor of QB excellence, it's that *everyone* is a poor predictor of QB excellence regardless of draft round, because an all-pro QB is simply hard to find.
Let me put it this way and you might draw a different conclusion...
Since 1990, there have been 17 all pro QBs drafted. Here is the distribution of those 17 players by round:
1st: 11
2nd: 2
3rd: 0
4th: 0
5th: 0
6th: 2
7th: 0
Und: 2
Since 1990, there have been 52 all pro RBs drafted. Here is the distribution of those 52 players by round:
1st: 24
2nd: 7
3rd: 8
4th: 3
5th: 5
6th: 2
7th: 1
Und: 2
So of all all-pro RBs, 46% were selected in the 1st round... while of all all-pro QBs, 65% were selected in the 1st round. that certainly doesn't say to me that draft round is a poor predictor of QB performance, does it?
Here's my final conclusion: if you want an all-pro QB, you're probably going to have to get him in the 1st round, 2nd round at the latest, unless you plan to hit the jackpot and find a diamond in the rough (there were only 4: Brady, Romo, Warner, Hassleback). Here's the problem: even if you take a QB in the 1st round, there's still only a 10% chance that he's going to be an all-pro. But that, my friends, is a perfect argument for why we were correct to not be hellbent on taking one of the top 4-5 QBs in this past year's draft--there is only a 10% chance that the one we chose was going to be an all-pro. That's why you don't just take a QB top 10 overall and figure your set at QB for 10-15 years. Similarly, even if to a lesser extent, that's why you don't take an OT top 10 overall and assume you're setup for 10-15 years, you take Todd effin' Gurley because he's the better effin' player.