There is no doubt that terrible drafting is the cause of the Giants' ineptitude, and this post isn't an argument otherwise. But I wonder whether just picking bad players is the whole story. With so much scouting going on, is there great difference in setting up draft tiers from team to team? It would seem a fan using published mock drafts as a guide would have had more success than the Giants. I don't recall the draft junkies on BBI being harshly critical after drafts. It's often the opposite, with lots of hopeful gushing.
So how much of this failure is bad player development by coaches? I know this line of questioning leads back to the later Coughlin tenure, so some will reject it for that reason.
Some may also ask if players who failed with the Giants have succeeded with other teams. But that rarely happens, as failed players are unlikely to be given the time and opportunity over a team's own drafted players.
So I'm curious what others think.
Shockingly, one of the guys that left and is having a decent season is Prince A. - but I hated that guy and was glad to see him go.
Did you read the entire post. I addressed that.
He made a lot of picks that didn't develop and although you can say he was a lousy picker, some of them should have developed anyway.
Coughlin didn't Not play rookies and young players but he wanted them to prove themselves in practice before they played.