too small...
"A team source told SNY's Ralph Vacchiano that Oklahoma QB Kyler Murray is "probably a little too small" for the Giants.
The Giants "prefer to stick to the established measurables they have for a prototypical quarterback," Vacchiano notes. The Giants' organization emphasizes conventional wisdom and inside-the-box thinking, and they haven't started a quarterback that measures below 6-feet since 5-foot-11 Gary Wood went 0-6 in 1966. And "the philosophy hasn't changed all that much (in that over half-century timeframe)," Vacchiano confirms. 6-foot-3 Dwayne Haskins, 6-foot-4 Drew Lock, and 6-foot-5 Daniel Jones appear to be likelier candidates to succeed 6-foot-4 Eli Manning than 5-foot-9 Murray."
Source: SNY.com
Get it? "too small for the Giants".
Nice meltdown, Captain Analytics.
I've addressed all your points even as they increase in desperation. This is what luddites don't seem to grasp at any point. All I care about is that the Giants do something about their increasingly antiquated approach. I have a purpose and you don't. You just want to make fun of people online and have your face surgically attached to Gettleman's ass. Until last night it was quite unclear why you wanted to defend him so ardently without any real purpose, one of the many questions I've asked you that you haven't answered. Gladly as I searched for this answer it finally dawned on me. You just want to eat Gettleman farts.
Eat all the farts you want, good luddite, it is your prerogative but regardless of what you say about me I hope you know it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about here and your points have proven to be wrong time and time again. I will continue to point out that the Giants need to modernize until they do.
Excellent rebuttal, Captain Analytics!
5 references to luddite and two to eating farts.
Brave, BRAVE, sir luddite rolls into town. Talking down as he always does. Captain analytics you don't know anything! My fearless leader luddite sir Gettleman hired engineers at one point! He even sent them to the great sloan conference! You are stupid! What a hero sir luddite is, even though he is failing to grasp the incredibly simple point that if the Giants are failing to apply simple game theory concepts it doesn't really matter how many engineers someone has hired in the past or how many puff pieces he's smiled for. He also insults analytics and fails to show any ability to apply in his kingdom what the best leaders have been grasping for many years. That is the point that not enough people can point out for it hurts our kingdom in it's battles against other ones.
But no, it's the person that points out that our kingdom really should be on top of this is evil. What a noble man you are great luddite and eater of farts. We shall tell your story for generations!
I don't think it's being made up. If so, why the Giants as opposed to another team? I think the larger point is that you just don't want people saying this about your team and there seems be smoke around this issue. Probably at least a little fire going.
Lol arc, we've never had any problems. Not my goal to annoy you but I am making no bones about wanting to shame this organization into moving forward not that they read BBI but they do listen to fans and I don't think any fans should be pleased about the general strategy of the front office and it's relationship to new tech initiatives.
How much do you know about technology? Are you happy with the people on the Giants analytics team and their qualifications?
Holy shit. You really are a pompous fuck
I know we had a bunch of players running around with GPS devices attached to them in camp recently and it didn't seem to change anything.
I'd be more concerned if it were baseball. Analytics in football seem to still have a long way to go.
Is NE employing a more analytic approach than other teams are? I honestly don't know. Is there a clear line of demarcation where you can see that teams embracing a more analytic approach are seeing better results than others?
There's just tons of blanks here.
I think teams should always be open to anything that can present a potential advantage. But at the end of the day, I'm more concerned with the talent on the roster and the coaching. Ultimately, no one is going to be able to win without those things in place first.
Link - ( New Window )
Makes sense in terms of throwing a college sized football. He definitely gets through the ball very well.
I'm very curious to see him throw a pro-sized football at the Combine. Still think his hand size is going to be a big deal...
I really want to go for it with him. I love everything about his game. The size is a big deal, can’t ignore that, but I’m willing to take that risk.
Side note, it’s hilarious to read that breakdown and read comments about him being Vick 2.0.
Hand size is going to be a big deal. I'm still not sold on him panning out in the NFL, but if we're going to take any sort of risk, I'd take it on him. The talent is obviously undeniable.
I'm good with Haskins or Murray if we're taking a QB otherwise I want to go in a different direction. I wouldn't really be happy taking any of the other QB's in this class.
I’m gonna be mad if the giants ignore this kid. I’m on record, Murray will be a legit player in the nfl. I loved Wilson and mayfield.
Size really doesn’t matter when it comes to qbs, rbs and WRs. What matters is athletic ability, football smarts and the dude needs to be fucking crazy.
Agreed. Not that I’m defending jones or picking jones but people need to be aware that scouts and nfl teams don’t look for the same shit we might be looking at. Jones is likely going to endear himself to nfl scouts because he played and produced with little to no talent around him, along with the other attributes you touched on.
He doesn't seem like a NYG type QB - I'd hope that wasn't an actual line of thinking or reason for passing on him, though.
He doesn't seem like a NYG type QB - I'd hope that wasn't an actual line of thinking or reason for passing on him, though.
I'll be stunned if someone takes that leap and drafts a 5'9" QB in the top of the first round. There is too much data suggesting that size ultimately won't work. Not saying it can't, but it's a real stretch.
I predict by draft day, this new car smell-hype with Murray wears off some and he drops.
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
Kingsbury was just saying those “Murray at #1” comments because Tech was getting ready to play Oklahoma. Pure hype. And it’s being overplayed...(now watch AZ pick him #1, and trade Rosen).
Think about what you just wrote - if Murray is a legit 5’9”?!? I’ll bite, what’s a “legit” 5’9”?
There is only one GM who can get away with rolling the dice on KM. And that’s Belichick. Murray is the biggest draft risk in the history of the draft.
Quote:
Only takes one team to fall in love with the skillset.
I actually think if ARZ hadn't taken Rosen last year, Kingsbury would absolutely take Murray 1st overall this year. Hell, he still might if they can get an early 1st for Rosen despite coming out and declaring that Rosen is his guy.
Combine will determine a lot and if he turns out to be even smaller than people think or the hand size is a legitimate concern, it'll probably knock him down a bit.
But if he's a legit 5'9" and 190+, I have a feeling he will be the first QB off the board and go in the top 5.
Just my guess - we shall see.
Kingsbury was just saying those “Murray at #1” comments because Tech was getting ready to play Oklahoma. Pure hype. And it’s being overplayed...(now watch AZ pick him #1, and trade Rosen).
Think about what you just wrote - if Murray is a legit 5’9”?!? I’ll bite, what’s a “legit” 5’9”?
There is only one GM who can get away with rolling the dice on KM. And that’s Belichick. Murray is the biggest draft risk in the history of the draft.
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I guess my question would be...
Do we know how much the Giants are investing in analytics compared to other teams? Is that information even available, or are we really just basing everything off Gettleman's comment where he seemed to minimize them?
I don't know about all of the people they have working for them behind the scenes - it's just not something I've researched and I'm not even sure that info is all readily available anyway.
Even with the Patriots - it seems like it's really not certain just how reliant Bill actually IS on analytics. The conclusion the Merrimack piece drew was that their strategies seem to fall in line with analytics - but that's as far as they go. Experts just say that their strategies seem to align.
I do think the strategies themselves are smart - but most of them shouldn't need analytics to employ or figure out. For instance, what does cutting expensive players have to do with analytics? That's just basic team management stuff.
I am the type of person who thinks teams should always be exploring new avenues and leave no stone unturned - so, I'd be annoyed if the Giants were completely dismissing analytics entirely. Are they, though? That hasn't really been made clear as far as I can tell.
Quote:
But some points to your response
1) I think this article on last years Superbowl participants and analytics speaks to how it definitely has been part of success especially as it relates to the Patriots dynasty. Think this article also outlines it well.
2) I agree right now the efficacy of analytics in football is a mixed bag. It's why I point out that just hiring developers or even better, advanced analytics people on their own doesn't mean you have the right people. The Jags were a team that bought in early that did not have the best season, they are not infallible. That being said I've seen this cycle in finance, many banks were skeptical even 5 years ago if computers /automation could do better than humans other than a few specific tasks like HFT now more and more tasks are being taken over by machines and coders that trade are replacing qualitative methods. This will be the case in any business involving data (which is increasing in scope in the NFL especially with things like ZEBRA) You bring up GPS data as well, the kind of analytics team it takes to integrate that with say an injury prediction or performance model, essentially what you'd like to use that data for, you need better skill sets than we have on our staff
3) If you want people of these skills that care about quality of life, who they are working for and have a lot of options it's not good to have leaders publicly insulting analytics. Especially when other teams are talking up how valuable they think they are.
4) As I and other analytics professionals have pointed out fixing the things you mentioned in parallel to moving our technology program forward is as simple as hiring someone with a strong math and software background and giving them some resources. A team that makes as much as the Giants and can do this outside of the cap should not be stingy about this
5) The longer we delay this the harder it will be to build strong reinforcement learning data sets where we have a history of how we make decisions vs. what a computer might suggest. Teams like the Patriots and the Eagles have 5-10 years of this data at least. The people we have on our team do not really have the skills needed to set up the quality of models you need to even begin this reinforcement learning process
I guess my question would be...
Do we know how much the Giants are investing in analytics compared to other teams? Is that information even available, or are we really just basing everything off Gettleman's comment where he seemed to minimize them?
I don't know about all of the people they have working for them behind the scenes - it's just not something I've researched and I'm not even sure that info is all readily available anyway.
Even with the Patriots - it seems like it's really not certain just how reliant Bill actually IS on analytics. The conclusion the Merrimack piece drew was that their strategies seem to fall in line with analytics - but that's as far as they go. Experts just say that their strategies seem to align.
I do think the strategies themselves are smart - but most of them shouldn't need analytics to employ or figure out. For instance, what does cutting expensive players have to do with analytics? That's just basic team management stuff.
I am the type of person who thinks teams should always be exploring new avenues and leave no stone unturned - so, I'd be annoyed if the Giants were completely dismissing analytics entirely. Are they, though? That hasn't really been made clear as far as I can tell.
The one area that I think NGD has a really strong point in particular is that, regardless of whether you subscribe to Gettleman being a strong believer in the value of analytics or not, I think you'd have to at least consider the idea that DG sitting at a press conference and mocking analytics while pretending to mash a keyboard is not a good look and that it would possibly deter strong analytic minds from wanting to work for someone who appears to dismiss the value of their work.
I believe that moment was a gaffe by Gettleman. How significant an error and whether it's representative of DG actually marginalizing analytics is obviously subject to debate.
It doesn't seem like it ultimately created any issue as far as employing that approach anyway.
Bill is also the "stats are for losers" guy.
So, how much does it really matter what's said in public? My guess is not much.
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
If a QB prospect is a "legit 6'" than that typically eases concerns. But there is nothing legit about 5'9" for an NFL QB. And it's funny how you say you you are okay at 5'9" but if he's 5'8", then that's a problem. ;)
I honestly do think Murray is the greatest risk - assuming he goes in the first round of the draft - ever. These are unchartered waters. A 5'9" QB with a very small frame being seriously considered with one of the highest picks. It goes against every conventional wisdom of what has worked in the NFL.
And at that level of investment, we are not talking project. We're talking someone who is expected to be a pro bowl caliber player. That is a huge risk. And if that team misses taking a player who goes against the grain of most physical metrics, that is a possible career killer.
Quote:
You don't understand what I mean by legit 5'9"?
I mean.. actually 5'9".. not shorter than that. Some people aren't even certain he's that tall. If he's even shorter than 5'9", I'd say that's problematic. If he's 5'9" or taller than that, it's not ideal, but I can live with it.
Biggest risk in the HISTORY of the draft? Cmon. A little hyperbolic, no?
Someone besides NE is going to draft Murray - so, someone is going to have to get away with it because it's going to happen.
I am willing to bet Murray goes in the top half of the 1st round.
If a QB prospect is a "legit 6'" than that typically eases concerns. But there is nothing legit about 5'9" for an NFL QB. And it's funny how you say you you are okay at 5'9" but if he's 5'8", then that's a problem. ;)
I honestly do think Murray is the greatest risk - assuming he goes in the first round of the draft - ever. These are unchartered waters. A 5'9" QB with a very small frame being seriously considered with one of the highest picks. It goes against every conventional wisdom of what has worked in the NFL.
And at that level of investment, we are not talking project. We're talking someone who is expected to be a pro bowl caliber player. That is a huge risk. And if that team misses taking a player who goes against the grain of most physical metrics, that is a possible career killer.
Basically what I mean is - if he's the size we think he is now, I think I could talk myself into it.
If it turns out that he's even smaller than I think he is as it is, then at that point, I'd start to shy away.
I know 5'9" is an arbitrary cutoff - even that is still very short for an NFL QB. And even that that height, I would have my concerns.
I was one of the more vocal posters here when he declared about the size concerns - if anything, I was more on your side of the argument than anything else. I think it's a legitimate worry and can be problematic at the next level.
But - the talent is undeniable and exciting. I'd be lying if I didn't say the prospect of Murray/Barkley/Beckham/Engram didn't get me a little hyped up. That's a LOT of speed and a LOT of talent. We would be very difficult to defend if it worked.
I do think we'll be looking at more traditional passers, though - it's probably true that Murray won't be a guy NYG give serious consideration to.
It's the Dwayne Train for me.
My 17 year old son is the same size!!
Ironically enough, I was touting Murray's skills all during the college season. He was/is the most electrifying offensive player I think I have ever seen in D-1. His combination of passing skills - and they are advanced - and running/scrambling put him at a completely different level. And despite my disdain for B12 football, and the fact Murray played behind a great oline, I didn't hold any of that against him.
I'm more into the idea of Murray if he's there in the second round or later. But it doesn't look that way right now.
Bigger for sure but most will not be faster. And it isn't just speed, its how he uses his feet to move in the pocket and avoid contact on the run.
Again it can't be ignored but there's a lot of nuance at play here. If he weighs 190 do NFL teams think he can be just as effective at 200? What's his 3 cone (if he does one)? What's his 20 time (more important for him IMO)?
It's not the weight it's the frame. People can look vastly different at the same weight and height. When you look at Murray I see a guy who has a solid lower body frame, but his upper body jusst doesn't seem all that large. I wish we could get ankle and wrist measurements.
What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?
He won’t be converted to WR because he will be a top pick chosen to play QB. Maybe down the line if he proves he can’t be a franchise QB, but definitely not now.
As for analytics, I'm guessing they'll love Murray much like they loved Mayfield (though his long track record helped) and predicted he'd be the best QB in last year's class.
Everything I do now and everyone I met that builds complex AI systems like I do today thinks in probabilities. Luddites might even make fun of me for using LinkedIn or google as a source, but the fact remains that analytical people model outcomes of success for themselves. And people with the skills we need to make us competitive in these areas long term are not going to want to work for the Giants when they see what is out there on their staff and management vs. the other teams. It is much easier to see success for yourself in an organization that buys in when you are working with talented collaborators. That is even IF the current Giants leadership acknowledges that they do indeed need these people which there isn’t any evidence of.
So let’s dig in a little to what is out there when we google New York Giants analytics vs. New England Patriots analytics:
I’d like to zero in on Sean Harrington of the Patriots. This article is talking about a clever autoencoder that he invented, and I’m sure has advanced leaps and bounds since then. In laymen’s terms what Sean has done here is automated what PFF does and did it better because while different people might encode data differently with the same mandate a computer will not. Either way you don’t need something like an autoencoder without a developed reinforcement learning structure (notice that term is linked on the autoencoder wiki page, for a primer on applied reinforcement learning)
Now let’s take a look at the Giants with Ty Siam as the “rising star” in their department. (Sean Harrington’s LinkedIn for comparison) Siam has worked in the ancient art of “data analysis” and is endorsed for it, he doesn’t even show any knowledge of databases (which is just the way you move data around before you even start a machine learning process) This alone shows how different the staffing is on our teams today.
Now just a quick tour of the league, the Jacksonville Jaguars analytics google shows that the owner’s son was made SVP of analytics in 2012, a deep organizational buy in and there are lots of exciting initiatives in that search. Even a google of the Seattle Seahawks yields a deeper commitment and in an athletic article on the first page you see this quote. “Unlike the Giants, though, Seattle appears to take a rosier view of analytics. Each of the Seahawks' three post-draft press conferences…” Moral of the story, you can’t even do research on other teams analytics departments without the Giants being insulted for backwards thinking. If you google new York Giants analytics the first article compares the existing Giants approach to looking at the world as flat it of course mentions the Gettleman quote, as do other articles on the first page of the search. Not much positive out there on the Giants in this regard.
Unlike certain people on this board that want to be propaganda mouthpieces for the organization, I always do my research and both the image of the Giants and what this image most likely accurately reflects within the organization should be something that each and every fan wants this team to fix yesterday.
This article is saying the METS can be smarter than the Giants.
Met's shouldn't make Giants mistakes? - ( New Window )