The knock on the Jones pick seems to be that DG could have picked him had he waited until 17 but panicked and took him at 6.
Whether or not this is true, how was DG supposed to know this? Should he call the otherGMs and ask? Should he read Adam Schefter and assume that it's true?
Obviously these are rhetorical questions. There no way for him to know whether or not he'll last. So if he's the guy you take him at 6 and be done with it.
If you love him as much as the Giants did you just take him. Why risk it?
The media seems to imply that he would 100% have been there which just isn't the case, or at least impossible to know. So if you prefer him over Allen, which they obviously did, don't get cute. Just take him.
He might not work out but I don't blame them ofr taking him at 6 if they have conviction.
Exactly. The key uncertainty here isn't the Bengals, Broncos, etc. It's whether Gettleman actually knew what he claims he knew.
There are a lot of other factors, like the team's assessment of Josh Allen, Jonah Williams, Christian Wilkins, etc. but the first question is whether the probability of getting Jones at #17 was really 0%, as Gettleman asserts. If that's true, then not picking him at #6 equals not getting him, and all possible combination of picks that include Jones are off the table, unless they trade up from #17 (which probably costs them Baker). That simplifies the game-theory aspect, but it also tilts the likely outcome.
If the chance of getting Jones as #17 is set at 50%, then it's a whole different game. Then you're talking about Allen (or Williams, or whoever) plus a 50% chance of Jones and a 50% chance of whoever the fallback turned out be - possibly Lawrence, but maybe somebody else. I think that's pretty attractive, unless they think Jones is a fairly unique property.
The only real critique is that he wasnt worth the 6th pick because he's not good enough.
But few are willing to go out on that limb.
None of the media or even the draft experts go into their mocks/grades thinking as deeply about the needs and desires of the NY Giants as the NY Giants. The Giants have their own experts, the difference being they are grading out players specifically for the Giants. Our experts are not trying to figure out who Denver wanted. They don't care who or what the media wanted. I disagree with most on here that think they care about what Eli wants as well. They are paid to find the right person for the NEW YORK GIANTS!!!!
The Giants, at the time of their pick, choose the guy that they feel is the best fit for their team and didn't want to risk that he would be there for them later. End of story.
What's "Game Theory"/ Nothing but a theory.
The NFL draft is for real.
One of these days I'll learn to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what's going on.
The media seems to imply that he would 100% have been there which just isn't the case, or at least impossible to know.
He might not work out but I don't blame them ofr taking him at 6 if they have conviction.
WHy is this on the media? WHy didn't DG just say he was valued as top on our boards and leave it at that?
WHy does he always feel a need to overly-babble?
DG SAID Jones was as highly valued as Allen thus it being obvious that Jones was tops on his board.
WHy doesn;t he shut his mouth instead of inviting more discussion? IMO it's because he wants to show off to everyone how smart he thinks he is. Isn't this a possibility?
Is this true? I know DG said after the draft that he "knew for a fact" that DJ wouldn't last, but I don't think he ever said when he learned that "fact," or that he knew it at the time he made the pick.
My impression was that whatever he learned came after the pick, from conversations with peers. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
From a game-theory perspective, any confirmation received after he made the pick - even if assumed to be 100% reliable - is irrelevant. In game theory, you can't justify a poorly-reasoned decision by pointing to the fact that your hunch turned out to be right.
From a game-theory perspective, any confirmation received after he made the pick - even if assumed to be 100% reliable - is irrelevant. In game theory, you can't justify a poorly-reasoned decision by pointing to the fact that your hunch turned out to be right.
Thanks Confucius.
It would seem that definitely not being able to obtain Allen was preferable to the possibility of not being able to obtain Jones.
It would seem that definitely not being able to obtain Allen was preferable to the possibility of not being able to obtain Jones.
Quote:
...of the confirmation. He implied that he was sure at the time he made the pick, and that he received confirmation later. One of the reasons it came across as BS was that he was so vague about the crucial element of timing. On the other hand, he might have been protecting his source.
From a game-theory perspective, any confirmation received after he made the pick - even if assumed to be 100% reliable - is irrelevant. In game theory, you can't justify a poorly-reasoned decision by pointing to the fact that your hunch turned out to be right.
Thanks Confucius.
I think you meant Nash
Speaking of Nash: wear seatbelts, even in the back seat.
I disagree. We can’t know if rather it was Pitt that was waiting to see if Bush was still on the board at #10 before finalizing the deal. There’s no question Bush was their target and they gave up quite a lot for him, very unlikely they would make the trade prior to knowing 100% for sure that Bush was available at #10. The fact Denver went through with the trade after Jones was picked does not mean they wanted Jones all along, it could simply mean Pitt was not willing to make the trade before pick #10 came up and Bush was still there (he very easily could have gone earlier).
As you know, Pittsburgh and The Giants are familar....that would be one way DG was certain.
Don’t you?
More likely Giants trade up if they pass on Jones and lose the 37 th pick. So in that case Allen and Jones is better than Jones, Lawerence and Baker, don’t see it.
Only way it seems like a bad pick at 6 is if You didn’t want them to draft Jones at all.
Speaking of Nash: wear seatbelts, even in the back seat.
It isn't just that. Game Theory applied to the draft is nearly a useless exercise. Game Theory strategy applies most in a draft situation when trying to determine the liklihood of other teams targeting the same position or same player as you are and the optimal value to gain from the selections.
But the randomness of picks being successful complicates things to the point where the analytic discussion breaks down. If you could determine that every 6'4" player would have a certain level of success, it would at least allow for some statistical analysis, but it doesn't work that way.
The draft is more of an exercise in confirmation bias, where picks are immediately judged based on their reputation from groupthink instead of how they will actually produce. If Tom Brady had been picked in the 1st round, New England would have been eviscerated. Up until the point that he showed exactly why he would have been worthy of being picked that high. And then the focus would be on what did New England know that everyone else didn't. And in the immediate evaluation of New England based on game theory, Brady would have been a terrible pick. Since the board oft he "experts" had him as a mid-round pick, New England had terrible value picking him early. That's where this whole idea of game theory fails.
Quote:
Where are the scenarios, probabilities, and combinations? What you have there is dogma, not game theory.
What's "Game Theory"/ Nothing but a theory.
The NFL draft is for real.
That's not really how it works, but ok. Are you familiar with game theory at all?
I don't think it goes much past running a bunch of mock drafts, but thats just a guess
What's "Game Theory"/ Nothing but a theory.
The NFL draft is for real.
That's not really how it works, but ok. Are you familiar with game theory at all?
More informal but the key is that the media acts as if Jones would have 100% been there at 17, but thats inherently unknowable from Gettleman perspective. Instead there's some probability, he says 0%, but really probably more like 25%.
Given this, it's understandable why Jones was the pick at 6.
One could come up with a model but I think the key is that they think having Jones on the roster increases the odds of a Superbowl in the next X amount of years more than anyone else they could have picked there.
Since game theory relies heavily on expected decisions from other "players", you'd have to model the teams that passed on a QB because Jones wasn't there and the teams that took a QB after Jones was selected and assign a probability on them selecting Jones based on information that will likely never publicly be known.
About the only thing you could say with pretty certain probability is that the Cards had no interest in Jones (but you'd probably have to factor in the Giants interest of trading up for Murray). Or trading for Rosen.
That's why game theory of the draft is nearly impossible.
Add in the fact that the "winner" isn't determined until years later and it really is useless.
In your Brady example, the Pats can only judge that pick relative to their own board and the perceived likelihood of another team taking him. If they graded him as a UDFA, he’s a reach in round six even with the benefit of hindsight. His emergence as the GOAT wouldn’t make him a good pick. It just makes the Patriots very lucky (and reflects well on their staff over the past two decades).
And it is even tougher for us to discuss because we don't even have insight into the boards. We may know Kiper or McShay's board, but we don't likely have the actual information teams are using.
From a game theory standpoint, it would be a poor pick. That's why I called it more of a function of confirmation bias than anything else.
The truth is he was taken more seriously than many in the media did...and by several other teams besides the Giants.
Its also true that some teams did and did not prefer Haskins and/or Murray.
Regardless of the efficacy of his statements about draft day ( an unknowable morass) we have a lot of information now that indicates that several more seasoned evaluators around the league took Jones more seriously than the initial Rd 2 assessment of early punditry.
Jones may not be a 6 but he was at least 50% likely to be between 7 and 17.
Its also true that Allen would not be the first straight-line speed rusher to not translate as well into the NFl.
Its a draft. The picks all have risk and the what ifs and post mortems are endless.
We got Jones. Nothing we can do about it. Lets move on.
imo
I must agree on all points.
I'm just happy that, at least on paper, we seem to be moving in the right direction as a team.
My #1 take-away is how much the locker-room has changed. This is PS's team now.
We have more players that fit the schemes.
We took DJ and however management decides to bring him along that is fine by me.
I will just re-iterate that unless DJ "chits the bed" and shows next to nothing, this is very likely Eli's last year with the team, IMHO.
Quote:
I think everyone is overcomplicating this.
It would seem that definitely not being able to obtain Allen was preferable to the possibility of not being able to obtain Jones.
Depends on the value you attach to each player and the perceived likelihood of each outcome. Are we overcomplicating the decision, or did Gettleman oversimplify it? We don’t know, and we never will, no matter how well or badly his choice turns out.