What's a Good Draft?

Getting an additional 1 and 2

So here we go

1. Isiah Simmons OLB
1. Creed Humphreys C
2. Mekhi Becton OT
2. Alaric Jackson OT
3. JR Reid FS
4. Denzel Mims WR

Free Agency

Chris Jones
Matt Judon
Blake Martinez
Joe Schobert
Hunter Henry
Blake Jarwin

Unless you are targeting a blue chip player (most drafts do not have 10 blue chip players), then a club should do whatever it takes even if trading down for less draft capital to get out of the Top 10. The 5th year option is not an option for most players selected in the Top 10 just based on how it is calculated. Pick 11 is the sweet spot where the 5th year calculation is different while still getting a quality player.

2 credible reserves that get some snaps.

If one of the reserves converts to a starter then you really have a very good draft.

If both reserves convert then its a great draft...

In comment 14695618 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

2 credible reserves that get some snaps. If one of the reserves converts to a starter then you really have a very good draft. If both reserves convert then its a great draft...

Agreed

From Finding the Winning Edge:

The Twenty Percent Failure Factor
If a personnel department is doing an outstanding job of evaluating and acquiring talent through the draft and free agency, its failure rate (i.e., the number of players who don't "pan out" for whatever reason) can be expected to be around twenty percent. In other words, regardless of how capable and efficient your scouts and coaches are in identifying, researching and projecting the potential value of a particular player, a fall out of approximately twenty percent will occur.

Over the years, every team in the NFL has experienced some degree of disappointment in its acquisitions. Top draft choices have turned out to be "busts," and expensive free agent signings have not lived up to their expectations. The point to be emphasized is that no matter how much time and effort a team puts into the acquisitions process (i.e., no matter how thoroughly a team "studies" a given athlete), some miscalculations will happen. The process simply involves too many variables to be able to accurately account for every factor.

On the other hand, if the percentage of a team's acquisitions failures climbs to over twenty percent, then shortcomings exist in the team's system of evaluating and acquiring players. If disappointment after disappointment occurs, they can't all be related to "bad luck." All factors considered, a failure rate of approximately twenty percent in this regard is about all a franchise can absorb and continue to be competitive. Capable, experienced management will have a firm grasp of this reality.

In comment 14695632 David B. said:

Quote:

From Finding the Winning Edge: The Twenty Percent Failure Factor If a personnel department is doing an outstanding job of evaluating and acquiring talent through the draft and free agency, its failure rate (i.e., the number of players who don't "pan out" for whatever reason) can be expected to be around twenty percent. In other words, regardless of how capable and efficient your scouts and coaches are in identifying, researching and projecting the potential value of a particular player, a fall out of approximately twenty percent will occur. Over the years, every team in the NFL has experienced some degree of disappointment in its acquisitions. Top draft choices have turned out to be "busts," and expensive free agent signings have not lived up to their expectations. The point to be emphasized is that no matter how much time and effort a team puts into the acquisitions process (i.e., no matter how thoroughly a team "studies" a given athlete), some miscalculations will happen. The process simply involves too many variables to be able to accurately account for every factor. On the other hand, if the percentage of a team's acquisitions failures climbs to over twenty percent, then shortcomings exist in the team's system of evaluating and acquiring players. If disappointment after disappointment occurs, they can't all be related to "bad luck." All factors considered, a failure rate of approximately twenty percent in this regard is about all a franchise can absorb and continue to be competitive. Capable, experienced management will have a firm grasp of this reality.

I own that book. A must-read for real football aficionados.

In every draft, you need 1 above average starter, and 2-3 avg jags type players that start games

Look at the statistics past round 3. 95% of players past r3 never become starters

In Mims as a receiver too. Think he may last a little longer?

In comment 14695657 huygens20 said:

Quote:

In every draft, you need 1 above average starter, and 2-3 avg jags type players that start games Look at the statistics past round 3. 95% of players past r3 never become starters

PJ posted a link this past spring that detailed percentages of picks made at specific positions for each round that were "successful". Fans overrate draft picks. Some equate it to a lottery ticket and rationalize that with more tickets, the greater chance of success.

I personally would rather a GM to use their draft collateral to target specific players and not select a player for each pick. Ideally, the GM has exhausted their draft collateral by the end of round 4.

If a foundation is needed...then it's more quantity then quality.....5 players that all contribute and are leaders.

If you are a player or two away, filling that key position. Getting that franchise player that turns it around.

General improvement, a solid team gaining depth.

The Giants need a great FA.....and supplement with drafting a franchise player and a key contributor or 2.....

3-4 Pro-Bowlers per draft - minimum! Oh and if the GM fails to do that he should be fired immediately.

Really interesting takes -- looking back at the Giants drafts -- you have to go back 7 years to find a draft that doesn't have 3 guys starting or contributing in the NFL.

That actually seems quite amazing in some respects. Lends itself to some questions around coaching as well, no?

2019 - Jones, Lawrence, Baker, Slayton + others due to injury

2018 - Barkley, Hernandez, Carter

2017 - Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman

2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson

2015 - Flowers, Collins, Hart

2014 - Beckham, Richburg, Kennard

In comment 14695657 huygens20 said:

Quote:

In every draft, you need 1 above average starter, and 2-3 avg jags type players that start games Look at the statistics past round 3. 95% of players past r3 never become starters

Agree, people knock Reese's and DG's picks in round 3 and later, but these are real crap shoots in later rounds, for all teams

In comment 14695610 Earl the goat said:

Quote:

Getting an additional 1 and 2

Unlikely to get an additional 1st round pick, as most teams just don't have two first round picks. Last year Colts moved from 6 to 3 given up 3 second rounders (one in 2019)

In comment 14695757 uther99 said:

Quote:

In comment 14695657 huygens20 said: Quote: In every draft, you need 1 above average starter, and 2-3 avg jags type players that start games Look at the statistics past round 3. 95% of players past r3 never become starters Agree, people knock Reese's and DG's picks in round 3 and later, but these are real crap shoots in later rounds, for all teams

My favorite is when posters crap on Reese's late round picks without acknowledging that they're a crap shoot for all teams, but will act like all of DG's late round picks are already gems.

Reese was picking players who belong in the league at what seems like an acceptable rate.

It's amazing how many drafted players came through the Giants from 2014-2017 and came out disgruntled. Richburg, Pugh, Beckham, Collins, Flowers, and Apple off the top of my head had vocal issues.

1. At least one impact player who would be one regardless of how good or not so good the team may be.

2. Two other good starters. If already a good team then depth that would provide little fall of if a starter went down.

3. Probably the biggest and this pertains to the Giants as they have had a lot of potential starts careers cut short....but the ability to stay healthy.

The rest of the pics provide competition. Someone falls off you have players ready to take a spot.

1. At least one impact player who would be one regardless of how good or not so good the team may be.

2. Two other good starters. If already a good team then depth that would provide little fall of if a starter went down.

3. Probably the biggest and this pertains to the Giants as they have had a lot of potential starters careers cut short....but the ability to stay healthy.

The rest of the pics provide competition. Someone falls off you have players ready to take a spot.

Context is a necessity in evaluating Drafts. Not all classes are created equal. Position Round by Round and total number of picks are also a factor.

That said if you're drafting inside the Top 10 you should acquire a player that develops into a Top 5 player at their position.

You should additionally add another starting caliber player and two situational contributors.

So in seven picks you should have a star, a starter and two useful pieces.

Positional by round is a thing. Different drafts have value in different rounds. Additionally there are long term trends.

I have long felt that you can target starters in every round if you look at it that way. Target.

And there is the idea of opportunity for improvement. In other words looking for the greatest difference, greatest improvement. That's different than pure ' need.'

Also, each year there are those positions which might create the most synergy, i.e. improve that side the most by enabling the others in the unit to do better on the field. It might be inside LB (x2), safety (x2), center and tight end as much as the hyped edge position. Not to minimise edge, just saying.

Typically , reach for talent at random position not need wise, in round 1, you take a major haircut for the rest of the draft on down.

Flip that, address area of greatest improvement or synergy in 1 and all the way down leverage round positional value trends and get a better team.

You might get a much better wr but it's not going to be synergistic if the QB is on his ass.

So you look for the big quality swing but at synergistic positions.

Which, having both those factors line up almost never happens if you have ignored them in round 1 and gone purely on talent or upside 'for when we are ready'.

Will be beginning at half time.......

something like 5 years, a team needs to hit on 4-5 "starting caliber" players every year just to field 22 starters from their own draft class.

3 "starters" per draft class is woefully inadequate.

The above comment is directed to Christian.

That's why hitting on guys like Love, Ballentine, and Slayton is crucial to become a competitive team. And why we need more from Carter and Hill.

Of course a team needs some of those "starting caliber" guys to be a lot more than starters. They need several impact players among the starters.

In comment 14696339 BlueLou'sBack said:

Quote:

something like 5 years, a team needs to hit on 4-5 "starting caliber" players every year just to field 22 starters from their own draft class. 3 "starters" per draft class is woefully inadequate. The above comment is directed to Christian. That's why hitting on guys like Love, Ballentine, and Slayton is crucial to become a competitive team. And why we need more from Carter and Hill. Of course a team needs some of those "starting caliber" guys to be a lot more than starters. They need several impact players among the starters.

But isn’t that statistically a practical impossibility? Don’t the numbers show players chosen after the third round have the odds stacked against them?

I’d love to see examples of drafts where teams are consistently picking 4-5 players who are starters throughout their career.

And individual - and system centric.

You might have a very decent chance to find an eventual starting center in the 5th round (hint; look at the top 20 college guards above a certain weight below a certain height, reason being, how colleges probably allocate talent and work the numbers ).

Whereas 3rd round and above you want greats who could play anywhere.

There are maybe 5,000 eligible young men each year yet only 300 at the combine. Those who choose combine invites are not seeing the future. making maybe but not seeing .

Quote:

- 3-4 guys with real NFL career come out of each draft, say stick in the league their whole rookie contract - At least 2 bona fide starters, guys who are part of the solution, who could start on most if not all teams - At least 1 guy who is and stays among a teams top 5 best players for a good clip

This should take into consideration where the team has been drafting - 2nd overall, 6th overall, top 5 now - this should make those later rounds easier to hit on.

Well, at least where the GM hasn't stupidly traded them away to sign a pending free agent.

Scoffed at trade down suggestions last year, and the year prior, feel about trade downs right now with regards to win loss.

Or...is it a designed three year tank for an outstanding draftee player, and they will hit the 'on switch' via a coaching change asap? Which is of course not real .