Is it better to hit on a late draft pick or worse to miss...

Because even a mediocre player will contribute something unlike an outright bust. Not to mention the greater capital expenditure on a high pick in terms of salaries and other resources.

You can look at our late 90s capped out Giants as an example of what happens when you've got a bunch of 1st round busts and late round players who do well. You've got to carry the bad contracts AND try to resign the lower round guys who become free agents quicker.

You can't miss on the 1st rounders. Starting to look like Baker was a worse pick than Flowers.

Missing on the 37th, 132nd and 142nd picks certainly hurt but missing on the 9th pick is worse.

pick is worse, obviously.

Baker is not missing on a pick, because we do not know how he would have turned out with proper coaching. Flowers was missing on a pick.

I think it really depends.

Now....a top 10 pick really needs to be special....a late 1st/2nd rounder should be consider a starter...

I will say missing on Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Thomas is different then missing on a Baker.

Especially if one hits on a later round. If Beal, Ballentine, Holmes, Love....certainly would lessen tge damage.

Now, cap implications, in my mind ....balances out....as a starter on a 4th, 5th,6th rd salary...even a 3rd rd....especially if routinely a team hits on later rounds...

Slayton and Kaden Smith minutes is a great value....offsets the early mistake.

Like anything....consistently missing on high picks is a killer....as it is nearly impossible to consistently hit on late picks.

You still have to make assumptions, though. What are the offset terms in Thomas’s contract? At what point do the Giants give up on him? Do they get anything in return, and does the acquiring team pick up his contract? How many years does Peart play under his rookie deal? What does his second contract look like, and how does the 2024 cost compare to Thomas’s fifth-year option? After year three, does Peart sacrifice the chance to test the market to lock in lifetime security?

Thomas’s bonus and guarantees likely tip the comparison to a net negative; but you can construct scenarios where the Giants actually benefit from Thomas busting and Peart busting out, rather than the other way around.

On the field, they might be screwed either way. The Giants desperately need Thomas to succeed, and at least one of Peart and Lemieux to develop into a solid starter.

Adding Active minutes....adding a factor of active good minutes; minus cost; minus opportunity cost....

But an equation can definitely be constructed

As the opportunity cost is high as the ability to find a decent RB later (Bradshaw) is high.

Less so for OT....hitting on Peart would hugh!

Our expectations might be a bit high because Reese did fairly well in the bottom half of the round. Even disappointments like Ross, Amukamara, Wilson, Pugh, and Engram were defensible in context. (All except Wilson have had respectable careers, and even DW showed flashes as a rookie.) Kiwanuka was a solid, versatile contributor. Nicks and Phillips were potentially great picks spoiled by injuries.

Opportunity cost is a bit slippery. Even if you used twenty years of draft data, that’s still only about 5000 draft picks, split up among a bunch of positions. Statistically significant? I guess, but it doesn’t really meet anyone’s definition of “big data”.

With stacked teams....less opportunities...
many times they do not start as rookies....has more to do with lack of holes, vs lack of talent.

I am believer in deferring those picks like BB does often by trading down for future picks.

Reese was running most aspects of the draft operation at that point, but Ernie was still GM and made the calls to trade down and then to pick Kiwi (and Moss 😫)

the GM and his team should be putting in far more work and scrutiny on the cream of the crop grouping. This is where they need to put their jobs/reputations on the line.

Later picks have much less diligence and come with far more risk. And all teams have some amount of undrafted free agents on their rosters (and even starting) so these guys easily make up for a late round miss.

George from PA said:

Quote:

With stacked teams....less opportunities... many times they do not start as rookies....has more to do with lack of holes, vs lack of talent.

On the other hand, a player drafted by New England, Seattle, New Orleans, Kansas City, or Pittsburgh likely benefits from quality coaching and a stable organization.

WRT trades, maybe there’s a win-win aspect: picks at the bottom of Round One may actually be worth more to a weaker team with more immediate holes to fill. Unfortunately, Baker appears to have created a hole rather than filling one.

In comment 14931754 George from PA said:

Quote:

As the opportunity cost is high as the ability to find a decent RB later (Bradshaw) is high. Less so for OT....hitting on Peart would hugh!

Why haven’t we found the next Bradshaw then?

Nothing is “high” in terms of success rate in the NFL. RBs bust all over the place. Everyone likes to cite injuries for the reasons they have a short shelf life but I’d argue it has more to due with them not being good, or only being good for a short burst before losing whatever edge they had.

And OT busts all the time, shouldn’t Giants fans know this by now?

is not a dart board.

In comment 14931769 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14931754 George from PA said: Quote: As the opportunity cost is high as the ability to find a decent RB later (Bradshaw) is high. Less so for OT....hitting on Peart would hugh! Why haven’t we found the next Bradshaw then?

Because the NYG haven't drafted well in past decade relative to RBs, OL and TEs. So the running game has been impaired.

“Loss aversion occurs in cognitive psychology, decision theory, and behavioral economics. Loss aversion refers to people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains: it is better to not lose $5 than to find $5. The principle is very prominent in the domain of economics. What distinguishes loss aversion from risk aversion is that the utility of a monetary payoff depends on what was previously experienced or was expected to happen. Some studies have suggested that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains.[

For example, when I was young, single...not only was I a gambler...i was always winning.

Now married, with kids....i no longer enjoy gambling nor do I ever win. Lol

Armstead in the 8th (there was an 8th round back then). A hit like that makes up for a big mistake.

to try to shield the idea that Baker may be done with the Giants and excuse the GM for trading up and getting Baker.

In reference to Gettleman, that draft stands and falls solely on Daniel Jones imo.

Baker is a ngat on that elephant ass.

I don't. GM is held accountable for all and not just one draft pick. How can a person determine whether DJ is a GMS' only responsibility?. And what metrics will decide whether he was the "defining" pick?.

For example, say in the next 2 years, Giants as a team hit about 8-8. DJ has good numbers, but not great. Or say, the Giants are at 6 - 10 and DJ makes a 2nd alternate at the Pro Bowl?

That would pretty much wipe out his first 3 years of any moves because we are waiting on 1 pick t justify itself.

That is really the only barometer.

I do not care per se about one season.

The Giants spread the blame or credit, but DG is a big boy. I do not really care what people think of him, but a draft must take the entire draft into account...and if Baker is a bust. So be it.

As well as Lawrence, Connerly, Xmen,Love, Ballentine excel or fail.

Imo, this draft is defined by getting or not getting the Giants franchise QB.

My son only knows the team with a franchise QB...but I suffered through many years without one.

I sure hope you are Giants fan....

But i'm not oe of those guys who have allegiances to players, GM's etc. Its the Blue I care about.

Those guys you names, have done nothing, imo, to garner any type of, "yes, they are good picks". Lawrence, yes, Connely, Love, Ballentine, etc. Those guys HAD to play because they have no one else to play the position.

I guess....being an arm robber is not something that can be forseen either.

Eitherway, Baker and Judge seem like oil and water....i believe they removed the scout who handles that area...as his red flag prior to this issue seemed to be against the type of player they are bringing in.

It's not often a franchise gets to pick high... well, for most franchises, that is. You'd better make it count. I'd say the odds would be in your favor, you're taking your pick of the cream of the crop. Meanwhile you'll always get a chance to find gems in late rounds, meaning like every year. But picking high in the first round doesn't happen that often, so you'd better make it stick.

And it’s not close imv. The best teams in the league didn’t become good by methodically building a roster off first and second rounders. They got good by stringing together a couple monster drafts and simply drafting better than the rest of the league. That includes the later rounds.

Hitting on late rounders sets you apart because the % is so low. You’re expected to hit on your early picks. If you do you’re just keeping pace with the league. Hitting on late rounders can make up for early round blunders and really differentiates you from the league if you hit on both.

Undoubtedly some jackass will bring up the Pats to rebut this but the point remains outside of the Pats who are an anomaly.

In comment 14932253 WillVAB said:

Quote:

And it’s not close imv. The best teams in the league didn’t become good by methodically building a roster off first and second rounders. They got good by stringing together a couple monster drafts and simply drafting better than the rest of the league. That includes the later rounds. Hitting on late rounders sets you apart because the % is so low. You’re expected to hit on your early picks. If you do you’re just keeping pace with the league. Hitting on late rounders can make up for early round blunders and really differentiates you from the league if you hit on both. Undoubtedly some jackass will bring up the Pats to rebut this but the point remains outside of the Pats who are an anomaly.

Huh? In regard to the Pats, you call them an anomaly?

Tom Brady is the new npareille example of your base argument, that it's far more important to hit on late rounders than it is if you whiff on a first rounder or three. Us for a while there they were consistently trading back into the potatoes section of the draft, and out of the higher slots.

Unrivalled.

The Pats are good at it because they are always picking late in rounds..

In comment 14932423 BlueLou'sBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14932253 WillVAB said: Quote: And it’s not close imv. The best teams in the league didn’t become good by methodically building a roster off first and second rounders. They got good by stringing together a couple monster drafts and simply drafting better than the rest of the league. That includes the later rounds. Hitting on late rounders sets you apart because the % is so low. You’re expected to hit on your early picks. If you do you’re just keeping pace with the league. Hitting on late rounders can make up for early round blunders and really differentiates you from the league if you hit on both. Undoubtedly some jackass will bring up the Pats to rebut this but the point remains outside of the Pats who are an anomaly. Huh? In regard to the Pats, you call them an anomaly? Tom Brady is the new npareille example of your base argument, that it's far more important to hit on late rounders than it is if you whiff on a first rounder or three. Us for a while there they were consistently trading back into the potatoes section of the draft, and out of the higher slots.

I only brought up the Pats bc usually someone will chime in and say they don’t draft well. My point is it doesn’t really matter either way, look at the rest of the league, who’s good and why they’re good. Hell look at why the Giants have sucked.

If this thread was framed another way, say would you rather be guaranteed to hit on your first rounder for the next 5 years or hit on your 5th rounder for the next 5 years, I’d take the 5th rounder every time. Odds are they’ll hit on 2-3 of the first rounders anyways.

A late his is mostly luck, an early miss is probably a gap in the scouting process.