what makes Pittsburgh better at drafting than us

... a very good, and very well established front office and coaching staff that has full support and buy in from ownership. Colbert the GM has been there as long as I can remember.

of easy answer... better scouting department from top to bottom. That includes the GM.

Just spitballin' here

Didn't like it then and still don't

This is a pick that should have been bringing us big benefits by now, a player moving into his prime. Instead we get a TE who can't block, is not a good receiver, and gets hurt every year. But I guess he can run fast.

They've been running the same D for over a decade and know exactly what attributes they want in defensive players so it's a lot easier for the scouts to identify and find those players.

The Giants have had 2 GMs and several different VPs of scouting (or whatever the position is), not to mention 4 HCs. Each of those HC's had different schemes and player's they wanted.

And the coaching staff is obviously also responsible for developing the selected players. None of these guys are finished products when they come out.

my question is what makes them better? What do they do that we don't? What do we do that they don't?

but complete organizational alignment and stability help.

only 2 coaches have been in place longer than Tomlin (Belichick and Payton) - notice a trend?

Only 1 non-owner GM has been in place longer than Colbert (Belichick)

I think it's a chicken and egg thing though, you need success to earn stability and longevity.

In comment 14975312 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

Didn't like it then and still don't This is a pick that should have been bringing us big benefits by now, a player moving into his prime. Instead we get a TE who can't block, is not a good receiver, and gets hurt every year. But I guess he can run fast.

Word, the Giants could have had an All Pro OLB (Watt) or an All Pro OT (Ramcyzk), both positions of need.

Travis Beckum 2.0 was not a position of need.

In comment 14975316 Giantsfan79 said:

Quote:

my question is what makes them better? What do they do that we don't? What do we do that they don't?

What makes you better or worse than workers who do the same job that you do?

People are not machines. Some are better at their jobs, some worse.

In comment 14975316 Giantsfan79 said:

Quote:

my question is what makes them better? What do they do that we don't? What do we do that they don't?

I feel like when we had Reese in scouting and Accorsi as the GM we had a few years in the aughts where we hit on a lot of players every year.

Almost every position on this team was a position of need.

This has nothing to do with "need" vs. "value."

This has to do with bad talent evaluation.

In comment 14975331 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Almost every position on this team was a position of need. This has nothing to do with "need" vs. "value." This has to do with bad talent evaluation.

No kidding. But it was doubly bad because OL and LB were the worst units on the team... for years.

In comment 14975305 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

of easy answer... better scouting department from top to bottom. That includes the GM.

That is an easy answer and I am certainly not going to say it is wrong but I do think it is much more nuanced than that.

1. They know what kind of football team they want to be, especially defensively. Scouting college players has become much more difficult lately becomes schemes have become so varied. But if youve been scouting the same type of player for years on end, you get good at it. Constantly changing schemes means valuing traits differently and evaluating those skill sets is like anything else - the more you do it, the better you are.

If you have been scouting "tampa 2 corners" for 13 years, you get really good at it.

2. Continuity at the top. Colbert has been the GM for 10 years and Tomlin the coach for 13 years. Again, a shared vision.

This also means that there is not AS MUCH pressure to win now - which often leads to reaching in the draft and in free agency.

3. Player Development. I can tell you that my friend in the Steeler organization has said this about the WRs many times. He says that is a big part of their success at the position is that veteran players feel a responsibility to teach younger players. He says it started with Hines Ward. Same with linebackers.

Ever since the firing of Gilbride, think about the amount of changes to the coaching staff, which brings a change in philosophy and the players Scouts are charge to look for.

I mean, how many players on Joe Judge's roster were drafted for previous coaches and staffs.

We need to find stability with the coaching staff first.

With Pittsburgh,defense is more of a priority.That means the entire unit.

The Giants like the big name offensive players a little more.

As an example,I don't think the Steelers would have taken Barkley over Chubb.

In comment 14975339 Capt. Don said:

Quote:

In comment 14975305 Eric from BBI said: Quote: of easy answer... better scouting department from top to bottom. That includes the GM. That is an easy answer and I am certainly not going to say it is wrong but I do think it is much more nuanced than that. 1. They know what kind of football team they want to be, especially defensively. Scouting college players has become much more difficult lately becomes schemes have become so varied. But if youve been scouting the same type of player for years on end, you get good at it. Constantly changing schemes means valuing traits differently and evaluating those skill sets is like anything else - the more you do it, the better you are. If you have been scouting "tampa 2 corners" for 13 years, you get really good at it. 2. Continuity at the top. Colbert has been the GM for 10 years and Tomlin the coach for 13 years. Again, a shared vision. This also means that there is not AS MUCH pressure to win now - which often leads to reaching in the draft and in free agency. 3. Player Development. I can tell you that my friend in the Steeler organization has said this about the WRs many times. He says that is a big part of their success at the position is that veteran players feel a responsibility to teach younger players. He says it started with Hines Ward. Same with linebackers.

This is an excellent point. With continuity comes identity. Although Gettleman is not long on the tooth, hopefully Judge establishes the identity of the team, and the Giants find players that fit that identity.

When you go from Coughlin to McAdoo to Shurmur so quickly, you wind up getting square pegs in round holes. This is certainly not the only factor, but that is definitely a large factor. Take Engram for instance. He was drafted between the McAdoo/Shurmur regimes with the West Coast offense. Now that they have a different offense, he's not as much of a fit. (Either way, he was not the right pick).

Having 4-5 wins in the bag every year, bc of your division, helps a lot also in terms of coaching and FO continuity. 4 win seasons get coaches and GMs fired. With CLE and CIN in the division, 4 win seasons are nearly impossible.
But this can be chicken/egg.

I have no idea how hard working or talented of a personnel person Chris Mara is, but the track record since his promotion in 2011 is what it is.

Philosophy in what they look for and a consistent identity. Giants have had so much turnover that the methodology keeps changing.

If the Giants wanted to play GIANTS football. They’d have a philosophy the preaches OL, Pass Rush, and Linebackers. Those are the things synonymous with the GIANTS. Over the last couple years we’ve gotten cute with skill position players and invested a lot of capital in DBs that haven’t panned out. The only thing we can draft with any consistency is Defensive Tackles.

Pittsburgh's 2017 draft netted 3 pro-bowlers, including TJ Watt. All their other drafts since 2015 haven't resulted in any pro-bowlers.
They've gone linebacker three times with their first round picks during that period. Imagine the Giants doing that!
Of course, they're also unlike the Giants in that they hardly ever get to draft high up the board.

In comment 14975346 ghost718 said:

Quote:

With Pittsburgh,defense is more of a priority.That means the entire unit. The Giants like the big name offensive players a little more. As an example,I don't think the Steelers would have taken Barkley over Chubb.

I think they would have.

Same spot. Same draft. Barkley is better. But Chubb was excellent value since he was taken later.

In comment 14975376 Toth029 said:

Quote:

I think they would have. Same spot. Same draft. Barkley is better. But Chubb was excellent value since he was taken later.

Well,I remember watching both players,and I thought they were both top prospects.Each worthy of a high selection.I don't get into value and shit like that.

.

Draft a fucking linebacker in round. How about that? I have not agreed with the positional importance this franchise has applied to its drafting philosophy.

forgot the 1

but I think it is the most important piece. Its also the reason The Giants dropped Shurmur.
Player Development... The Giants have not had a college style program since Coughlin. Take a look at the teams with sustained excellence. The Pats, Ravens, kc, Pitt, Seahawks, those teams have programs and good player development. They rarely pick in the top 10, but end up picking players who turn into Pro-bowlers. It wasn't just the Giants who passed on Dupree and Watt, a lot of other teams passed as well.
The last time the Giants had a "program" was when Accorsi and Coughlin worked together. We hated that Coughlin rarely played rookies early in his tenure, but he made sure that they were coached up and prepared to be on the field. When the Gmen were winning championships and constantly in the playoffs, Accorsi knew the types of players Coughlin needed for his program. Reese came along and changed the scouting(Basketball on turf) and did not find the type of players that Tom needed, for his program. To Gettleman and the Mara's credit, they saw Shurmurs lack of coaching and player development, so they found a guy who wants to build a program, like Alabama and the Patriots.

when you have a good thing going you try to keep that in tact. We've been recycling management for a while now, its going to take hitting on a bunch of picks + developing lesser players to build confidence, momentum, and a reason to keep everything in tact.

We don’t feel LB is a position of need and they are not afraid to draft in the first or second round. Right or wrong the find impact players.

In comment 14975406 Carl in CT said:

Quote:

We don’t feel LB is a position of need and they are not afraid to draft in the first or second round. Right or wrong the find impact players.

I think this will be changing with Judge here, coupled with how good Martinez played/effected the defense.

question. They have a plan (drafting defense), they execute their plan, and most importantly, they have a much better GM.

The Giants are always playing catch-up and having to address misses in free agency or making up for unnecessary picks (Barkley, Engram, etc.), and not building an OLine to make them successful.

In comment 14975408 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14975406 Carl in CT said: Quote: We don’t feel LB is a position of need and they are not afraid to draft in the first or second round. Right or wrong the find impact players. I think this will be changing with Judge here, coupled with how good Martinez played/effected the defense.

There's two parts to that. I do see it changing in that I see Judge having LB as a position of need. I don't necessarily see it manifesting itself as us spending 1st/2nd rounders on LBs. Maybe a Micah Parsons level talent is an exception, but they drafted 4 LBs last year late.

They get at least 1 good player every draft and have for a long time.

4th year players ('17)
- TJ Watt
- JuJu
- Conner
- Sutton

5th year players ('16)
- Sean Davis

6th year players ('15)
- Bud Dupree

7th year players ('14)
- Stephon Tuitt

You can stretch back as far as you want and the trend holds since before Ben - 1 player who had a solid multi-year career at minimum every draft - Vince Williams ('13), Decastro ('12), Heyward ('11), Pouncey ('10), Wallace ('09), Timmons/Woodley ('07), Holmes ('06), Miller ('05), Ben ('04), Ploamalu ('03), and on an on.

Our entire list of current players from the 2010-2017 timeframe is Shepard, Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman. They have more out of the 2017 draft alone than we got out of those 7 drafts combined.

The last 3 drafts would likely actually skew in our favor. If we count starters only it's basically Barkley, Jones, Lawrence, Slayton, Carter, Hernandez, Thomas vs. Terrell Edmunds, James Washington, Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson, (I'd count Minkah too). So good news! It seems we are heading in the right direction!

Art Rooney Jr. drafted nine Hall of Fame players, but was still fired when he stopped performing and was not part of Steelers staff until 21 years later .

Meanwhile Chris Mara has failed since 2011 BUT WILL NEVER BE FIRED!

In comment 14975442 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

They get at least 1 good player every draft and have for a long time. 4th year players ('17) - TJ Watt - JuJu - Conner - Sutton 5th year players ('16) - Sean Davis 6th year players ('15) - Bud Dupree 7th year players ('14) - Stephon Tuitt You can stretch back as far as you want and the trend holds since before Ben - 1 player who had a solid multi-year career at minimum every draft - Vince Williams ('13), Decastro ('12), Heyward ('11), Pouncey ('10), Wallace ('09), Timmons/Woodley ('07), Holmes ('06), Miller ('05), Ben ('04), Ploamalu ('03), and on an on. Our entire list of current players from the 2010-2017 timeframe is Shepard, Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman. They have more out of the 2017 draft alone than we got out of those 7 drafts combined. The last 3 drafts would likely actually skew in our favor. If we count starters only it's basically Barkley, Jones, Lawrence, Slayton, Carter, Hernandez, Thomas vs. Terrell Edmunds, James Washington, Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson, (I'd count Minkah too). So good news! It seems we are heading in the right direction!

If you're going to do something like this you have to include Beckham or if not, then Peppers and Lawrence since the Giants turned Beckham into those players.

Otherwise it seems disingenuous - still a good illustration, but leaving out Beckham (or others) it is incomplete.

because philosophically they are scouting correctly for the modern game.

All GMs have hits and misses but fitting the asset allocation together with the correct philosophy is what the good teams do.

Accorsi was far from perfect but he had a pretty simple philosophy. A great QB and pass rushers. You can never have too many pass rushers. Look at who he drafted, where he spent his money and what the results were.

The current Giants GM has been on the job 3 full years and the Giants don't have a single impact pass rusher on the team. The Steelers are loaded with them all the good teams are.

In comment 14975449 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14975442 Eric on Li said: Quote: They get at least 1 good player every draft and have for a long time. 4th year players ('17) - TJ Watt - JuJu - Conner - Sutton 5th year players ('16) - Sean Davis 6th year players ('15) - Bud Dupree 7th year players ('14) - Stephon Tuitt You can stretch back as far as you want and the trend holds since before Ben - 1 player who had a solid multi-year career at minimum every draft - Vince Williams ('13), Decastro ('12), Heyward ('11), Pouncey ('10), Wallace ('09), Timmons/Woodley ('07), Holmes ('06), Miller ('05), Ben ('04), Ploamalu ('03), and on an on. Our entire list of current players from the 2010-2017 timeframe is Shepard, Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman. They have more out of the 2017 draft alone than we got out of those 7 drafts combined. The last 3 drafts would likely actually skew in our favor. If we count starters only it's basically Barkley, Jones, Lawrence, Slayton, Carter, Hernandez, Thomas vs. Terrell Edmunds, James Washington, Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson, (I'd count Minkah too). So good news! It seems we are heading in the right direction! If you're going to do something like this you have to include Beckham or if not, then Peppers and Lawrence since the Giants turned Beckham into those players. Otherwise it seems disingenuous - still a good illustration, but leaving out Beckham (or others) it is incomplete.

And JPP, Linval Joseph, Justin Pugh, Flowers, Collins and Apple.

is really a player but somebody must like him :-)

I believe the Giants brought Gettleman in with dual, somewhat conflicting goals: 1) make one more run with Eli if possible; 2) rebuild a post-Eli team.

The attempt at one more run for Eli was a fool’s errand, though understandable given management’s love for and loyalty to Eli. I think they wanted to believe they could give him one more ride.

We are now into the rebuild proper. We have our new young QB. They’re trying to build around him with a blue chip LT. We’ve tried to build the DBs up, Baker’s fiasco being a real setback. We still need a lot, sadly (depending on Peart’s development and whether Carter becomes consistent) - DE, C, WR, OLB, C. And if Jones doesn’t continue to improve as we hope...we’re at square 1.

Dan Rooney Jr. - Player Personnel Coordinator
Dan Colbert - College/Pro Scout

so if you want to include them yes you can add OBJ, Collins.

For Pitt you'd then also include:
Javon Hargrave
Leveon Bell
Emmanuel Sanders
Kelvin Beachum
Marcus Gilbert
Artie Burns

Also not included for Pitt since '10 were Antonio Brown, Ryan Shazier, and Martavis Bryant for obvious reasons.

In comment 14975442 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

The last 3 drafts would likely actually skew in our favor. If we count starters only it's basically Barkley, Jones, Lawrence, Slayton, Carter, Hernandez, Thomas vs. Terrell Edmunds, James Washington, Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson, (I'd count Minkah too). So good news! It seems we are heading in the right direction!

Thus far Carter and Hernandez are not good players.

seemed to be more of a comparison between the groups on the field for each respective team this past week. So that's the group who I focused on from the Steelers drafts.

not all of those guys for the Steelers are "good players" yet either - most of them are still TBD because they are either in year 2 or 3.

In comment 14975499 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

so if you want to include them yes you can add OBJ, Collins. For Pitt you'd then also include: Javon Hargrave Leveon Bell Emmanuel Sanders Kelvin Beachum Marcus Gilbert Artie Burns Also not included for Pitt since '10 were Antonio Brown, Ryan Shazier, and Martavis Bryant for obvious reasons.

Players who leave in FA or get cut is one thing, players you trade is different IMO.

Which is why I suggested to include Beckham.

but the player you cut or who leave in FA are different - that asset is gone.

Peppers and Lawrence (a direct result of Beckham) are still on the Giants.

If the Steelers have similar players on their roster who are the result of traded players they should count for your draft record comparison.

The main point was saying the Giants just have x players on their roster form those years is a misleading indictment of their draft record (and unnecessary).

In comment 14975500 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

In comment 14975442 Eric on Li said: Quote: The last 3 drafts would likely actually skew in our favor. If we count starters only it's basically Barkley, Jones, Lawrence, Slayton, Carter, Hernandez, Thomas vs. Terrell Edmunds, James Washington, Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson, (I'd count Minkah too). So good news! It seems we are heading in the right direction! Thus far Carter and Hernandez are not good players.

They're not bad players. At best and at worst, they're developing players.

Pitt has 0 such drafts. Pitt has at least 2 players from each of their drafts still active.

They have drafted better.
They retained their talented players better.
They put a better team on the field.

It's not that complicated. Though I do believe in the last few years the draft output has narrowed. Part of that is due to having more draft capital but you still need to pick good players.

and I am agreeing the Steelers have been better drafting than the Giants.

Your post was incomplete, unless that was your goal - an incomplete post - then mission accomplished.

In comment 14975502 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

seemed to be more of a comparison between the groups on the field for each respective team this past week. So that's the group who I focused on from the Steelers drafts.

understood

In comment 14975515 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

and I am agreeing the Steelers have been better drafting than the Giants. Your post was incomplete, unless that was your goal - an incomplete post - then mission accomplished.

No - the goal was to point out that the team whose roster is being praised for "destroying ours" had been constructed over an entire decade while our longest tenured player was drafted in 2016 because we drafted poorly most of the decade and are in progress on a rebuild. Only 2 players we drafted in the 3 drafts from '10-'12 are still in the NFL at all. That number is 9 for Steelers including 3 who started on Monday (Pouncey, Williams, Heyward).

So I suppose the point of my post was taking issue with comparing the roster of an organization that has had a successful decade and one that hasn't and ignoring the reality that there's no switch to flip that quickly.

Bud Dupree is sort of a perfect example because he had a pretty middling career up until his 5th year last year. Player development and building a roster takes time, and obviously drafting poorly to the point where we have very few 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th year players makes it that much harder.

response was simply a reaction to this sentence:

Quote:

....Our entire list of current players from the 2010-2017 timeframe is Shepard, Engram, Tomlinson, Gallman. They have more out of the 2017 draft alone than we got out of those 7 drafts combined. ...

For this sentence to be more accurate you should include Peppers (at least) since Beckham was drafted in that window and traded and unlike players who get cut or leave via free agency a traded player is one you as a team controlled to acquire a different player (in Beckham's case).

that was it.