I'm not advocating for the Giants to trade for a WR, so this isn't another thread about going after Michael Thomas.
However, if the Giants beat the Eagles convincingly on Thursday, and the front office becomes more confident that there is a chance to actually win the division, are there any WRs worth a trade, who won't cost the team an arm and a leg, that can help out our WR corps?
Now, "worth a trade" is separate from "available for trade," so let's only point out WRs that are both available and worthy of trade.
Also, how high of a draft pick would you trade?
Plus a million!
I agree with you. I would love to see Shepard show us that he can become a playmaker, but how likely is that, especially coming off injury? I would love receiver similar to Plaxico, but we know they don't grow on trees.
A guy like Will Fuller would be exactly what we need, but his cost will be too high and he's less reliable than Shepard.
I would not trade away any draft picks.
A guy like Will Fuller would be exactly what we need, but his cost will be too high and he's less reliable than Shepard.
I personally like Chris Conley from the Jags as a lowkey player. When given an opportunity, he's done decently. With Chark, Shenault, and Cole (and Westbrook), Conley seems to be the odd man out.
Oh man...why? Why must you, Terp...lol?
I would not trade away any draft picks.
I'd trade late round picks for any player of value. But overall I agree, just like last year (lol).
Giants should be sellers if anyone on the team is attractive to other teams (which I doubt) - Engram, Peppers, Fleming, Tate, maybe more.
John Ross supposedly asked CIN to trade him since he isn't playing, I'd be open to something like that if you can get the guy for a conditional future 7th based on whether or not he sticks on the roster into next year. Basically a tryout deal for the rest of the season.
Gotta think there are a few young guys like that out there that you can get for practically nothing. Not that it's worked out well, but similar to Yiadom.
well, every team passed on Metcalf. NKeal is a bust.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
Best DB in college football - but yeah
Quote:
Gettleman drafted DeAndre Baker over Deebo Samuel, NKeal Harry, AJ Brown, and DK Metcalf.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
I wasn't opposed to the pick at the time, but I also wasn't in the interview room, nor am I plugged in to scouts around the league. They should have been able to identify Baker as a scumbag. They failed.
Quote:
the Thorpe Award!
Best DB in college football - but yeah
and it means dick in the NFL. Were you at all impressed by Baker last year?
Quote:
is pretty interesting. In theory they should cost the least, the problem is a lot of them are playing for contenders.
A guy like Will Fuller would be exactly what we need, but his cost will be too high and he's less reliable than Shepard.
I personally like Chris Conley from the Jags as a lowkey player. When given an opportunity, he's done decently. With Chark, Shenault, and Cole (and Westbrook), Conley seems to be the odd man out.
I would be all over Chris Conley as a free agent, but I'd hesitate to throw draft picks after him unless we reel off the next two wins in very convincing fashion. We're a questionable 2PT conversion try away from potentially being 0-6 right now; I don't think we're in a position to be flipping picks for FAs.
I get it, the division is shitty. But a shitty team winning a shitty division still has a pretty shitty chance of winning in the playoffs. Are you down to flip picks to bolster a 1-and-out playoff berth?
Quote:
Gettleman drafted DeAndre Baker over Deebo Samuel, NKeal Harry, AJ Brown, and DK Metcalf.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
Picking him wasn't necessarily the problem. Trading up to pick him, with two other highly-graded CBs (not to mention, a few very good OL and WR prospects) still on the board... it's yet another example of DG's tunnel-vision when he identifies a player he likes.
Quote:
In comment 15016214 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Gettleman drafted DeAndre Baker over Deebo Samuel, NKeal Harry, AJ Brown, and DK Metcalf.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
I wasn't opposed to the pick at the time, but I also wasn't in the interview room, nor am I plugged in to scouts around the league. They should have been able to identify Baker as a scumbag. They failed.
LOL you are an absolute 🤡
OBJ is average 3.8 catches per game and 53 yds per game. We can find that from almost anyone
Quote:
In comment 15016248 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 15016214 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Gettleman drafted DeAndre Baker over Deebo Samuel, NKeal Harry, AJ Brown, and DK Metcalf.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
I wasn't opposed to the pick at the time, but I also wasn't in the interview room, nor am I plugged in to scouts around the league. They should have been able to identify Baker as a scumbag. They failed.
LOL you are an absolute 🤡
Who were you before?
"if the Giants beat the Eagles convincingly on Thursday..."
Quote:
Gettleman drafted DeAndre Baker over Deebo Samuel, NKeal Harry, AJ Brown, and DK Metcalf.
Yes because the Thorpe Award winner was a bad choice for a team needing a CB.
The Giants need everything. Giving up 3 draft picks for Baker was the bad choice.
the ones the Giants are missing are a 5th and 7th.
So, what?
You seem to fret over not having a ton of picks. The Giants made 10 picks in the 2020 draft - and that includes losing a 3rd for Williams.
Having so many picks really did wonders.
In 2005 the Giants were rebuilding (though the team overall was much better than 2020) and made just 4 picks in the draft. Webster, Tuck and Jacobs were 3 of them.
it's quality, not quantity.
Stop fretting over missing a 5th and 7th round draft pick, they're not preventing this team from doing anything they want to do. They're barely even trade assets.
More is always better.
I'd consider trading our 5th and a future 7th for Corey Davis. I doubt that gets it done though. But Davis is a guy on my radar. He's a complementary type of receiver compared to the guys we have. A true outside guy. He was hyped big time in the draft and hasn't performed to his slot yet. This year seems like a break out for him. And the Titans declined his option so he's a free agent. I'd consider him in the off season if trading doesn't work out value wise.
Anthony Dable
I'd consider trading our 5th and a future 7th for Corey Davis. I doubt that gets it done though. But Davis is a guy on my radar. He's a complementary type of receiver compared to the guys we have. A true outside guy. He was hyped big time in the draft and hasn't performed to his slot yet. This year seems like a break out for him. And the Titans declined his option so he's a free agent. I'd consider him in the off season if trading doesn't work out value wise.
Hard pass. Unbelievably soft for a guy his size and poor route runner. No way he turns the light bulb on.
More is always better.
More is not always better based on the alternative.
In a vacuum a 3rd for Leonard Williams is a fine trade. The odds of drafting a player equal or better than Leonard Williams in the 3rd is small. The other factors made that a terrible trade, but I would trade a 3rd all day for an established young player.
Once you leave the 3rd round, I'd trade all those picks for anyone of value and not bat an eye.
the data is out there, late round picks are probably less valuable than UDFAs in some cases because of the scholarship approach some GM's have to draft picks.
Anyway, I agree with the value of the top 3 rounds and I'd only part with a top 3 round pick sparingly if at all, after that the odds drop so dramatically even the best drafting teams are not likely landing starters in those rounds.
Quote:
More picks, more chances to find starters, more chances to upgrade depth, more chances to move around in draft as needed, more chances to take a flyer on a guy.
More is always better.
More is not always better based on the alternative.
In a vacuum a 3rd for Leonard Williams is a fine trade. The odds of drafting a player equal or better than Leonard Williams in the 3rd is small. The other factors made that a terrible trade, but I would trade a 3rd all day for an established young player.
Once you leave the 3rd round, I'd trade all those picks for anyone of value and not bat an eye.
the data is out there, late round picks are probably less valuable than UDFAs in some cases because of the scholarship approach some GM's have to draft picks.
Anyway, I agree with the value of the top 3 rounds and I'd only part with a top 3 round pick sparingly if at all, after that the odds drop so dramatically even the best drafting teams are not likely landing starters in those rounds.
Good luck creating a roster in a timely fashion. By the time you are done, your first draft pick would be dead.
I don't understand why someone would be so cavalier about giving away later round picks when we consistently have untenable depth problems.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
If we do win a few games now IDK how we can compete going forward realistically when we rarely pass for even 200 yards.
BUT, I do not want to trade a 1, 2, or 3 pick to get one, even though I wish we had some talent there. Aside from Slayton we really have 0.
i always thought the tate signing was a bad one but i guess after trading OBJ they were desperate.
In comment 15016376 mpinmaine said:
If we do win a few games now IDK how we can compete going forward realistically when we rarely pass for even 200 yards.
BUT, I do not want to trade a 1, 2, or 3 pick to get one, even though I wish we had some talent there. Aside from Slayton we really have 0.
By low you mean late round? If so we can agree to disagree. And it’s relative. It depends on your alternative
I've echoed that point most of this week. In fact, I think the next big moment for this team isn't Thursday against the Eagles. It's the trade deadline on November 3rd.
We should be telling the league that LW, Zeitler, Golden, Fleming, Tate are for sale. So let the bidding begin.
Don't quote me on the %s but if someone has the facts throw it out here to see if I am in the zip code.
Middle and late round picks seem like they matter when building a team and a roster.
Because he's still a better option than drafting a guy that is in jail already for all I know.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
Just because the Giants have been shitty at drafting doesn’t mean the picks have little value. Good teams draft well.
1. We need to give Daniel Jones the opportunity to prove whether he is the guy this year or not. I think loading up on offensive line was the right choice but we need to give him more receiving options.
2. This year with a lot of college players opting out this year, I think the draft will be a bigger crapshoot than normal.
What I would be looking for is not an impending free agent but a team that is looking to unload a higher priced veteran who is viewed as a luxury due to the influx of talent of WR in this year's draft.
Quote:
“We missed out on that guy” list? He’s done nothing.
Because he's still a better option than drafting a guy that is in jail already for all I know.
That might make sense if we actually drafted the guy while he was in jail.
I notice that Baker was used to wonder what WR's we could have picked and not Lawrence . Not shocking to understand why
Apparently, we should have drafted a WR instead of a guy in jail
Want to list his arrests or allegations against him in college??
The narrative that Baker was a well-known felon in the making and that everyone scouting him knew there were major issues has taken on a life of its own since he was arrested.
He had a flag raised on work ethic. It isn't like he was a sociopath that people shunned.
It's gotten beyond absurd.
Quote:
but he was a scumbag.
Want to list his arrests or allegations against him in college??
The narrative that Baker was a well-known felon in the making and that everyone scouting him knew there were major issues has taken on a life of its own since he was arrested.
He had a flag raised on work ethic. It isn't like he was a sociopath that people shunned.
It's gotten beyond absurd.
You have no idea. Neither do I. That's ok.
The Giants had no idea. That's not ok.
But thinking gets us all in trouble here.
But thinking gets us all in trouble here.
If you can find a thread below that draft with me calling him a scumbag you'd have a point. Like I said, I had no idea at the time. It's pretty obvious the Giants had no idea at the time either - that's the problem.
Even for you this is obtuse. Maybe stick to picking on dupes or whatever it is you do.
Draft day debate - ( New Window )
How does lazy ass translate to pulling a gun at a card game. Cmon thats a fucking stretch and thats coming from someone that hates we drafted someone like that to begin with Byron Murphy on the board.
Quote:
extra picks for red flags = failure Draft day debate - ( New Window )
How does lazy ass translate to pulling a gun at a card game. Cmon thats a fucking stretch and thats coming from someone that hates we drafted someone like that to begin with Byron Murphy on the board.
It doesn’t, but why wouldn’t we at least consider the whole person approach as a bare minimum?
Sorry for misinterpreting this as you saying he was a scumbag when he was drafted.
I have to work on my reading comprehension if I can overcome the obtuseness....
homer?
From your link...
Would love to know the guy who supported Murphy-Bunting because he looks like the real deal down in Tampa. That would be quite the tandem tight now with Bradberry and Murphy-Bunting.
I didn't think the unlikelihood of that needed explanation. I guess it did.
Quote:
Might be the John Jerry troll. Dude was a homer too.
homer?
Maybe they write Claypool on the paperwork by accident, we can dream right?
As an aside, man is he electric. He kind of reminds me of Randy Moss.
Quote:
In comment 15016313 adamg said:
Quote:
Might be the John Jerry troll. Dude was a homer too.
homer?
giants sycophant
Quote:
significant contribution the Giants got from a 7th round pick is Bradshaw. Drafted in 2007. If you go all the way back to the Eli era, so starting in 2004 the list expands to still just Bradshaw.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
Just because the Giants have been shitty at drafting doesn’t mean the picks have little value. Good teams draft well.
There is data that supports my point. League wide.
Quote:
In comment 15016355 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
significant contribution the Giants got from a 7th round pick is Bradshaw. Drafted in 2007. If you go all the way back to the Eli era, so starting in 2004 the list expands to still just Bradshaw.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
Just because the Giants have been shitty at drafting doesn’t mean the picks have little value. Good teams draft well.
There is data that supports my point. League wide.
The data shows that the best long-term strategy in the draft is to have as many picks as possible. In any given year you can make an argument that a single 7th round pick is not worth a ton, but over time giving up picks, even lower ones, is not a great bet.
Quote:
In comment 15016418 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 15016355 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
significant contribution the Giants got from a 7th round pick is Bradshaw. Drafted in 2007. If you go all the way back to the Eli era, so starting in 2004 the list expands to still just Bradshaw.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
Just because the Giants have been shitty at drafting doesn’t mean the picks have little value. Good teams draft well.
There is data that supports my point. League wide.
The data shows that the best long-term strategy in the draft is to have as many picks as possible. In any given year you can make an argument that a single 7th round pick is not worth a ton, but over time giving up picks, even lower ones, is not a great bet.
Please share data that supports your claim that late round picks used in the current draft are more valuable (IOW lead to success - defined by the studies I have seen as simply starting half your games - so a very low bar) than established players.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/#5a8ebe757495
Giants should be able to get a 3rd and 5th for LW...no?
Quote:
fine. Do NOT trade draft picks. I can't go through another million posts about the latest Leonard Williams type trade.
Giants should be able to get a 3rd and 5th for LW...no?
Try it. If you can I'd be all about it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/#5a8ebe757495
you think that link advocated for keeping 4th - 7th round draft picks (and I'd even remove 4th round since I think that's probably the tipping point) instead of trading those picks for established starters?
Quote:
In comment 15016492 Bavaro_the_Mafioso said:
Quote:
extra picks for red flags = failure Draft day debate - ( New Window )
How does lazy ass translate to pulling a gun at a card game. Cmon thats a fucking stretch and thats coming from someone that hates we drafted someone like that to begin with Byron Murphy on the board.
It doesn’t, but why wouldn’t we at least consider the whole person approach as a bare minimum?
Listen I don’t like it, but people here act like it’s an obvious conclusion from A to B. Most people I know work ethic issues are generally good people, better than most actually. Where as people in the C-Suite are much more likely to be sociopaths. Unless you have some past history of outburst and violent behavior you just can’t connect the dots there
Quote:
some thoughts in here consistent to what I was trying to suggest above that a big % of starting players come from beyond Rd 3. They broke it out for All-Pros as well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/#5a8ebe757495
you think that link advocated for keeping 4th - 7th round draft picks (and I'd even remove 4th round since I think that's probably the tipping point) instead of trading those picks for established starters?
I think we are talking past each other. My theme is they are valuable because teams find a good % of their starters (and team) in those rounds.
If you think can consistently put a starting team (and 53 man roster) on field by dealing these picks to teams that will keep giving up their starters then you should absolutely be a GM.
As for building a roster it's not one size fits all.
I'd absolutely trade a pick for an established young starter at a position of need. You need young players from the draft to keep the salary cap in control and the trade off of trading a pick for an established young player is that you lose cost control (at a low-er $$ amount), but you also (in theory) no longer have the risk of a bust.
The Giants are clearly not a model franchise but of the 22 starters on the Giants 1 came from their own 5th - 7th round picks. Slayton.
1 out of 22.
Who is a good drafting team? Ravens?
4 out of 22, so yeah more, but still not significant, especially when you consider of the 4, none are rookies or even 2nd year or even 3rd year - they've been coached up over time which is a whole different discussion about coaching and system stability.
using your own late round picks and expecting significant contribution from those players (especially early), is not a recipe for success IMO.
Yes, higher, but not much higher.
UDFA's (to my point earlier about UDFA's being more valuable than later round draft picks) make up pretty close to the same percent of starters from the 5th, 6th, and 7th rounds combined.
And I didn't look too closely to confirm but I don't think this study looks at if the player is on the same team who drafted him. IOW, was player a 5th, 6th, or 7th round pick for example and cut by the team who drafted him and now starting elsewhere. Darren Waller for example.
5th-7th: 15.5%
UDFA: 13.6%
from your link.
A few years old, but article says only 60% of starters come from Rd 1-3. Imv, I gather as many draft picks I can get my hands on if I were a GM.
A few years old, but article says only 60% of starters come from Rd 1-3. Imv, I gather as many draft picks I can get my hands on if I were a GM.
Add the 14% for UDFA and it's now 74% of starters don't come from rounds 4 - 7. And since I consider round 4 the tipping point if you include it for arguments sake add another 10% so 85% of starters are from rounds 1 - 4 or UDFAs.
and as we know, simply starting is a low bar for success.
it just seems obvious to me, instead of gathering as many picks as you can for a 15% chance at hitting on a starter, I'd trade as many of those picks as I can if there was a player available for those picks who I knew could start for me.
Quote:
In comment 15016496 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
In comment 15016492 Bavaro_the_Mafioso said:
Quote:
extra picks for red flags = failure Draft day debate - ( New Window )
How does lazy ass translate to pulling a gun at a card game. Cmon thats a fucking stretch and thats coming from someone that hates we drafted someone like that to begin with Byron Murphy on the board.
It doesn’t, but why wouldn’t we at least consider the whole person approach as a bare minimum?
Listen I don’t like it, but people here act like it’s an obvious conclusion from A to B. Most people I know work ethic issues are generally good people, better than most actually. Where as people in the C-Suite are much more likely to be sociopaths. Unless you have some past history of outburst and violent behavior you just can’t connect the dots there
brother man, if you're gonna invest in something, you have to mitigate risk. The risk was there evidently, and we doubled down.
I would not trade away any draft picks.
+1
This is where "being in contention for the division" is problematic thinking for me, it's much more likely they win 3-4 games and pick top 5.
NYG needs a ton of talent, even some of the talent they have now will be gone by the time they properly build the foundation and it begins to reflect on the football field.
Quote:
which makes sense to compile the numbers.
A few years old, but article says only 60% of starters come from Rd 1-3. Imv, I gather as many draft picks I can get my hands on if I were a GM.
Add the 14% for UDFA and it's now 74% of starters don't come from rounds 4 - 7. And since I consider round 4 the tipping point if you include it for arguments sake add another 10% so 85% of starters are from rounds 1 - 4 or UDFAs.
and as we know, simply starting is a low bar for success.
it just seems obvious to me, instead of gathering as many picks as you can for a 15% chance at hitting on a starter, I'd trade as many of those picks as I can if there was a player available for those picks who I knew could start for me.
Oh so the 14% UDFA gets added into the other group now. I guess they are more valuable than rds 4-7 :-)
This is where "being in contention for the division" is problematic thinking for me, it's much more likely they win 3-4 games and pick top 5.
NYG needs a ton of talent, even some of the talent they have now will be gone by the time they properly build the foundation and it begins to reflect on the football field.
This should have been the goal from the beginning instead of screwing around for years now, wasting draft picks year after year for over-evaluated targeted players, lack of positional awareness, desperation-type signings and picks, and no longer-term strategy.
How not to be a GM.
Quote:
In comment 15016824 LBH15 said:
Quote:
which makes sense to compile the numbers.
A few years old, but article says only 60% of starters come from Rd 1-3. Imv, I gather as many draft picks I can get my hands on if I were a GM.
Add the 14% for UDFA and it's now 74% of starters don't come from rounds 4 - 7. And since I consider round 4 the tipping point if you include it for arguments sake add another 10% so 85% of starters are from rounds 1 - 4 or UDFAs.
and as we know, simply starting is a low bar for success.
it just seems obvious to me, instead of gathering as many picks as you can for a 15% chance at hitting on a starter, I'd trade as many of those picks as I can if there was a player available for those picks who I knew could start for me.
Oh so the 14% UDFA gets added into the other group now. I guess they are more valuable than rds 4-7 :-)
Not sure what you are getting at. A UDFA is not a draft pick. So when you talk draft pick trades and you are looking at success of late round picks, it makes sense to NOT include UDFAs in the later rounds. If you are looking at a roster and the impact of rounds 5 - 7, it makes sense to include UDFAs with the non 5-7 rounds.
Doesn't it?
Either way, I think we've each made our points - and did so without being disrespectful to each other.
So, good discussion.
Agree, good posting pj.
Quote:
In comment 15016651 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15016418 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 15016355 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
significant contribution the Giants got from a 7th round pick is Bradshaw. Drafted in 2007. If you go all the way back to the Eli era, so starting in 2004 the list expands to still just Bradshaw.
1 for 19. Even if you add Michael Johnson, it's 2 for 19.
6th round pick? I guess Tyree in 2003, maybe Sash.
1 for 20 or 2 for 20 if you count both, and I add Tyree for the SB catch and ST contributions, but let's all agree he was not a starter.
5th round?
Obviously we have more success here. Slayton, the Giants best WR was a 5th round pick. Expanding for the entire Eli era:
Slayton (2019)
Gibril (2004)
Boss (2007)
Kennard (2014)
Lemieux (TBD) to be fair all 2020 picks should be TBD.
But none of those eligible got a 2nd contract with the Giants which is important especially to the comment about roster building.
These picks are not as valuable as some of you think outside of the top 3 rounds. It's not just the Giants league-wide statistics support me on this.
I'd do the 4th round but I'm out of time, need to head to hockey practice, I will revisit this thread though.
Just because the Giants have been shitty at drafting doesn’t mean the picks have little value. Good teams draft well.
There is data that supports my point. League wide.
The data shows that the best long-term strategy in the draft is to have as many picks as possible. In any given year you can make an argument that a single 7th round pick is not worth a ton, but over time giving up picks, even lower ones, is not a great bet.
Please share data that supports your claim that late round picks used in the current draft are more valuable (IOW lead to success - defined by the studies I have seen as simply starting half your games - so a very low bar) than established players.
You are mischaracterizing my argument. I said the best way to do the draft is to accrue draft picks, so while of course any one low-level pick may not be worth a veteran, in the long run trading draft picks is a losing move.
The below link is a good primer with a lot of links to thoughts on this.
Link - ( New Window )
As long as we have picks 1-4, does it really matter?
Would having 5 7th round picks make people happier about the draft just because we have more players to select and the cut three months later?
The fact that this team did not pick DK Metcalf when the only knock against him was that his 3 cone time was horrible will haunt them. Nevermind the fact that he's exactly what this offense needed in terms of size and speed on the outside. Nevermind that he's a genetic freak
Slow 3 cone! That matters! Because we expect players that are 6'3 and 230 to be able to be shifty like Wes Welker.
Ridiculous
Quote:
you think this way. That is not only awful, it is surprising for a rebuilding team that struggles to win 4 games per year. Other teams actually find value with these later picks at a higher rate if you believe the article.
Yes, higher, but not much higher.
UDFA's (to my point earlier about UDFA's being more valuable than later round draft picks) make up pretty close to the same percent of starters from the 5th, 6th, and 7th rounds combined.
And I didn't look too closely to confirm but I don't think this study looks at if the player is on the same team who drafted him. IOW, was player a 5th, 6th, or 7th round pick for example and cut by the team who drafted him and now starting elsewhere. Darren Waller for example.
5th-7th: 15.5%
UDFA: 13.6%
from your link.
Quote:
...- Undrafted players (14%) were the 3rd most likely group to comprise 2014’s starters…only behind 1st round (30%) and 2nd round (18%) picks....
It's still pretty remarkable, IMO, that a team with an already established and talented roster, like the Ravens, could find 4x the number of starters in the late rounds than a rebuilding team like the Giants.
To me, that suggests that the Ravens are more than 4x as successful as the Giants at identifying those prospects, because they have to unseat players that are presumably more talented than those that the Giants' picks would have to displace.
IOW, I would actually expect the numbers to be reversed, and that we'd be discussing whether those late round picks are starting because they're actually good, or because they're the least bad option on a bad team. The fact that the success rates are not indicative of this is, IMO, a bit alarming.
Not suggesting it shouldn't ever be done, and it probably is a better mitigating strategy if a team really just sucks at scouting/drafting (like Giants).
But it's a less favorable approach.