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?
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.