Dan Duggan grades each player

A+
Leonard Williams
James Bradberry
Graham Gano

A
Blake Martinez
Casey Kreiter

A-
Dalvin Tomlinson
Joe Judge

B+
Wayne Gallman
Austin Johnson
Dexter Lawrence
Jabrill Peppers
Logan Ryan

B
Dave Gettleman
Alfred Morris C
Sterling Shepard
Darius Slayton B-
Kaden Smith D
Nick Gates A-
Matt Peart B-
Kevin Zeitler
Markus Golden
B.J. Hill
Lorenzo Carter
Carter Coughlin
Tae Crowder
Darnay Holmes
Julian Love

B-
Austin Mack
Kyler Fackrell
Isaac Yiadom C-

C+
Jabaal Sheard
Ryan Lewis C-

C
Daniel Jones B-
C.J. Board
Shane Lemieux
Andrew Thomas B
David Mayo
Riley Dixon

C-
Devonta Freeman
Evan Engram D-
Levine Toilolo
Cameron Fleming
Will Hernandez
Devante Downs

D
Dion Lewis
Damion Ratley
Golden Tate

Incomplete
Saquon Barkley
Eli Penny
Dante Pettis
Eric Tomlinson
Jackson Barton
Kyle Murphy
Spencer Pulley
Chad Slade
R.J. McIntosh
Oshane Ximines
Cam Brown
Niko Lalos
Trent Harris
TJ Brunson
Madre Harper
Brandon Williams
Jarren Williams
Corey Ballentine
Xavier McKinney
Nate Ebner
Adrian Colbert
Montre Hartage
Sean Chandler

Snd Slayton by one grade

In comment 15122542 BradberryGlue said:

Quote:

In comment 15122537 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: we have plenty of Pollyanna dupes to go along with the negative nelly dupes. Stupid knows no bias. Just stupid. I’m actually rather brilliant, the name calling seems to be cheap on here.

Wasn't addressing you specifically. I was addressing the comment that all the dupes have negative takes on the Giants.

In comment 15122542 BradberryGlue said:

Quote:

In comment 15122537 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: we have plenty of Pollyanna dupes to go along with the negative nelly dupes. Stupid knows no bias. Just stupid. I’m actually rather brilliant, the name calling seems to be cheap on here.

Brilliant??

Apparently your genius isn't very good at reading a room though. Your brilliance fails to comprehend that between now and the start of next season, the Giants will still be 31st in offense. And barring some rare statistical correction - it won't change the ranking from 2020.

In a room of Giant fans, the vast majority of whom are using a singular handle, we know this. If by some miracle you are still posting on this handle in August, I'm not sure what the fuck it is supposed to accomplish to tell us the giants were 31st in offense every day, multiple times until then. You may think it is insightful.

It isn't. It is just a sideshow to another dupe coming in and trolling the board and littering the page with the same talking point over and over again.

In comment 15122618 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 15122542 BradberryGlue said: Quote: In comment 15122537 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: we have plenty of Pollyanna dupes to go along with the negative nelly dupes. Stupid knows no bias. Just stupid. I’m actually rather brilliant, the name calling seems to be cheap on here. Brilliant?? Apparently your genius isn't very good at reading a room though. Your brilliance fails to comprehend that between now and the start of next season, the Giants will still be 31st in offense. And barring some rare statistical correction - it won't change the ranking from 2020. In a room of Giant fans, the vast majority of whom are using a singular handle, we know this. If by some miracle you are still posting on this handle in August, I'm not sure what the fuck it is supposed to accomplish to tell us the giants were 31st in offense every day, multiple times until then. You may think it is insightful. It isn't. It is just a sideshow to another dupe coming in and trolling the board and littering the page with the same talking point over and over again.

31st is where the Giants are, meaning that’s where the bulk of the offseason ammo needs to focus upon.

they beat one team with a .500 or better record. Those grades are ridiculous.

are you telling us something we don't know for the 157th time since you joined days ago??

Fucking clown

playing only five games?

In comment 15122626 arniefez said:

Quote:

they beat one team with a .500 or better record. Those grades are ridiculous.

Yes, quite a lot of As and Bs for a 6-10 team.

Like giving out trophies at the end of the season just for participating.

If you are going by expectations, as the only quarterback on the team to beat a team with a winning record, he should get an A+

And All-Pro Engram should get an F-

In comment 15122641 LBH15 said:

Quote:

In comment 15122626 arniefez said: Quote: they beat one team with a .500 or better record. Those grades are ridiculous. Yes, quite a lot of As and Bs for a 6-10 team. Like giving out trophies at the end of the season just for participating.

Did some quick math and it looks like nearly 75% of our starters performed with excellently (A) or very good (B).

Maybe if our franchise QB didn't get a C, considering he was surrounded by so much "very good", our record would be better...?

;)

must have the 14-2 Kansas City Chiefs with:

- 42 A++++
- 10 A++
- 1 B (Deandre Baker)

In comment 15122172 Rick in Dallas said:

Quote:

Really!!!

It's odd for sure, but given the caveat regarding the expectations for each player, it's not indefensible to grade Peart higher than Thomas relative to the expectations for each going into the season.

I personally wouldn't give Peart the higher grade (I think at some point, you have to still judge players vs. the same position group regardless of expectations and Thomas made much more progress over the second half of the season than Peart did), but I can understand the logic in doing so even though I disagree with it.

In comment 15122269 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

this is not based solely on the talent of the player. Peart was a B because little was expected of a 3rd round pick in his rookie year and to an extent he exceeded expectations. Thomas is a C not because he was a lesser player than Peart, but because he was the #4 pick and expectations were high. For roughly half the year he did not meet those expectations, and in the second half he did, so an average grade. There are a lot of B and above players on a 6-10 team, which means very little was expected of this team this year, not that most of the players are above average. Similar years from young players will probably draw a lower grade next year because expectations should be higher for a developing player (with hopefully a full training camp and pre-season).

Well that’s called grading on a curve and maybe I missed it but I don’t think he said he was grading on a curve.

Players should be graded on their play and not expectations of their play based on where they were drafted.

If a guy played at a B level, his play deserves a B regardless of if an A or C was expected out of him. When I took a test I was graded on that test, not marked up or down because more or less was expected of me.

In comment 15122237 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

Duggan an F

Agrred!

Personally, I'd use tiers of 95-100; 85-95; 75-85; 65-75; etc., as that is likely closer to the truth.

The only A+ on this team is Gano and Bradberry.

In comment 15123028 Eman11 said:

Quote:

In comment 15122269 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: this is not based solely on the talent of the player. Peart was a B because little was expected of a 3rd round pick in his rookie year and to an extent he exceeded expectations. Thomas is a C not because he was a lesser player than Peart, but because he was the #4 pick and expectations were high. For roughly half the year he did not meet those expectations, and in the second half he did, so an average grade. There are a lot of B and above players on a 6-10 team, which means very little was expected of this team this year, not that most of the players are above average. Similar years from young players will probably draw a lower grade next year because expectations should be higher for a developing player (with hopefully a full training camp and pre-season). Well that’s called grading on a curve and maybe I missed it but I don’t think he said he was grading on a curve. Players should be graded on their play and not expectations of their play based on where they were drafted. If a guy played at a B level, his play deserves a B regardless of if an A or C was expected out of him. When I took a test I was graded on that test, not marked up or down because more or less was expected of me.

That's not actually what grading on a curve is. That might be why Duggan didn't say he was doing that.

He's not saying that the best lineman gets an A because someone has to be the best even in a mediocre group, and whoever that person is, gets an A. That's what grading on a curve is; it's determining the quantity of each grade letter matches the normal distribution curve, and then assigning the letter grade to the corresponding number grade when ranking those number grades in order (which makes the numerical tiers irrelevant).

What Duggan did is exactly what he said he did: determine (in his own opinion, presumably) what the expectations were for each player heading into the season, and then (again, in his own opinion), attempt to judge how that player's performance exceeded or fell short of those expectations.

It's not a curved grade, which is based on relative scoring to one's peers. This isn't that. This is an individual grading system based on expectations and what appears to be zero consideration of comparable players in each grade.

It's still a massively flawed system - IMO, it's worse than just assigning grades on each player's actual performance agnostic of expectations. Because to do it the way Duggan did it would imply that any UDFA that stays on the active roster all season should be a B+ or better (because they have no expectations), and a player who enters the season as a bonafide all-pro probably can't do any better than a B, and even that would require a HOF type season.

In comment 15122490 BradberryGlue said:

Quote:

In comment 15122466 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: In comment 15122317 BradberryGlue said: Quote: In comment 15122312 Victor in CT said: Quote: In comment 15122286 BradberryGlue said: Quote: I'd give him a C that is my biggest disagreement at first glance. Team went 6-10 and finished 31st in offense which is the driving force of NFL success. We won 1 game v a winning team and faced a bevy of backup QBs and Olines. I give Judge an A at the mic where he 2 predecessors embarrassed the organization on a weekly basis. Judge can talk the talk. I will give him an A when the team walks the walk. so you think that they have "A" talent and Judge didn't get the most out of it? Because all of your other rants are how they have no talent. 6-10 is getting what out of it exactly? The offense was 31/32 teams. What did Judge do on Sundays that Shurmur and McAdoo didn’t? Offense went backwards, D added 4 high priced players. You've been here less than two weeks and yet I've seen you reference the offense as being 31st probably over a hundred times now?? And now the D was good because of 4 "high priced players"?? I swear the misery continues here mainly because several vocal posters just keep harping on negativity post after mind-numbing post. Fuck us all to have another repetitive dupe here. Signing up to post more shit that they do or previously did under their other handle(s) For me, the offense was 31st is the overriding story of 2020. And Im going to bring it up in critiquing the HC. When the team is literally inept at the driving force of success in the sport and Im seeing him graded as having done this fantastic job Im going to speak up. And I will also bring up the FAs added because they came with Judge. The 2020 Giants were a different team than the 2019 Giants. Judge did not just re-coach the season. "The D played better" is a simple statement. However the credit for said statement goes more to Gettleman than the coaches. It played better because we signed better players. I give Judge a C or an INC. He was not a bad HC. He got effort. He had us in games. We were 6-10. Kevin Stefanski did an A job in Cleveland. That is an A for my grading system.

The Offense was 31st