Well, time to get out the PFF torches and pitchforks again.
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Well, time to get out the PFF torches and pitchforks again.
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Ugh.
Thomas was terrible to start the season and his grades were tempered by the start.
But yeah, it has a lot to do with rookies playing like rookies to start the season and the number of rookies that started, plus McKinney's injury.
I don't put much credence in these year long rankings.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
This is going to be one of the better drafts the Giants have had
They pretty much admitteded yhat much of this list is based on a fast start by rookies. They praise Burrows initial success and then dismiss the fact that he played 2/3 of a season before suffering a fairly serious knee injury, while Thomas improved. Holmes was more than just effectove as a corner after about 4 games, but his finish is dismissed.
Soooo, its not about how you finish but how you start? They also note the improvement in the run game with Lemieux getting more time as well as Cam Brown emerging as a pass rush threat and it too is dismissed. Yet the Bengals with the top pick in the first 2 rounds is the top rookie class in the league?
How can you possibly take this logice seriously?
RE: This is going to be one of the better drafts the Giants have had
Feel good heading forward with Thomas at LT, McKinney at S, Holmes in the CB room, and the youngsters like Lemieux, Brown, and Coughlin.
Keep in mind Lemieux wasn't graded positively by PFF. Also feel like Thomas' grades are affected by his early struggles and rebounded nicely in the 2nd half.
He was playing hurt and came on strong at the end. Right now, Wirfs looks like the better player though.
2021 is a huge year for the prior three drafts. It can’t be stated enough. The Giants are banking on their prior three premium picks (Jones, Barkley & Thomas) to be anchors of this offense. To date, there hasn’t been a roi here. It needs to happen in 2021. These three players need to have big seasons.
Dumb exercise to rank rookie classes. What’s the usual timeframe?
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
He was playing hurt and came on strong at the end. Right now, Wirfs looks like the better player though.
2021 is a huge year for the prior three drafts. It can’t be stated enough. The Giants are banking on their prior three premium picks (Jones, Barkley & Thomas) to be anchors of this offense. To date, there hasn’t been a roi here. It needs to happen in 2021. These three players need to have big seasons.
Wirfs is also playing on a much much better line with much better TE help and in an offense that covers up many mistakes with a running game and passing game that allows the QB to get rid of the football muxh faster because he has receivers who actually get open.
RE: RE: How are we doing with the 2018 Rookie Class
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
It's this type of shit that ruins BBI. FFS Talk about the rookie class and not other posters. This is childish.
It's fair, you expect the most out of the top 2 picks and we just didn't get much. Thomas on the whole year was bad. He finished better but his overall stat line was terrible. He was #4 pick. It is not hating. It just is what it is.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
- Ross was deemed a failure at his position almost immediately when he stepped on the field wearing Giant blue. He was woeful in coverage, was a solid tackler and had decent hands when the ball was thrown right to him thats all
- Boss is probably a bad example and we got good value from him in hindsight
- Smith did have that record, but he got hurt. According to many here, what Barkley did in '18 and '19 mean nothing because he got hurt in '20.
My point is, we drafted plenty of players that showed they belonged from 2018-2019. But because they dont put up numbers that PFF can tout, it is considered a bad draft.
Getting a LT, slot corner, rush OLB, multiple cover LB s, a FS is a damn good draft imho.
It's fair, you expect the most out of the top 2 picks and we just didn't get much. Thomas on the whole year was bad. He finished better but his overall stat line was terrible. He was #4 pick. It is not hating. It just is what it is.
McKinney was hurt for 2/3 of the year moron. Instead, a 4th, 5th and 7th rounder started most of the season.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
It's this type of shit that ruins BBI. FFS Talk about the rookie class and not other posters. This is childish.
No, its no nothing posters like you that ruin BBI. I have been quite thorough in posting real figures.
Go get high.
While not throwing it out altogether, need to balance giving
too much credit for finding starters on a roster thirsting for talent.
Not saying shouldn't give credit to rookies that start but that more weight should be placed on how they performed versus their peer group on other teams.
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Everybody keeps talking about his significant improvement in the 2nd half of the season. Did any of you happen to see the Arizona game? Did that ArizLB get 5 or 6 sacks playing against Thomas? A guy so good I don’t even remember his name. I know Peart had a horrible game but unless this is a senior moment for me, pretty sure Thomas got destroyed also. But, even with his improvement, of the 4 OTs taken early in the draft, Thomas was clearly the worst.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Well everybody raved about our 2007
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
Everybody keeps talking about his significant improvement in the 2nd half of the season. Did any of you happen to see the Arizona game? Did that ArizLB get 5 or 6 sacks playing against Thomas? A guy so good I don’t even remember his name. I know Peart had a horrible game but unless this is a senior moment for me, pretty sure Thomas got destroyed also. But, even with his improvement, of the 4 OTs taken early in the draft, Thomas was clearly the worst.
Sure, u might not remember who Haason Reddick is... Former 13th overall draft pick OLB who had a breakout year with 12.5 sacks, 15 TFLs and 6 FF.
He was not a nobody.
Also yes, by all accounts that was the worst Giants loss of the season. But by all means, lets forget about how he playedd against TB, and what kind of odd he faced to be successful based on the offseason he had or the turmoil he had to deal with at position coach.
This place has gotten more and more nunced by the year.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
You are just being intentionally obtuse at this point. Hernandez was part of a rotation. Just as the tackles were. Hill was a starter until we traded for Hernandez. Hill was very much a part of a rotation of 5 players on a 3 man line. He was a starter until we traded for LW. He will likely be getting starter minutes once we lose one of DT or LW.
You cant possibly be this dumb, but then maybe you can. Your agenda is painfully obvious. Why do you even bother? How about leave altogether or sign back in as LBH15 again? Pathetic.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
You are just being intentionally obtuse at this point. Hernandez was part of a rotation. Just as the tackles were. Hill was a starter until we traded for Hernandez. Hill was very much a part of a rotation of 5 players on a 3 man line. He was a starter until we traded for LW. He will likely be getting starter minutes once we lose one of DT or LW.
You cant possibly be this dumb, but then maybe you can. Your agenda is painfully obvious. Why do you even bother? How about leave altogether or sign back in as LBH15 again? Pathetic.
Fwiw, he can’t sign back in under LBH15. He got that handle suspended. That’s why Jimmy Googs has been more active....
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
I think you can call Ross and Boss a little better than decent, particularly Ross. Alford's knee injury was unfortunate.
Amazing no one talks about the steal that Gettleman pulled off in '18 though they bring it up...being careful not to mention gates or Slayton -.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
Well, time to get out the PFF torches and pitchforks again.
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Ugh.
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Well everybody raved about our 2007
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Amazing no one talks about the steal that Gettleman pulled off in '18 though they bring it up...being careful not to mention gates or Slayton -.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
Slayton was drafted in 2019.
After that, I stopped reading your wall of misspelled troll text.
Amazing no one talks about the steal that Gettleman pulled off in '18 though they bring it up...being careful not to mention gates or Slayton -.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
Well-thought out, well-organized post.
Now, don't take too long before we hear from you again...
and gave him a 32.2 on their scale. He ended up playing a lot of snaps for us. Tae Crowder played a lot of snaps and got a 36.4. McKinney unfortunately missed most the season, but PFF liked him best of our rookies with a 70 grade.
Those three guys are what is mostly driving this low rating. Its just a weighted average rating where a player's snaps are multiplied by his rating and then divided by the total overall snaps.
Hopefully things look better next year. If you're an optimist you say: Lemieux gets time in an NFL diet and weight room and can anchor better in pass blocking, Crowder gets more time to acclimate to the game (he's a converted RB after all), Thomas heals up, and McKinney can get in a full slate of games, etc.
And the flip side is that its exciting for fans just to see all these rookies take snaps, but that doesn't always mean you can project them to be above-average NFL contributors in a few years.
Personally I feel good about the rookie class, but the key for me is gonna be the development of the three OL. Lemieux and Peart need to be eating and lifting!
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very bottom of NFL
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
are a group of posters who continually shakes their head at referencing PFF whether it is for good or bad ratings, so it isn't fair to say their rankings are useful only when they say positive things. I've pointed out way too many times their flawed methodology and the conversations I've had with NFL people who say it is nothing more than stat porn for fans
In fact, the opposite is usually true. When PFF is referenced poorly reflecting on the Giants, you still have many posters saying they provide a useful service. Among them are some of the posters who are fanatic about analytics, which is ironic since PFF is the antithesis of analytics.
It takes subjective observations to create subjective ratings and puts it into a numerical scale to try and make it seem linear.
are a group of posters who continually shakes their head at referencing PFF whether it is for good or bad ratings, so it isn't fair to say their rankings are useful only when they say positive things. I've pointed out way too many times their flawed methodology and the conversations I've had with NFL people who say it is nothing more than stat porn for fans
In fact, the opposite is usually true. When PFF is referenced poorly reflecting on the Giants, you still have many posters saying they provide a useful service. Among them are some of the posters who are fanatic about analytics, which is ironic since PFF is the antithesis of analytics.
It takes subjective observations to create subjective ratings and puts it into a numerical scale to try and make it seem linear.
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very bottom of NFL
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
Which is why this article is useless and makes absolutely no difference to anything going forward.
i don't see how this ranking is even remotely fair
Every rookie played. And Thomas was fine as the season progressed.
Who cares. Lets see how many rookies get a well earned second contract. For starters lets see how these kids look in year 2 with more practice time under their belt.
is not an accurate measuring stick as to how good or not a draft class is. Draft classes in my opinion should be measured by retention. In other words how many guys from that class got a second contract by either the same team or elsewhere. The 2018 draft is still too early to tell...
As for the 2020 draft class, we know absolutely nothing in terms of how good they will be. Cam Brown might come in 20 pounds heavier and be unstoppable, Andrew Thomas may turn into the best LT in the entire NFL, conversely, Saquon Barkley may never be the same as he was in 2018.
This team is so young everything about them is speculative.
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very bottom of NFL
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
I agree. And this is just another reason why this whole ranking is largely a pointless exercise. As an example of this, here's Green Bay's writeup:
Quote:
17. GREEN BAY PACKERS
Why they're ranked here: The Green Bay Packers made a few bold decisions in the 2020 draft, specifically with their first three picks. But that daring approach didn't pay off — at least not this season — as first-round quarterback Jordan Love, second-round running back AJ Dillon and third-round tight end Josiah Deguara combined for just 122 snaps. Undrafted free agent Krys Barnes played more than any Green Bay rookie but didn't find much success, earning a 43.7 PFF grade across 421 snaps. Similar to New Orleans, the Packers' class didn't have much of an opportunity to generate more or less value than expected.
How their top pick fared: Perhaps no 2020 NFL draft selection was more scrutinized than Jordan Love at No. 26 overall. And with Aaron Rodgers performing at an MVP level this season, Love failed to see the field. As a matter of fact, Love didn't dress for a single game this year; he served as the third-string quarterback, behind Rodgers and Tim Boyle.
So we really have no idea how good that class is. But it's 10 spots higher than the Giants, even though there's no real basis for comparison.
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Ugh.
Darnay Holmes or Shane Lemieux probably had the highest grade for the season.
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Ugh.
Thomas was terrible to start the season and his grades were tempered by the start.
But yeah, it has a lot to do with rookies playing like rookies to start the season and the number of rookies that started, plus McKinney's injury.
I don't put much credence in these year long rankings.
I can see getting hit for Thomas poor start.... although only one at LT and McKinney being hurt....I expect good things from both....
But he lost me with PFF grades of 4th and 5th picks....that actually played often and showed enough to be viewed as starters next year.
Curious to see entire list....
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
Soooo, its not about how you finish but how you start? They also note the improvement in the run game with Lemieux getting more time as well as Cam Brown emerging as a pass rush threat and it too is dismissed. Yet the Bengals with the top pick in the first 2 rounds is the top rookie class in the league?
How can you possibly take this logice seriously?
You must be one of the apologists that braindead in DC was referring to.
Quote:
We could easily end up with 5 starters plus some solid rotational players. This is where PFF looks most foolish.
You must be one of the apologists that braindead in DC was referring to.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Quote:
In comment 15141872 BillT said:
Quote:
We could easily end up with 5 starters plus some solid rotational players. This is where PFF looks most foolish.
You must be one of the apologists that braindead in DC was referring to.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Oh it was. Lol. Pretty soon good ol Jinth Thentral will chime in with sone really pithy comment....all 6'3, perfectly fit, 190 lbs of him.
Keep in mind Lemieux wasn't graded positively by PFF. Also feel like Thomas' grades are affected by his early struggles and rebounded nicely in the 2nd half.
2021 is a huge year for the prior three drafts. It can’t be stated enough. The Giants are banking on their prior three premium picks (Jones, Barkley & Thomas) to be anchors of this offense. To date, there hasn’t been a roi here. It needs to happen in 2021. These three players need to have big seasons.
So where do we stand for the 2018 class?
Round 1: (2) Saquon Barkley, RB,
Round 2: (34) Will Hernandez, G,
Round 3: (66) Lorenzo Carter, LB, (69) B.J. Hill, DL
Round 4: (108) Kyle Lauletta, QB,
Round 5: (139) RJ McIntosh, DT,
Supplemental Draft, Round 3: Sam Beal, CB
Should that include Sam Beal, btw? ;)
Wirfs? or Wills?
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
2021 is a huge year for the prior three drafts. It can’t be stated enough. The Giants are banking on their prior three premium picks (Jones, Barkley & Thomas) to be anchors of this offense. To date, there hasn’t been a roi here. It needs to happen in 2021. These three players need to have big seasons.
Wirfs is also playing on a much much better line with much better TE help and in an offense that covers up many mistakes with a running game and passing game that allows the QB to get rid of the football muxh faster because he has receivers who actually get open.
Quote:
now that it's 3 years out?
Should that include Sam Beal, btw? ;)
Yes, it should.
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
GFY?
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
Quote:
to be discredited by the usual suspects.
What is the obsession that some here have with shitting on the team.
GFY?
Because they are losers who have nothing better yo do with their lives.
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
Tae Crowder played a significant part in two victories as well.
Quote:
In comment 15141870 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
- Ross was deemed a failure at his position almost immediately when he stepped on the field wearing Giant blue. He was woeful in coverage, was a solid tackler and had decent hands when the ball was thrown right to him thats all
- Boss is probably a bad example and we got good value from him in hindsight
- Smith did have that record, but he got hurt. According to many here, what Barkley did in '18 and '19 mean nothing because he got hurt in '20.
My point is, we drafted plenty of players that showed they belonged from 2018-2019. But because they dont put up numbers that PFF can tout, it is considered a bad draft.
Getting a LT, slot corner, rush OLB, multiple cover LB s, a FS is a damn good draft imho.
McKinney was hurt for 2/3 of the year moron. Instead, a 4th, 5th and 7th rounder started most of the season.
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
It's this type of shit that ruins BBI. FFS Talk about the rookie class and not other posters. This is childish.
No, its no nothing posters like you that ruin BBI. I have been quite thorough in posting real figures.
Go get high.
Not saying shouldn't give credit to rookies that start but that more weight should be placed on how they performed versus their peer group on other teams.
Quote:
to be discredited by the usual suspects.
Did you have to spoil the thread before it started? C'mon man.
PFF is always a lightening rod on this board as a source for both positive and negative conclusions about Giants players.
Quote:
In comment 15141902 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15141870 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
Sure, u might not remember who Haason Reddick is... Former 13th overall draft pick OLB who had a breakout year with 12.5 sacks, 15 TFLs and 6 FF.
He was not a nobody.
Also yes, by all accounts that was the worst Giants loss of the season. But by all means, lets forget about how he playedd against TB, and what kind of odd he faced to be successful based on the offseason he had or the turmoil he had to deal with at position coach.
This place has gotten more and more nunced by the year.
Darnay Holmes or Shane Lemieux probably had the highest grade for the season.
You know you can look this up rather than reach up your behind a pull out an (ICORRECT!) assumption?
Just an idea for you, pj.
Lemieux graded out HORRIBLY on PFF, BTW.
Quote:
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
You are just being intentionally obtuse at this point. Hernandez was part of a rotation. Just as the tackles were. Hill was a starter until we traded for Hernandez. Hill was very much a part of a rotation of 5 players on a 3 man line. He was a starter until we traded for LW. He will likely be getting starter minutes once we lose one of DT or LW.
You cant possibly be this dumb, but then maybe you can. Your agenda is painfully obvious. Why do you even bother? How about leave altogether or sign back in as LBH15 again? Pathetic.
Your posts are basically a gibberish rant of incorrect statements.
And, as pointed out, let's give it time. Webster looked like a complete bust until Buffalo in '07.
Quote:
In comment 15141930 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
Hernandez lost his job in the middle of the season to a rookie. Hill isn't a starter and his snap counts have actually gone down since his rookie year.
Just trying to keep up, but I think that the appropriate figure you are looking for is 2.
You are just being intentionally obtuse at this point. Hernandez was part of a rotation. Just as the tackles were. Hill was a starter until we traded for Hernandez. Hill was very much a part of a rotation of 5 players on a 3 man line. He was a starter until we traded for LW. He will likely be getting starter minutes once we lose one of DT or LW.
You cant possibly be this dumb, but then maybe you can. Your agenda is painfully obvious. Why do you even bother? How about leave altogether or sign back in as LBH15 again? Pathetic.
Fwiw, he can’t sign back in under LBH15. He got that handle suspended. That’s why Jimmy Googs has been more active....
LOL.
And, as pointed out, let's give it time. Webster looked like a complete bust until Buffalo in '07.
Thomas looked much the part in the second half of the season, sans the ARZ game when Jones was a sitting duck.
Thomas still has to develop a better anchor and keep those hands inside but he has plenty of talent to be the LT going forward.
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
How are we defining significant? Ross and Boss were decent multiyear starters, and Smith set the franchise record for catches in a year. I'll give you Alford did nothing after 2007.
I think you can call Ross and Boss a little better than decent, particularly Ross. Alford's knee injury was unfortunate.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
I wonder if these are "yearly average" PFF grades (likely) versus last few games based grades?
Thomas clearly struggled early for a variety of reasons, but seemed to improve a lot during the season. So did the other rookies.
The amount of playing time the Giants got from Thomas (1), Peart (3), Holmes (4), Lemieux (5), Brown (6), Coughlin (7) and Crowder (7) would seem to justify a better ranking than 27th.
Ugh.
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
Quote:
In comment 15141912 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15141902 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15141870 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Draft class...guys like Boss, Steve Smith,
Alford and Bradshaw. Of those picks, only Bradshaw and a career long snapper had significant careers.
Are we really judging a draft class adter their rookie years? I dont know what metrics they are using but we got at least three starters out of that class.
Obviously bw and Googs ignore that in order to take a predictable shot at Gettleman....because they are incapable of an original thought.
I also don't subscribe much to rookie grades. And as the OP mentioned, it is probably best to measure a draft 3 years out. So my post asks how we feel about the 2018 draft?
What the hell is the problem?
I feel like we have one of the best game breakers in all of football in Barkley and a pass rusher who was breaking out last year before both got hirt early in the year. Will Hernandez is looking mire and more like a bust. Beal is an obvious bust. BJ Hill is a solid player on our stacked line and would be a starter on many teams. McIntosh was a 5th and you dont expect much from him. Lauletta was a bad pick.
Literally we have 4 starters from that draft. One (WH) is prob not in the future. By all accounts, Sam Beal was a highly thought of prospect. So 3 starters from that draft with one top 3 at his position from that draft? I think we did as well as most teams.
Wanna look at Pitt's 2018? What about the Chiefs'? How about Tennessee?
Ravens did well. 93rs got 2 players out of it.
Not sure who you are measuring against. You seem to want 4 starters or 2nd stringers from every draft.
The problem is the ridiculous standard you hold the Giants up to when measuring the influx of talent.
I didn't know I had a published standard out there on talent influx...nor that it is ridiculous
Apologies but your post reads a bit like someone who had too many cups of coffee today...who are the 4 starters? Barkley is top 3?
Try and keep up:
Barkley, Hernandez, Hill and Lorenzo Carter
All are starters. All have played like starters. Hernandez I am not a fan of. Carter was looking quite effective before getting hurt last year.
They're not all starters.
Try to keep up.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
Slayton was drafted in 2019.
After that, I stopped reading your wall of misspelled troll text.
Nick Gates (the guy who gave up no sacs last year playing at a new position) is never included. Darius slayton, 6-1, 4.3 speed, great attitude... another outright steal. Those two, and the resources they commanded, alone make 18 a positive...
The Barclay pick is still criticized and the critics are wrong. Period. All of their premises are wrong too. Or at least wrong when applied as the absolutes that they need them to be.
you can get RB's late....Wilson, Brady, Rogers, Mahomes, Brees, superbowl winners Foles and Flacco and and on and on...,,,, you can get QB's late too. And often getting RB's late means going with Chubb and say>>>look you can get rb's late. Then, if you're agenda driven, you incessantly pound the argument.
YOU DON"T DRAFT RUNNING BACKS with the second pick....is generally right. But it's not an absolute. If the running bak is potentially great and safe at the same time; if the alternatives have an unacceptable risk factor then you draft the BPA...
Taking the BPA, no matter the circumstances, might not ALWAYS be the wisest allocation of finite precious resources but it can never be the disaster that the Negatives "need" it to be.
The PFF grades are right on. Our no.1 pick struggled, the no. 2 pick never contributed. PFF is rating based on the performance, not the potential. Nor do they (or are they supposed to} factor in the bizarre circumstances that eliminated pre-season - a factor that penalized most heavily the teams with new systems and coaching staffs.
I think Thomas is goign to be superb.. And if guys like Becton turned out to be better, as well might happen, that's OK. "Safe" matters. Taking a guy who is going to be a superb starter over an alternative that has a higher ceiling and lower basement is an ok decision. Though the negs will use hindsight unfairly and inappropriately if the player like Becton eclipses Thomas.
Peart played badly, doesn't contradict the fact that he might be the steal of the draft. Arms that look like they belong to Spider Man's opponent, strange strength that holds opposing lineman like teflon holds teflon. If he's a bust, it was a reasonable pick because of the potential to bust narrative. If he works out...another Getty Steal.
Useful players late are rare...Holmes late looks like a steal. Rate Scott Lemiux (sp?) according to the investment and he's also worthwhile (even though I personally don't like the kid.
But the bottom end of this draft could be remarkable...Crowder, Brown, Cartier Coughlin...That could be extraordinary when the final report card is sent home for Daddy's signature.
Look at our third round picks for ten years before Gettleman.....Jay Bromley, Holsley, Damontre Moore, Brewer, Obedah (sp?)Odighizuwa, Jerril Jerrigan, Travis Beckham, Darien Thompson, Chad Jones, Rames Barden, Webb...
Ten years and more than ten players and not one contributor.
It's not easy, this finding players late (or in the third round or later)... ..like Gates and Darius Slayton, like Love, Holmes, Peart, Ximines, Lorenzo Cartier, Brown, Coughlin and a few more.
You know how the negs will handle those arguments?.. They won't acknowledge or take them on,. Because? Because for the most part, they can't. They are need driven, they are agenda controlled. They are - again for the most part, there are honest reasons to be critical - bullies. Ever watch a bully in the school yard? He's going to pick on another kid to make his sad inner self feel better.
When I hear, as I did several times this week, Gettleman referred to as a "buffoon" I believe I'm listening to someone who is bankrupt and a bully; someone who is here because he can use hindsight to be critical and find some relief from his personal situation.
I read on this site for a year before I posted and I took so long because I didn't want to be part of that dance..And here I am...it's a futile exercise that drags us in; a false grandiosity that let's us think we matter.
Anyway...It was a nice few weeks...
Well-thought out, well-organized post.
Now, don't take too long before we hear from you again...
“If you want me to take a shit in box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I’ve got the time.”
Those three guys are what is mostly driving this low rating. Its just a weighted average rating where a player's snaps are multiplied by his rating and then divided by the total overall snaps.
Hopefully things look better next year. If you're an optimist you say: Lemieux gets time in an NFL diet and weight room and can anchor better in pass blocking, Crowder gets more time to acclimate to the game (he's a converted RB after all), Thomas heals up, and McKinney can get in a full slate of games, etc.
And the flip side is that its exciting for fans just to see all these rookies take snaps, but that doesn't always mean you can project them to be above-average NFL contributors in a few years.
Personally I feel good about the rookie class, but the key for me is gonna be the development of the three OL. Lemieux and Peart need to be eating and lifting!
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
In fact, the opposite is usually true. When PFF is referenced poorly reflecting on the Giants, you still have many posters saying they provide a useful service. Among them are some of the posters who are fanatic about analytics, which is ironic since PFF is the antithesis of analytics.
It takes subjective observations to create subjective ratings and puts it into a numerical scale to try and make it seem linear.
In fact, the opposite is usually true. When PFF is referenced poorly reflecting on the Giants, you still have many posters saying they provide a useful service. Among them are some of the posters who are fanatic about analytics, which is ironic since PFF is the antithesis of analytics.
It takes subjective observations to create subjective ratings and puts it into a numerical scale to try and make it seem linear.
accurate.
Quote:
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
Thank you Gator, well stated!
I kinda liked what I saw from those guys.
I'm excited about their future.
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
Which is why this article is useless and makes absolutely no difference to anything going forward.
Every rookie played. And Thomas was fine as the season progressed.
Who cares. Lets see how many rookies get a well earned second contract. For starters lets see how these kids look in year 2 with more practice time under their belt.
How did Andrew Thomas do against Chase Young in their two matchups?
As for the 2020 draft class, we know absolutely nothing in terms of how good they will be. Cam Brown might come in 20 pounds heavier and be unstoppable, Andrew Thomas may turn into the best LT in the entire NFL, conversely, Saquon Barkley may never be the same as he was in 2018.
This team is so young everything about them is speculative.
- PFF is garbage
- Media hates the Giants
- Can't rank a draft for 3 years
- Covid affected our guys more
Giants’ rookie class ranked near very top of NFL
- Giants front office hit it out of the park
- Can't believe posters want to get rid of Gettleman
- PFF info can be useful
- See...the plan is working
accurate.
You have to be careful with the playing time metric, because it's often just as much a reflection of the mediocrity that a rookie is displacing as it is any sort of inherent indication of accelerated development on the part of the rookie himself.
In other words, cracking the Giants' lineup is not necessarily a sign that the rookie class is good any more than it might just be that the players who previously occupied those spots were bad.
I agree. And this is just another reason why this whole ranking is largely a pointless exercise. As an example of this, here's Green Bay's writeup:
Why they're ranked here: The Green Bay Packers made a few bold decisions in the 2020 draft, specifically with their first three picks. But that daring approach didn't pay off — at least not this season — as first-round quarterback Jordan Love, second-round running back AJ Dillon and third-round tight end Josiah Deguara combined for just 122 snaps. Undrafted free agent Krys Barnes played more than any Green Bay rookie but didn't find much success, earning a 43.7 PFF grade across 421 snaps. Similar to New Orleans, the Packers' class didn't have much of an opportunity to generate more or less value than expected.
How their top pick fared: Perhaps no 2020 NFL draft selection was more scrutinized than Jordan Love at No. 26 overall. And with Aaron Rodgers performing at an MVP level this season, Love failed to see the field. As a matter of fact, Love didn't dress for a single game this year; he served as the third-string quarterback, behind Rodgers and Tim Boyle.
So we really have no idea how good that class is. But it's 10 spots higher than the Giants, even though there's no real basis for comparison.
Quote:
to be discredited by the usual suspects.
What is the obsession that some here have with shitting on the team.
GFY?
It is amazing, isn't it? It's always the same posters that do it also
Tae Crowder played a significant part in two victories as well.
Once again slapping lipstick on a pig.