For the past 4 Drafts (2018 - 2021) in which Dave Gettleman has served as General Manager, the Giants have selected 33 players. The rest of the NFL (31 teams) has selected 992 players. Below is a comparison of the distribution of these draft picks by position, comparing the Giants vs all other NFL teams.
There is no "right" or "wrong" here, but the degree to which the Giants have selected Secondary players and Linebackers is way higher than the rest of the NFL. At the other end of the spectrum, the Giants are way lower in selecting Wide Receivers and Tight Ends.
Secondary**
Giants 27.3%
NFL 20.0%
Linebacker
Giants 24.2%
NFL 13.0%
Defensive Line
Giants 15.2%
NFL 16.8%
Offensive Line
Giants 15.2%
NFL 16.7%
Quarterback
Giants 6.1%
NFL 4.5%
Running Back
Giants 6.1%
NFL 8.2%
Wide Receiver
Giants 6.1%
NFL 13.2%
Kickers/Punters/LS
Giants 0%
NFL 2.2%
Tight End
Giants 0%
NFL 5.3%
**To Be Read: 27.3% of the players drafted by the NYG have been in the secondary compared with 20% for the other 31 NFL teams.
Definitely 33 is a small sample, and I haven't tested for statistical significance, but a few of these differences are notable.
On a practical note, for example, 29 NFL teams have drafted a TE since 2018. The Giants are one of 3 teams that have not. And coincidentally (or not), this has been a problematical position for the Giants.
I have no doubts I would have preferred to see the GM here spent more picks on other positions besides corner, but got behind the picks because what choice do I have. I ain’t drafting a corner unless you can guarantee me the guy is a flat out stud. And those guys are so rare these days.
In rank order, here is each team's percentage of Linebackers chosen over the past four Drafts. Across all NFL teams, the average is 13.0%. The Giants are at 27.3%, which is a very dramatic skew:
New York Giants 27.3%
Indianapolis Colts 21.6%
Los Angeles Rams 21.6%
Tennessee Titans 20.8%
Cleveland Browns 19.4%
Los Angeles Chargers 17.2%
Seattle Seahawks 17.2%
Kansas City Chiefs 16.7%
Green Bay Packers 16.2%
New England Patriots 16.2%
Cincinnati Bengals 15.8%
Dallas Cowboys 14.3%
Pittsburgh Steelers 14.3%
Denver Broncos 13.9%
Philadelphia Eagles 13.8%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.8%
New Orleans Saints 13.6%
Miami Dolphins 12.5%
Carolina Panthers 12.1%
Jacksonville Jaguars 11.4%
Washington Football Team 11.1%
Arizona Cardinals 10.0%
Detroit Lions 9.7%
Raiders 9.4%
Minnesota Vikings 8.7%
Houston Texans 8.0%
Baltimore Ravens 7.9%
Chicago Bears 7.7%
Atlanta Falcons 7.1%
San Francisco 49ers 6.9%
Buffalo Bills 6.5%
New York Jets 6.5%
Quote:
With 33 Giants picks, random fluctuations will be around 15% so I doubt any of the differences are significant.
Definitely 33 is a small sample, and I haven't tested for statistical significance, but a few of these differences are notable.
On a practical note, for example, 29 NFL teams have drafted a TE since 2018. The Giants are one of 3 teams that have not. And coincidentally (or not), this has been a problematical position for the Giants.
The giants drafted evan engram in the 1st round in 2017. He is still on his rookie contract (5th year option). Most teams usually only carry 3 TE's on the roster and we have supplemented the backups with the likes of kaden smith, Ellison, Toilolo and such. Not all that surprising.
Exactly. I can’t remember the last time a premium pick was invested in a non-edge LB
Interesting approach! If I can fool around with my spreadsheet and not take up too much time, maybe I can give this a try.
Here are two sets of data for the TE position. I've now included the 2017 Draft to account for the Giants selecting Evan Engram (even though he was not a Gettleman selection.)
I've ranked the data two ways. The first is my original approach in which I look at a team's selection of TEs relative to their total selections. As you can see, the Giants are still near the bottom (29th):
Houston Texans 12.5%
Denver Broncos 9.1%
Miami Dolphins 7.7%
Detroit Lions 7.5%
New York Jets 7.5%
San Francisco 49ers 7.5%
Jacksonville Jaguars 7.1%
New England Patriots 7.0%
Seattle Seahawks 7.0%
Minnesota Vikings 6.9%
New Orleans Saints 6.9%
Chicago Bears 6.5%
Atlanta Falcons 5.9%
Buffalo Bills 5.4%
Pittsburgh Steelers 5.1%
Carolina Panthers 5.0%
Cleveland Browns 4.9%
Baltimore Ravens 4.4%
Los Angeles Rams 4.4%
Green Bay Packers 4.3%
Washington 4.3%
Cincinnati Bengals 4.1%
Kansas City Chiefs 3.2%
Tennessee Titans 3.0%
Los Angeles Chargers 2.8%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2.8%
Philadelphia Eagles 2.7%
Arizona Cardinals 2.6%
New York Giants 2.5%
Raiders 2.4%
Dallas Cowboys 2.3%
Indianapolis Colts 2.2%
The second approach is based on something you suggested. I've awarded 7 points for a TE selected in Round One; 6 points Round Two; 5 points Round Three; etc. You can see that the Giants have 7 points for the only TE they've selected (Engram) which ranks them 19th based on your methodology:
Denver Broncos 17
Houston Texans 15
Miami Dolphins 15
Minnesota Vikings 14
Baltimore Ravens 12
Chicago Bears 12
Detroit Lions 12
Cleveland Browns 11
New England Patriots 11
New York Jets 11
Atlanta Falcons 10
Green Bay Packers 10
Jacksonville Jaguars 10
Los Angeles Rams 10
Carolina Panthers 9
Pittsburgh Steelers 9
Seattle Seahawks 9
Cincinnati Bengals 7
New York Giants 7
San Francisco 49ers 7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 7
Washington Football Team 7
Buffalo Bills 6
New Orleans Saints 6
Philadelphia Eagles 6
Los Angeles Chargers 5
Tennessee Titans 5
Dallas Cowboys 4
Indianapolis Colts 4
Oakland Raiders 4
Kansas City Chiefs 3
Arizona Cardinals 1
My take-away from all this: The Giants need to Draft a 2-way difference maker at TE. We don't have one and we haven't drafted one since Jeremy Shockey
I agree that this would be more illustrative with at least the weight of the round factored in. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that cluster drafting LBs and secondary in the late rounds is often a way to bolster special teams while hoping that one or two of the picks turn into genuine contributors on defense.
In DG's case, he has chosen defensive backs at the top, middle, and bottom of the draft, so that overindex is probably valid. But the overindex on LBs seems misleading. DG has drafted a lot of LBs, but none of them have been high or even mid-round picks (depending on how you're classifying edge defenders, which I'd also suggest should be broken out as their own category for this sort of analysis).
Quote:
With 33 Giants picks, random fluctuations will be around 15% so I doubt any of the differences are significant.
In rank order, here is each team's percentage of Linebackers chosen over the past four Drafts. Across all NFL teams, the average is 13.0%. The Giants are at 27.3%, which is a very dramatic skew:
New York Giants 27.3%
Indianapolis Colts 21.6%
Los Angeles Rams 21.6%
Tennessee Titans 20.8%
Cleveland Browns 19.4%
Los Angeles Chargers 17.2%
Seattle Seahawks 17.2%
Kansas City Chiefs 16.7%
Green Bay Packers 16.2%
New England Patriots 16.2%
Cincinnati Bengals 15.8%
Dallas Cowboys 14.3%
Pittsburgh Steelers 14.3%
Denver Broncos 13.9%
Philadelphia Eagles 13.8%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.8%
New Orleans Saints 13.6%
Miami Dolphins 12.5%
Carolina Panthers 12.1%
Jacksonville Jaguars 11.4%
Washington Football Team 11.1%
Arizona Cardinals 10.0%
Detroit Lions 9.7%
Raiders 9.4%
Minnesota Vikings 8.7%
Houston Texans 8.0%
Baltimore Ravens 7.9%
Chicago Bears 7.7%
Atlanta Falcons 7.1%
San Francisco 49ers 6.9%
Buffalo Bills 6.5%
New York Jets 6.5%
As I noted in my last post, if you're not breaking out EDGE separately from LB and DL, you're begging for some unnecessary noise in your data, particularly if you're making assumptions on behalf of the data with regard to which category to assign those EDGE players.
And if you're not looking at the round of the selection, I think you're also skewing the data inadvertently. For example, the Cowboys are middle of the pack here, but just drafted Micah Parsons in the 1st round, and he could potentially be a mainstay in their defense for years. In doing so, they also passed on the opportunity to reload their aging OL with one of the remaining top prospects at that moment. So there was a strong investment in LB, and an opportunity cost at another position. That's much more significant, IMO, than drafting roster fodder in the late rounds where it's highly unlikely that any of the players you select will unseat an incumbent, so you're just filling in gaps on your roster at that point.
Kinda strange, the dearth of talented linebackers (including edges) the Giants have drafted, especially considering the scheme the Giants run is reliant on linebackers to play the run, cover, and rush the passer.
Kinda strange, the dearth of talented linebackers (including edges) the Giants have drafted, especially considering the scheme the Giants run is reliant on linebackers to play the run, cover, and rush the passer.
That's six players across four drafts, an average of 1.5 edge prospects per draft. Given the average of eight picks per draft, that's almost 19% of your draft resources going to edge. And it's a fairly even split between the top half of the draft (Carter, Ximines, Ojulari) and the bottom half (Brown, Coughlin, Smith), so it's not just late round fliers being picked as lottery tickets.
The Giants haven't made a truly premium investment in an edge rusher since JPP, but also had success in the same era with 2nd and 3rd round picks (Strahan, Osi, Tuck). Kiwi was a 1st rounder, but 32nd overall.
This is a team that has been defined (on some level) by their pass rush in every championship season. It's odd that more than a decade has passed since an edge rusher was chosen in the 1st round.
Quote:
In comment 15429425 Mike in Boston said:
Quote:
With 33 Giants picks, random fluctuations will be around 15% so I doubt any of the differences are significant.
In rank order, here is each team's percentage of Linebackers chosen over the past four Drafts. Across all NFL teams, the average is 13.0%. The Giants are at 27.3%, which is a very dramatic skew:
New York Giants 27.3%
Indianapolis Colts 21.6%
Los Angeles Rams 21.6%
Tennessee Titans 20.8%
Cleveland Browns 19.4%
Los Angeles Chargers 17.2%
Seattle Seahawks 17.2%
Kansas City Chiefs 16.7%
Green Bay Packers 16.2%
New England Patriots 16.2%
Cincinnati Bengals 15.8%
Dallas Cowboys 14.3%
Pittsburgh Steelers 14.3%
Denver Broncos 13.9%
Philadelphia Eagles 13.8%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.8%
New Orleans Saints 13.6%
Miami Dolphins 12.5%
Carolina Panthers 12.1%
Jacksonville Jaguars 11.4%
Washington Football Team 11.1%
Arizona Cardinals 10.0%
Detroit Lions 9.7%
Raiders 9.4%
Minnesota Vikings 8.7%
Houston Texans 8.0%
Baltimore Ravens 7.9%
Chicago Bears 7.7%
Atlanta Falcons 7.1%
San Francisco 49ers 6.9%
Buffalo Bills 6.5%
New York Jets 6.5%
As I noted in my last post, if you're not breaking out EDGE separately from LB and DL, you're begging for some unnecessary noise in your data, particularly if you're making assumptions on behalf of the data with regard to which category to assign those EDGE players.
And if you're not looking at the round of the selection, I think you're also skewing the data inadvertently. For example, the Cowboys are middle of the pack here, but just drafted Micah Parsons in the 1st round, and he could potentially be a mainstay in their defense for years. In doing so, they also passed on the opportunity to reload their aging OL with one of the remaining top prospects at that moment. So there was a strong investment in LB, and an opportunity cost at another position. That's much more significant, IMO, than drafting roster fodder in the late rounds where it's highly unlikely that any of the players you select will unseat an incumbent, so you're just filling in gaps on your roster at that point.
Problem regarding EDGE is that most of the databases out there are not explicit and/or consistent with this designation. Some of the LBers we've drafted have served as EDGE guys, while others have been "true" LBers. Same with all the other 31 NFL teams, but it would take a decade (and infinite knoweldge) to code all this up correctly!
My take from what I know about the Giants and looking at the data:
(1) Gettleman has placed way too much emphasis on drafting secondary players, and when you consider all the FAs he's brought in for this unit, he has spent like a drunken sailor in port. He gets an "F" for the secondary in terms of his total return for the resources allocated;
(2) Gettleman has not found a difference-maker in the Draft at LBer, although maybe Ojulari (EDGE) becomes one. He bought Blake Martinez, who is very good, but he swung-and-missed with two 3rd Rounders: Lorenzo Carter and Oshane Ximines. I give Gettleman a C- at the LBer position.
The reason Gettleman will be "retired" at the end of this season is because he failed to build an offensive line; failed to build a significant pass rush; and, made some crazy ass decisions in free agency such as a $62 Million contract for Nate Solder. Who on BBI will miss Dave Gettleman when he's finally retired?
that would obviously be a massive amount of time/effort so im not suggesting someone do it but it would be a better apples to apples of investment.
also side note - investing in DBs as a strategy is pretty en vogue so on the face I don't think that was the wrong thing to do. Baker was obviously just a bad pick. McKinney is playing better but jury is still out. If you are going to allocate resources like the Pats and Ravens though you need to hit on stars at those positions like Humphrey and JC Jackson.
that would obviously be a massive amount of time/effort so im not suggesting someone do it but it would be a better apples to apples of investment.
also side note - investing in DBs as a strategy is pretty en vogue so on the face I don't think that was the wrong thing to do. Baker was obviously just a bad pick. McKinney is playing better but jury is still out. If you are going to allocate resources like the Pats and Ravens though you need to hit on stars at those positions like Humphrey and JC Jackson.
Please see my 9:58am post which is more or less what you're suggesting... at least for the TE position.
This really tells you nothing. Without knowing what was on the roster already and what was added in FA, and without weight of draft position.
Quote:
In comment 15429574 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 15429425 Mike in Boston said:
Quote:
With 33 Giants picks, random fluctuations will be around 15% so I doubt any of the differences are significant.
In rank order, here is each team's percentage of Linebackers chosen over the past four Drafts. Across all NFL teams, the average is 13.0%. The Giants are at 27.3%, which is a very dramatic skew:
New York Giants 27.3%
Indianapolis Colts 21.6%
Los Angeles Rams 21.6%
Tennessee Titans 20.8%
Cleveland Browns 19.4%
Los Angeles Chargers 17.2%
Seattle Seahawks 17.2%
Kansas City Chiefs 16.7%
Green Bay Packers 16.2%
New England Patriots 16.2%
Cincinnati Bengals 15.8%
Dallas Cowboys 14.3%
Pittsburgh Steelers 14.3%
Denver Broncos 13.9%
Philadelphia Eagles 13.8%
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.8%
New Orleans Saints 13.6%
Miami Dolphins 12.5%
Carolina Panthers 12.1%
Jacksonville Jaguars 11.4%
Washington Football Team 11.1%
Arizona Cardinals 10.0%
Detroit Lions 9.7%
Raiders 9.4%
Minnesota Vikings 8.7%
Houston Texans 8.0%
Baltimore Ravens 7.9%
Chicago Bears 7.7%
Atlanta Falcons 7.1%
San Francisco 49ers 6.9%
Buffalo Bills 6.5%
New York Jets 6.5%
As I noted in my last post, if you're not breaking out EDGE separately from LB and DL, you're begging for some unnecessary noise in your data, particularly if you're making assumptions on behalf of the data with regard to which category to assign those EDGE players.
And if you're not looking at the round of the selection, I think you're also skewing the data inadvertently. For example, the Cowboys are middle of the pack here, but just drafted Micah Parsons in the 1st round, and he could potentially be a mainstay in their defense for years. In doing so, they also passed on the opportunity to reload their aging OL with one of the remaining top prospects at that moment. So there was a strong investment in LB, and an opportunity cost at another position. That's much more significant, IMO, than drafting roster fodder in the late rounds where it's highly unlikely that any of the players you select will unseat an incumbent, so you're just filling in gaps on your roster at that point.
Problem regarding EDGE is that most of the databases out there are not explicit and/or consistent with this designation. Some of the LBers we've drafted have served as EDGE guys, while others have been "true" LBers. Same with all the other 31 NFL teams, but it would take a decade (and infinite knoweldge) to code all this up correctly!
My take from what I know about the Giants and looking at the data:
(1) Gettleman has placed way too much emphasis on drafting secondary players, and when you consider all the FAs he's brought in for this unit, he has spent like a drunken sailor in port. He gets an "F" for the secondary in terms of his total return for the resources allocated;
(2) Gettleman has not found a difference-maker in the Draft at LBer, although maybe Ojulari (EDGE) becomes one. He bought Blake Martinez, who is very good, but he swung-and-missed with two 3rd Rounders: Lorenzo Carter and Oshane Ximines. I give Gettleman a C- at the LBer position.
But that still speaks to an inherent flaw with the data. Most teams play multiple fronts - the Giants are not leading edge on this - which means that there are players in 34 base teams that are showing up as LB in your data and players in 43 base teams that are showing up as DL in your data, and they're playing the exact same role. It's not universal by any stretch, but there's definitely enough overlap that it skews your analysis beyond credibility.
Edge is recognized as its own position from a scouting and drafting standpoint now; it should also be reflected in any analysis. There will still be some data gaps by doing so, but it would still be more consistent with current NFL roster construction.
Even using your own examples, if we were a 43 base team and drafted those same guys (remember, Strahan and Osi played at the same weights as these guys as 4-3 DEs), you'd be comparing them against DL, not LB. But they're the same players. That's why you have to separate edge into its own category, IMO.