we hear a lot of discussion of drafting for bpa/need but a concept i think doesn't get enough discussion is drafting to the strength of the draft. in fact more often we hear "you can wait on position x because it's so deep".
drafting from a strong relative position group does a few things:
a) in the 'fish where the fish are' sense you have higher odds of success when selecting from a more fertile ground in the first place.
b) you get a player who may in another year go higher because there are just more players their same or better quality pushing them down past teams who passed on them without that specific.
c) when you are on the clock (or building board) you can have a real competitive discussion in terms of which guys are better at which things, and since you have more options you can get a chance to pick the best of multiple good options as opposed to picking a 'last guy left' in a tier. i could be misremembering but when they picked jeff hatch i think accorsi said they thought he was the last guy left in the draft with a chance to play LT, and as we learned quickly there's a reason for that.
last year was considered a strong year for TE + EDGE, and the giants benefited with probably their 2 best picks from those positions. When they selected Thibs a few were obviously already off the board but they were able to get a really quality player who other years may have been edge1, and when they decided to take him they were able to select him confidently in comparison to guys like jermaine johnson and george karlaftis who were quality players in their own right, not to mention being able to measure him up relative to the players who went ahead of him.
a few years ago when they took Andrew Thomas there were the 3 other top OL prospects and the same concept applied. out of 4 high quality players they picked the one that check the most boxes and it has proven to have been a very good pick.
so what does that translate to this year? cb and edge/dl look to me like the 2 positions that bode well conceptually in round 1. last year 8 CBs went in the first 2 rounds and Sy has about 13 this year graded 79 or higher. There are 8 in the consensus top 38 (per mock database) and 12 in the top 64. So at pick #25 there should be some real good corners available who in other years may have been one of the first few off the board. forbes, banks, ringo, brents, rush, smith, turner could all fit that profile, and it's not impossible that all of them could be on the board giving them a chance to pick their favorite of numerous quality options.
Edge/DL is similar. Will Anderson or Jalen carter may have been the 1st overall pick in last year's very strong class. Wilson, Smith, Van Ness, Murphy, McDonald, white, kancey etc could put more edges in this year's first round than last year's. There are 11 edges in the consensus top 53. just like cb it's possible there are multiple guys from that group on the board for the nyg to choose from at #25.
RB and TE are also considered very strong but as less premium positions i think that bodes well to set those positions up as the ones you want to be picking from early on day 3.
conversely while WR & C are big team needs and while neither looks like a particularly weak class, at #25 you may not have many choices. There are 4 WRs in the consensus top 26 so you may be down to the last WR with close to a first round grade and what if that player is a first round quality player but not the best fit for the offense? there are 12 in the consensus top 85 though and most years it proves possible to find quality receivers outside round 1 just like interior ol. "value lining up with need" has become a ubiquitous phrase but if you think about it value is most likely to be from the position groups that have the most good players especially if they happen to be higher value positions.
In that case, certainly, they will be looking for the best CB/S. DT. or DL available.
The most sensible pick is to take the player with the greatest impact. If the Giants have determined what helps the team the most is WR, then that is what they will try to do. If it's CB/S, then that will be their 1st rounder. If it's DT or even Edge, then that will be their best choice if any of those in their highest tier level is still available.
If as you say there is a limited pool of top WRs available, and one of those four players is unlikely to fall to them, then the Giants have to decide if that player they covet is important enough to move up in the draft or stay the course, or even move down.
I would expect the Giants to have all the scenarios mapped out and their best course of action in each case. Decisions made in panic mode seldom work out. Last year when Sauce Gardner was taken, there was no hesitation in making their selection. We have a real GM these days who knows what to do!
no disagreement here if you believe in a player's value (including positional value) and need lines up you take them.
i guess the core of the premise is that the value is usually likelier to line up from deeper position groups (obviously, they just have more good players). so if you are strategizing your draft before you know who is on the clock, that's the safest strategy to maintain value and avoid reaching, and it also has some ancillary benefits of comparison set.
if a player you love at a position of need falls despite that being a thinner position group then you shift strategy. but id imagine that's a less frequent outcome if you are picking at the bottom of a round.
i think punditry/reality have gotten closer together over the years, mostly by virtue of some smarter pundits out there and a lot more calories burned analyzing the draft than the days of just buschbaum/kiper. jeremiah had travon walker high before anyone last year.
from the team side the economics are clearer now than they used to be that there's more acceptance of positional value, which is why so many db's, edges, wrs, ots get ranked high and paid big with fewer rbs, lbs, s's, iols.
the past cliche of "we took the best guy on the board" has morphed into "we thought value and need lined up" bc BPA is a lot more complicated then rankings once you factor in positional value and scheme fits. deeper position groups offer more choices to find those best fits (especially if it's a premium position). there's a little bit of greater fool theory involved also, that more teams ahead of you will reach for a bigger need at a thin position than stay disciplined to take a better player at a lesser position of need, which would push down a better player from a deeper group.
right - and part of doing that is not putting yourself in the desperate position of hoping you get lucky at a thin position in the draft.
i suspect that's part of why we saw them spend the way they did in FA. they added a LB, they traded a lower pick for waller, resigned slayton, and added campbell. added 1 interior DL and maybe still talking to another.
WR is still a big need but all they did in FA took them off the hot seat of needing to draft a WR in the first round (or second latest).
on the flip side essentially $0 spent at edge/db so far though.
There one big problem - Just because the draft may be deep (at a certain position), the question that begs asking is how many players can be identified in tier One, Two, etc.
Sometimes there's just one player at tier one and the difference in quality to tier two is substantial (and much more pronounced toe the following tiers.
This situation caused Old Fox Andy Reid, recognizing Patrick Mahomes as a generational talent. In 2917, Deshaun Watson was in first tier with Mahomes, but Reid understood the difference; that's why he traded two first round picks (and a third) to move up 17 picks (27th to 10th) to grab Mahomes.
If a class is truly deep and you're using a modified BPA approach (BPA modified by need) you'll end up drafting from the deep positions later in the draft because they will be the BPAs.
There one big problem - Just because the draft may be deep (at a certain position), the question that begs asking is how many players can be identified in tier One, Two, etc.
Sometimes there's just one player at tier one and the difference in quality to tier two is substantial (and much more pronounced toe the following tiers.
This situation caused Old Fox Andy Reid, recognizing Patrick Mahomes as a generational talent. In 2917, Deshaun Watson was in first tier with Mahomes, but Reid understood the difference; that's why he traded two first round picks (and a third) to move up 17 picks (27th to 10th) to grab Mahomes.
qbs are always going to be outliers in 'draft strategy'. any team would give up their entire draft if they it meant they were getting an andrew luck type, but the team with the 1oa pick would never trade it.
i actually think this strategy almost specifically doesn't work with QBs because most of the "great QB classes" we've seen recently were way overhyped, flopped, and inversely some bad QB classes we've seen have mahomes+watson in them fall.
this is correct - however a point i probably didnt articulate well in the op, draft strategy doesnt start when you are on the clock, it starts with UFA. you set yourself up for the draft by deciding which needs you want to invest in ahead of time.
waller, slayton, campbell, barkley cost 30m+ aav.
on defense they basically added okereke but let love go.
like i said if a WR they love ends up there at 25 i think they would pick them whether or not they are last in a tier just like thibs last year. but i think strategically they are probably expecting a defensive player just based on the #'s of premium defensive prospects on their board vs offensive.
btw last year im a believer that they loved sauce and he would have been their pick. i think an insider has said he was #1 on their entire board. but corner was thinner at the top last year so he got picked and they ended up picking from the deeper position. had sauce fallen that would have been the 100% right pick but from schoen's pre-draft press conference he seemed to know that it was unlikely he'd fall to them.
You don't need to be 100% committed to gaming the draft but if you're not doing to some capacity and just being completely myopic every round, you're going to make more mistakes when you veiw things through hindsight. They should be gaming it some capacity.
If a class is truly deep and you're using a modified BPA approach (BPA modified by need) you'll end up drafting from the deep positions later in the draft because they will be the BPAs.
because the 5 corners aren't likely to be there in round 2 so then you are dropping down a tier when you take one.
and if 1 miraculously falls you are getting whichever one other teams liked least, not whichever one you like best. and with scheme fits that's a big deal even if you graded all 5 of the players exactly the same.
so to steal from your example the 5 cbs on a tier vs 1 de on that same tier is still a binary choice if they are on the same tier. it's mostly illusion that you might be able to have your cake and eat it too. so in that case you just take the best player who fits your scheme the best.
my point is the odds are likelier that you will find the player who fits best from among a set of 5 choices vs 1 player.
The Giants were awful in run defense last year giving up 145/game. Against division opponents it was over 160.
They need a 5T imv who can give you some rush skills.
If they improve on it significantly is changes the dynamic of the other teams pass efficiency forcing poorer down/distance. This improves your secondary and just look at the percentages is success rates when you are 3rd and 3/5 versus 9/10 as a example.
Can a outstanding corner help? Absolutely. But don't force it in a deep draft as you note and maybe you can pick one up in round 2/3 after adding a impact guy on your fronts.
jmo but i think some people answer the questions you pose above in a way that avoids deep positions early and specifically targets thin ones and i think that's a form of 'shopping hungry'. thats where i think there's a strategic mistake.
last year the corner class was thinner up top so you had teams trading up for players like kair elam, trent mcduffie on the back end of round 1. the nyg almost took roger mccreary early at pick #36 who was apparently the last player in that tier bc once he got picked they traded back. imo against this year's corner class he's an inferior prospect to the cluster of choices they may get at #25 (it's sy's opinion too as he'd be tied with 3 others as the 9th best cb grade in the class where last year he was 6th best).
ten took mccreary 1 pick ahead of them and then they turned that pick into robinson, belton, mcfadden - and im pretty sure robinson alone was a better pick in the first place.
The Giants were awful in run defense last year giving up 145/game. Against division opponents it was over 160.
They need a 5T imv who can give you some rush skills.
If they improve on it significantly is changes the dynamic of the other teams pass efficiency forcing poorer down/distance. This improves your secondary and just look at the percentages is success rates when you are 3rd and 3/5 versus 9/10 as a example.
Can a outstanding corner help? Absolutely. But don't force it in a deep draft as you note and maybe you can pick one up in round 2/3 after adding a impact guy on your fronts.
dl/edge and corner are both exceptionally deep at the top in this class. forcing a pick is the opposite of the point, being statistically less likely to force a pick by targeting to pick from deeper, statistically more likely to be available, positions is the point.
if randy moss falls to you at pick #25 that's much easier to adjust to than hoping or expecting a randy moss to fall to #25.
We tend to be focused on the first round but my response was regarding the draft as a whole. From everything I've read and heard, NFL teams usually have 15-20 first round grades in each draft. Not all boards align, so you're hoping that one of your first round grades falls to you at 25. If it doesn't? Say the draft runs bad for you and you're left with a huge tier of Day 2 graded players? Then maybe start looking at some deeper game theory and strategy in terms of how you should approach that pick.
I'm not advocating for it, but Colin seems pretty convinced it is a strong possibility.
I'm not advocating for it, but Colin seems pretty convinced it is a strong possibility.
He certainly could. He also could see what has happened up in Buffalo for two straight years getting beat on the fronts and takes a lesson from that and fortifies the Giants here (much more so on the DL). Be interesting to see.
I'm not advocating for it, but Colin seems pretty convinced it is a strong possibility.
I could see it for sure. If there is an overwhelming offseason initiative to improve Daniel Jones' weapons and there's only 2-4 WRs they have a round 1 grade on, they could definitely move up to hit that need. Especially when you factor in how lean the free agent options were and the fact that literally every team between 18-24 could take a WR with a few of them having it as a primary need as well.
Not my preference really unless it's a very small move for JSN but if it is their primary offseason initiative, it could certainly happen with how everything is lining up here.
i doubt it happens, but all 3 of those guys have legitimate claims to being top 10 picks so if the class being strong pushes one of them down i think they could move up.
porter doesn't get talked about a ton and usually lands in the teens of most mocks, but the guy has basically tested as a carbon copy of sauce.
This.
The goal should be to get more quality players in the draft than the rest of the league across all of your picks. That’s what gives you a competitive advantage. You have a better chance of doing that by picking a deep position later in the draft vs “drafting to the strength” early and going another direction later.
Reese drafted to “the strength of the draft” in 2017 when he took Evan Engram in the 1st round in a TE rich draft. George Kittle was drafted 4 rounds later.
Quote:
at a couple positions you can wait until later to take one of those. If a highly graded player at another position is available at your pick(if he meets the "positional value" metric) you would take him and get your CB/WR later.
This.
The goal should be to get more quality players in the draft than the rest of the league across all of your picks. That’s what gives you a competitive advantage. You have a better chance of doing that by picking a deep position later in the draft vs “drafting to the strength” early and going another direction later.
Reese drafted to “the strength of the draft” in 2017 when he took Evan Engram in the 1st round in a TE rich draft. George Kittle was drafted 4 rounds later.
the strength of that draft was edge and corner.
14 players from that first round made pro bowls, 4 of them edges and 3 of them cbs. reese passed on 1 of each (tredavious white and tj watt) and instead reached for a non-premium position.
engram was 1 of the 14 who made the pro bowl, and was actually the only wr/te from that first round to do so. 3 tight ends getting selected 19, 23 and 29 was hardly the 'strength of that draft'.
Quote:
In comment 16082952 section125 said:
Quote:
at a couple positions you can wait until later to take one of those. If a highly graded player at another position is available at your pick(if he meets the "positional value" metric) you would take him and get your CB/WR later.
This.
The goal should be to get more quality players in the draft than the rest of the league across all of your picks. That’s what gives you a competitive advantage. You have a better chance of doing that by picking a deep position later in the draft vs “drafting to the strength” early and going another direction later.
Reese drafted to “the strength of the draft” in 2017 when he took Evan Engram in the 1st round in a TE rich draft. George Kittle was drafted 4 rounds later.
the strength of that draft was edge and corner.
14 players from that first round made pro bowls, 4 of them edges and 3 of them cbs. reese passed on 1 of each (tredavious white and tj watt) and instead reached for a non-premium position.
engram was 1 of the 14 who made the pro bowl, and was actually the only wr/te from that first round to do so. 3 tight ends getting selected 19, 23 and 29 was hardly the 'strength of that draft'.
Leading into that draft there was a lot of best TE class ever commentary. You’re using the benefit of hindsight on ‘17 that you don’t have right now when pontificating on the ‘23 draft.
If CB is strong you wait until the 3rd or 4th round. You don’t blow your load in the 1st then put yourself in an awkward spot when CB value is staring at you much later in the draft.
5 corners went in the 2017 first round.
8/14 of them went before the first TE came off the board.
none of them stepped on the field at the time they were selected so that's hardly hindsight, just reality.
whatever headlines you remember here's a consensus pre-draft ranking and unsurprisingly just as the nfl draft boards showed there were more of each of those positions in the top 32 rankings than TEs that year. i count 11 cb/edges and just 2 tes in the top 32.
you are remembering/citing some click bait headline you remember, not reality.
https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/big-boards/2017/consensus-big-board-2017 - ( New Window )