Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: katkavage on April 18, 2024, 09:42:16 AMOkay, but unless Pratt turns out to be better than Davis Webb, the Giants still will need a quality QB going forward.

Assuming Daniel Jones was being fully truthful when he said last season's neck injury was just a routine stinger, it wouldn't surprise me if the Giants treat 2024 as another prove-it year for Daniel Jones.

Pratt, from what I have seen, is more of a low-cost solid backup QB than a future franchise starting QB.  If Pratt develops the team can same some nice money by not having to sign expensive veteran backups.

Brugler did a 7 round mock.  How would you feel about this whole for our boys in blue?


1 (6). Malik Nabers, WR, LSU
2 (47). Jaden Hicks, S, Washington State
3 (70). Trey Benson, RB, Florida State
4 (107). Michael Pratt, QB, Tulane
5 (166). Josh Newton, CB, TCU
6 (183). Justin Eboigbe, DL, Alabama

Quote from: T200 on April 18, 2024, 09:32:00 AMI think he'll get paid handsomely by another team.

He was a good soldier for us. One of the few bright spots we had.

I think Slayton is underappreciated.   As @Painter mentioned, Slayton has quietly been the leading WR for 4 of the past 5 seasons. 

I suspect Slayton would be less confirmed if this wasn't the final year of his contract.   Slayton needs to have a productive season if he wants to get a decent third contract.

Quote from: T200 on April 18, 2024, 09:19:35 AMI'm guessing it doesn't begin with the letter 'P'... 

    

Quote from: Philosophers on April 18, 2024, 09:17:17 AMHow is a strong running game not included?

I think the benefits of a strong running game are not of the same magnitude as the three Ps.  I think perhaps the biggest benefit of a strong running game is that if you have an RB who is more of a consistent yardage generator (that RB who consistently gets 4 or 5 yards), the QB will face less obvious passing situations.  This is less of a benefit if the RB is less consistent and has many carries with no (or little yardage) or, worse, negative yardage.

Another thing that one might think would be a benefit, more effective play action plays, has not stood up to study.  Analytic people have crunched the numbers and found the benefits of play action are independent of how effective the running game is.

Quote from: brownelvis54 on April 17, 2024, 03:25:51 PMWhere is Bo Nix? Maybe Ed can get his guy after all?

Bob,

The idea of grabbing a QB that falls to round two (of the top 6) is an interesting one.   My only issue is there is no way to be sure that will happen, so you can't count on it.

For the past couple of years, you have probably heard me talk about my concept of the three pillars of quarterback support-  coaching, pass protection, and receiving targets.

This draft season you might have heard me talk about how that infrastructure is a very important part of the success of a drafted QB.

A big smile came across my face when I listened to Daniel Jeremiah's latest national draft conference call.

First, he made reference to the "three Ps of QB support, playing caller, protection, and playmakers."

He also mentioned that in his discussions of teams, they are more focused on whether their team is ready (having the 3 Ps in place) to develop a quarterback if they draft one.

You can listen to the podcast here


https://open.spotify.com/episode/0OFYuhn1SH4N66R1acepfT

It's costing Slayton $350K to skip those workouts.  With all this talk of the Giants drafting a true number-one WR, I suspect Slayton is concerned about his long-term future.  His numbers could be way down this season if the new WR, Hyatt, and Robinson take the lion's share of the receiver snaps

Quote from: Bob In PA on April 17, 2024, 01:25:41 PMAbove, I've (hopefully) added value to the list by showing the round in which Brugler has each guy going.

This combo chart is a very good guide to, or indicator of, which positions Giants will look at in various rounds.,

It also (obviously) shows where in the draft they intend to emphasize defense (same for offense).

Bob

I really appreciate the idea and effort, Bob.  You added real value.

One small correction: those rounds are Brugler's player grade, not where he thinks they will be drafted.

Quote from: uconnjack8 on April 17, 2024, 02:17:05 PMAre the personality things mentioned about Nabers real?  If so, I would rather see Odunze.  If those are just BS, then I am fine with either one. 

I have heard some things about Nabers from reliable sources.  I can't share what I heard, but knowing what I know, it's hard to say if the issues are enough to pass on a valuable player.  I would need the NFL and Giants background check, and I would need to speak to the man firsthand to really say if the concerns raised are enough to pass on him in the draft.

Quote from: Ed Vette on April 17, 2024, 01:58:44 PMYou must love being patronized. lol

Ed,

You are being rather psychologically rigid.  I value old sayings and parables quite a bit. I consider analogies valuable tools. I use them all the time to help me make decisions and to see and interpret the world.  It's a shame you wouldn't allow me the freedom to follow my beliefs and values.   Then again, I seriously doubt people who know and respect me would have seen things in the worst possible light, as you have done.  Most would have simply would have seen me being me, with no slight or disrespect intended.

On a slightly related topic, I stumbled across this passage from Bill Walsh's book explaining team dynamics

If you read the long ESPN article (the link is in my Bill Belichick post from today) it seems a big part of the reason Belichick didn't get another HC job is that the league is moving away from the powerful head coach model (yet the two SB teams are both teams with powerful HCs)

One thing I have noticed since Bowen replaced Martindale as the new DC is that both Daboll and Henderson talked about Bowen being a good teammate.  This tracks with the Giant's accusations that Martindale didn't seek out input from his entire staff but only his trusted lieutenants.

These two things got me thinking.  Which model is the more successful one?   Are teams better off with a management style that is all about collaborations and agreement (sort of management by committee) or are teams better served with one or two powerful voices in the room?

My take is that the collaborative approach is sort of like buying many different types of stocks (diversify your portfolio) to protect from downturns.  The shortcoming to that approach is you tend to mute the upside a bit for the same reason you are protecting your downside.

In other words, if you get the right one or two voices, a team will enjoy higher highs (and risk lower lows) than if they adopt the collaborative approach, which serves as a moderating influence for both good and bad.

I am curious what others think.

https://x.com/AlbertBreer/status/1780258694531543239