Big Blue Huddle

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 Today at 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 Today at 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 Today at 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

Quote from: TONKA56 on Today at 12:39:17 PMUgh. 

Are you booing because the Giants drafted a WR or because of which WR they drafted?

https://x.com/SharpFootball/status/1780631274333380827

Quote from: Jclayton92 on Today at 11:33:41 AMSam howell in his 1st year playing put up more production than Jones ever has, and that's sad.

You know who had the most passing attempts in the NFL last year?  None other than Sam Howell.   That is the danger of focusing too much on just raw stats, you don't see the whole picture.   You only get the whole picture by considering raw stats, quality stats, and the support a given QB receives.  Otherwise, you risk repeating the mistakes seen in the 3 blind men and the elephant parable


Three blind men come across an elephant.  The first man happens upon its leg, and concludes it's a tree. The second man bumps into its trunk, and concludes it's a snake.  The last blind man feels its tail, and concludes it's a broom.

1 Drake Maye, QB North Carolina
2 J.J. McCarthy, QB Michigan
3 Michael Penix, Jr., QB Washington
4 Jayden Daniels, QB LSU
5 Bo Nix, QB Oregon
6.Spencer Rattler, QB SouthCarolina

7 Marvin Harrison Jr., WR Ohio St
8 Malik Nabers, WR LSU
9 Rome Odunze, WR Washington

10 Trey Benson, RB Florida St

11 Ben Sinnott, TE Kansas St
12 Theo Johnson, TE Penn St

13 Joe Alt, OT Notre Dame
14 Giovanni Manu, OT Univ of British Columbia
15 Cooper Beebe, OG Kansas St
16 Jordan Morgan, OL Arizona

17 Adisa Isaac, Edge Penn State
18 Dallas Turner, Edge Alabama
19 Chop Robinson, Edge Penn State

20 Kristian Boyd, DT Northern Iowa
21 Maason Smith, DT LSU
22 Jer'Zhan (Johnny) Newton, DT Illinois
23 Pheldarius Payne, DT Virginia Tech

24 Tyrice Knight, LB UTEP

25 Chau Smith-Wade, CB Washington St
26 Max Melton, CB Rutgers
27 Andru Phillips, CB Kentucky
28 Evan Williams, DB Oregon
29 Kool-Aid McKinstry, CB Alabama
30 Chigozie Anusiem, CB Colorado St

https://x.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1780599360511951279

Quote from: Bob In PA on Today at 11:31:52 AMRich: To elaborate upon the question posed by @PSUBeirut ...

He seems to be ranking veterans where he believes they fall (best to worst) among themselves, then inserting this year's group in where he believes they will fall in the future.

OK, but IMO the chart is only useful for showing us HIS speculation of how good each rookie will be, compared to HIS view of how good each veteran has been during his career. 

Having two variables like that is unnecessary (and certainly contentious in the case of the veterans, as can be seen by the reactions of some of our members).  The variable ranking how good each vet is relative to the others adds nothing.

It's the same as saying (using his rankings, not mine), "I rank this year's QB's as follows: Williams, Maye, Daniels, McCarthy, Nix and Penix."  He could have then added something like this: "I think my favorite (Williams) will turn out better than Stroud but not as well as Lawrence."

Bob

The author's own words

The 2024 quarterback class looks as strong as we've seen in several years due to the depth of talent available.

The sextet of Caleb Williams, Jayden Daniels, Drake Maye, J.J. McCarthy, Bo Nix and Michael Penix Jr. have earned their flowers with stellar play at the collegiate level. But where would these top quarterbacks rank compared to the first-round passers in the past five classes?

I've created an integrated listing of the 18 first-round quarterback prospects since 2020, using my own grades and actual draft position. Some players haven't quite worked out as well as the league and I hoped, but that's the risk the NFL draft brings. There's rarely a sure thing.

From best to worst, here's how the 2024 NFL Draft's top six quarterback prospects stack up to the most recent draft classes since 2020.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/2024-nfl-draft-where-would-top-qbs-rank-among-recent-top-prospects/

Quote from: Painter on Today at 10:53:53 AMI do understand that this is how we may choose to occupy ourselves, but until I see one of them and his team win their Conference, i.e. play for a Lombardi, the term "prospect" will continue to be not just be a matter of someone's opinion but will also mean little or nothing to me.

Let me know if you feel that I am being too cynical.

Cheers!

Larry,

Former GM Mike Lombardi is big on these sorts of comparisons.    If a draft class is evaluated in a vacuum, there is a tendency to overinflate the QB prospects.  It helps one to get a better feel of the worth of QB prospects in this year's class.

That said, no one can say with certainty what any drafted prospect will end up doing in the NFL.

Quote from: Philosophers on Today at 10:04:38 AMI have a hard time believing he'd rank Bryce Young 12th prior to his rookie NFL season.  That feels like hindsight more.

12. BRYCE YOUNG, CAROLINA PANTHERS
I promise this isn't an overcorrection based on Bryce Young's rookie season. Despite the impressive collegiate production and highlight reel, I wasn't high on him.

Young's issues ranged from pre-snap defensive identifications to middling arm strength and late passing attempts.

Those problems were exacerbated by a terrible surrounding cast in Carolina last season. Young should improve as his situation does, and his playmaking outside of structure pushes him above his peers despite the bad start to his career.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/2024-nfl-draft-where-would-top-qbs-rank-among-recent-top-prospects/