I have come to appreciate over the years that there range of core views when it comes to team building, free agency, and the draft. On one side of the spectrum is the star collectors. They are all about the blue chip (and, to a lesser degree, red chip) players. They feel stars drive the team and raise those around them. They try to get as many stars on the team as possible, and the rest take care of them as best they can.
On the other side of the spectrum is the hole fillers. They believe a team is only as strong as its weakest link. So, the focus is eliminating weak points/needs on the roster/team.
Which side of the spectrum (and how far on the spectrum) do you see yourself?
I will answer my own question. I tend to be a hole filler. I look at things like a draft as a way to fill holes and fix flaws. Having realized this, I am trying to become more balanced and appreciate the need for the star talent.
I'm for a mix of both. You need elite star players at core positions, ideally QB and a WR.
You can have good players elsewhere that eliminates the below average/weak players.
Although the salary cap is an issue - too many stars and you won't be able to afford to re-sign them.
Ultimately, a mix of both is required for any sustained success.
I'm probably more in favor of filling out the roster. At a minimum, I'd like to have a legitimate star in each position group.
I think Belichick created the model for sustainable competitiveness by accumulating a few stars, a lot of interchangeable talent, and a system that was bought into by all players, especially the top dog.
@EDjohnst1981 and
@T200 illustrate one of the things I love about the NFL: There is no single "right way." The NFL is so complex that there are multiple roads to success. That's what makes the game (and I love the team-building aspect) so exciting.
Not only are the multiple roads to success, but the league is constantly evolving and changing, which means some roads (to success) close while others open.
We do not have enough picks to fill all our holes so my priority this draft is emerging with at least two clear stars at positions of need and hoping we can raise the floor a little with the other picks. I would consider a moderate trade back in R1 for eg a proven starting corner and a high enough R1 pick to get another starter.
I would not consider the QB as a star, but the most essential element on the team (in today's NFL). Once you have your QB you can fill holes. If you can't find your QB you fill the holes (lines, defense) until you get that QB. The hood ornaments, or "stars" WR and RB (all the easiest to fill) can come when they come. They are luxuries you can pick up once all else is established.
They have a #6 puck and MUST cash it in with an "impact player." Anything short of that and the draft is a failure. If an impact player is not to be had for them at puck six, then dump the pick to the highest bidder and fill the roster with BPAs; holes will be filled while others will get stronger.
That would be my intent going in.
Peace!
You need better top end talent as well as better depth to be among the best teams. Simple as that. Football is a sport in which major injuries will occur and how well your second and third string players play will often be a difference. That said, your best guys need to beat the other team's best guys consistently as well.
Not sure how anyone can see this as one versus the other.
Quote from: Philosophers on April 19, 2024, 09:30:00 AMYou need better top end talent as well as better depth to be among the best teams. Simple as that. Football is a sport in which major injuries will occur and how well your second and third string players play will often be a difference. That said, your best guys need to beat the other team's best guys consistently as well.
Not sure how anyone can see this as one versus the other.
Joe,
I think one way to see which way you lean is which type of draft trade you generally prefer.
1) Trade up to grab to grab a better prospect
2) Trade down to get more picks
In the first round, and even round 2 to a certain extent, I'm looking for impact players. After that I'm more focused on depth and filling out the roster. If you're not getting useful players on day 2 or 3 of the draft, you're going to struggle and that's been a huge problem for the Giants in recent years.
I feel like Schoen and co. swung for the fences in the later rounds last year with Hawkins and Owens, two guys who had extremely high RAS scores.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 19, 2024, 09:43:34 AMJoe,
I think one way to see which way you lean is which type of draft trade you generally prefer.
1) Trade up to grab to grab a better prospect
2) Trade down to get more picks
Rich - I agree however it should change based on the quality of the team, how it is constructed and where it's glaring hole is and the depth of the talent in that year's draft to fill that hole and of course the current and future budget of the team and contracts expiring.
Teams that are built to win may look to trade up to get their guy that fills their glaring hole. Teams in full rebuild need picks. I think the Giants are more of the latter in 2024.
Quote from: Philosophers on April 19, 2024, 10:02:55 AMRich - I agree however it should change based on the quality of the team, how it is constructed and where it's glaring hole is and the depth of the talent in that year's draft to fill that hole and of course the current and future budget of the team and contracts expiring.
Teams that are built to win may look to trade up to get their guy that fills their glaring hole. Teams in full rebuild need picks. I think the Giants are more of the latter in 2024.
That is a fair and excellent point. The state of a team's roster may push one on the spectrum in terms of seeking stars or filling holes
Star players make everyone around them better. Guys who require extra attention from the opposition make it a little easier on the guys that don't.
That of course means that the rest of the players on that side of the ball are competent and at least not a "gaping hole".
So for this team, do we believe the OL is at least adequate with the offseason additions? It was a gaping hole last year. On defense, I don't see a gaping hole right now. There is definitely areas that could use depth or upgrades, but I don't think there is any 1 position that a team can exploit and they will not have some answer for it.
I think this team needs a star WR badly. Hopefully Brian Burns is a player that can elevate the pass rush and help Thibodeaux realize his potential. That would be the star power to go along with Lawrence on defense.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 19, 2024, 09:43:34 AMJoe,
I think one way to see which way you lean is which type of draft trade you generally prefer.
1) Trade up to grab to grab a better prospect
2) Trade down to get more picks
Grab the star players. I am still haunted by Gettlemans trade down, which instead of getting Parsons or Slater, netted the Giants Toney and Neal! 🤢 so for me always grab the star ⭐️
I understand the point of the question. However, by now, we should have gained a realistic view of risk/reward/opportunity/chance as it applies to the Draft. Thus, I'd hate to think that hole-filling must exclude star-collecting. Why would we choose to handicap ourselves before we start? :-?? Still, I do get it! It's always as much about luck as it is about anything else.
Cheers!
Rich: I don't want to choose between "star collecting" and "hole-filling."
Giants are high up enough in this draft to find a star to "collect" who also fills a hole. That would be WR.
If they had Pick Two (or maybe Three), I'd also include QB in the equation... but they don't. Anyway, IMO they lack sufficient draft capital (picks this year and next) to make a decent offer for Pick Three. IMO they would have to throw in a decent to very good player (or two) as well, and we already have enough holes.
Bob