In good periods, Giants excel at this

[Philosophers]

Developing players.  Look at some of their runs.  They get say 5th rounders or UDFAs to be say 60th percentile at their position as a stater.  Look at Bill Neil as NT or Billy Ard or David Diehl.  Just darn solid players.

Also their 2nd-3rd rounders become starring players.  Guys like Mark Collins and so many others.

What's the formula?  A non nonsense coach like Parcells and Coughlin who set high consistent bars to meet, demanded it and also out together great staffs of coaches who teach and develop talent.

Is that what we are missing?

We may develop 1 a bit now then fail on 10 others.

[MightyGiants]

Developing players.  Look at some of their runs.  They get say 5th rounders or UDFAs to be say 60th percentile at their position as a stater.  Look at Bill Neil as NT or Billy Ard or David Diehl.  Just darn solid players.

Also their 2nd-3rd rounders become starring players.  Guys like Mark Collins and so many others.

What's the formula?  A non nonsense coach like Parcells and Coughlin who set high consistent bars to meet, demanded it and also out together great staffs of coaches who teach and develop talent.

Is that what we are missing?

We may develop 1 a bit now then fail on 10 others.

I think there are a few factors involved when it comes to drafting successful day 3 picks:

1)  Good communication and agreement between the coaching staff and the front office/scouting staff

2)  A good drafting strategy for day 3 picks.  I have seen far too many picks wasted on gambles that didn't pay off, or sometimes it just seems like the team is throwing away late picks, hoping to fill a need.

3)  A good coaching staff that develops the talent they are given

4)  The scouting department doesn't focus too much of their time and energy on day one and two picks.  We see that with the Rams if you focus more of your energy on day three scouting, you can find talent even in the later rounds.  If a team spends too much time focused on day one and two, day three suffers.

[DaveBrown74]

I think there are a few factors involved when it comes to drafting successful day 3 picks:

1)  Good communication and agreement between the coaching staff and the front office/scouting staff

2)  A good drafting strategy for day 3 picks.  I have seen far too many picks wasted on gambles that didn't pay off, or sometimes it just seems like the team is throwing away late picks, hoping to fill a need.

3)  A good coaching staff that develops the talent they are given

4)  The scouting department doesn't focus too much of their time and energy on day one and two picks.  We see that with the Rams if you focus more of your energy on day three scouting, you can find talent even in the later rounds.  If a team spends too much time focused on day one and two, day three suffers.

These are all very good points.

I think number four is a big one that doesn't get talked about enough. The power that being a good day three drafting team unlocks is immense. It enables you to more comfortably part with premium picks to bring in top players if you know you have an elite level evaluation and development process that will consistently allow you to find good to very good players on day three.

I would guess most teams out there think of day three as a day to fill out depth, special teams, and long term project type guys where you maybe get lucky with a legitimately good player once in a blue moon. I am certain that Sean McVay, Less Snead, and their respective staffs don't feel that way at all. They have much bigger aspirations than that for day three, and they seem to have what it takes as an organization to realize those aspirations.

[Philosophers]

When I think of a strategy on day 3 picks, I ask myself, "do I want to find superstar athletes with top 1% RAS scores like a BFW, small school gems, high character/lower athletes, top school/team starters from top tier universities, etc.?"  My strategy would be as follows:

1) 30% of my late round draft capital on superstar athletes with top 1% RAS scores;

2) 30% on small school gems;

3) 40% on high character/lower athletes

   

[DaveBrown74]

When it comes to late round picks, I have a different attitude than most on the "character concerns" prospects.

I understand the approach many (including Mara) have of simply drawing a red line and being patently unwilling to even consider a "character concerns" guy. I get all the merits of feeling that way, and I'm not going to sit here and knock it.

However, I feel to find guys late in the draft who have a chance of being very good NFL players, there are usually warts there that you have to get comfortable with and believe the player can overcome. Sometimes the wart is an injury history, sometimes it's being from an unknown school, sometimes it's size concerns, or any other number of possible issues.

With character concerns, I feel these situations are more case by case than binary and should not just be bucketed all into one "hard no" classification necessarily. Clearly, there are some prospects who are simply bad apples whom you want no part of. Then you also have individuals who lack heart and desire and who will not put in the effort. I want no part of either of these two types, ever, in any round, or even undrafted on my practice squad, period.

Then you have some kids who had a lapse in judgment, got caught, but have shown contrition and have not done anything wrong since. You also have kids who did things that many kids do in their dumber, more capricious, youthful years, but just happened to be the ones who got caught. All situations are different.

I want to be clear: I am not advocating specifically targeting low character guys. My point is simply that in the later rounds, where the stakes are lower, I think being open to doing some individual due diligence on a very talented player who has slipped due to off-the-field stuff is worthwhile. Your due diligence may well lead you to the conclusion that you don't want any part of this kid, and that's great. You have done your job as a front office and can move on.

However you may find from time to time that your investigation and judgment have you believing that a kid with this label may be worth taking a shot on. Clearly, if you're wrong, and the kid turns out to be a nightmare, then you cut him very painlessly, as cutting a sixth or seventh rounder is kind of BAU and not the end of the world. At least you're giving yourself a chance at some real upside though. If you are totally unwilling to even look at kids like this you're missing out on potential opportunities while simultaneously giving teams who are open to it a competitive advantage over you.

[MightyGiants]

When it comes to late round picks, I have a different attitude than most on the "character concerns" prospects.

I understand the approach many (including Mara) have of simply drawing a red line and being patently unwilling to even consider a "character concerns" guy. I get all the merits of feeling that way, and I'm not going to sit here and knock it.

However, I feel to find guys late in the draft who have a chance of being very good NFL players, there are usually warts there that you have to get comfortable with and believe the player can overcome. Sometimes the wart is an injury history, sometimes it's being from an unknown school, sometimes it's size concerns, or any other number of possible issues.

With character concerns, I feel these situations are more case by case than binary and should not just be bucketed all into one "hard no" classification necessarily. Clearly, there are some prospects who are simply bad apples whom you want no part of. Then you also have individuals who lack heart and desire and who will not put in the effort. I want no part of either of these two types, ever, in any round, or even undrafted on my practice squad, period.

Then you have some kids who had a lapse in judgment, got caught, but have shown contrition and have not done anything wrong since. You also have kids who did things that many kids do in their dumber, more capricious, youthful years, but just happened to be the ones who got caught. All situations are different.

I want to be clear: I am not advocating specifically targeting low character guys. My point is simply that in the later rounds, where the stakes are lower, I think being open to doing some individual due diligence on a very talented player who has slipped due to off-the-field stuff is worthwhile. Your due diligence may well lead you to the conclusion that you don't want any part of this kid, and that's great. You have done your job as a front office and can move on.

However you may find from time to time that your investigation and judgment have you believing that a kid with this label may be worth taking a shot on. Clearly, if you're wrong, and the kid turns out to be a nightmare, then you cut him very painlessly, as cutting a sixth or seventh rounder is kind of BAU and not the end of the world. At least you're giving yourself a chance at some real upside though. If you are totally unwilling to even look at kids like this you're missing out on potential opportunities while simultaneously giving teams who are open to it a competitive advantage over you.

The Giants have taken flyers on players who has character issues.   Ahmad Bradshaw spent time in jail for previously stealing from his fellow students in college.

Toney had character concerns and was drafted in round one

Deandre Baker had character concerns as well


I think when you are drafting players with character concerns, you have to consider how strong your locker room and position group is.  If there is questionable character, then adding more is likely not a good idea.

You also have to be realistic in terms of your team's ability to handle bad characters.  The Cowboys are masters at keeping questionable characters from having problems.

[Philosophers]

When it comes to late round picks, I have a different attitude than most on the "character concerns" prospects.

I understand the approach many (including Mara) have of simply drawing a red line and being patently unwilling to even consider a "character concerns" guy. I get all the merits of feeling that way, and I'm not going to sit here and knock it.

However, I feel to find guys late in the draft who have a chance of being very good NFL players, there are usually warts there that you have to get comfortable with and believe the player can overcome. Sometimes the wart is an injury history, sometimes it's being from an unknown school, sometimes it's size concerns, or any other number of possible issues.

With character concerns, I feel these situations are more case by case than binary and should not just be bucketed all into one "hard no" classification necessarily. Clearly, there are some prospects who are simply bad apples whom you want no part of. Then you also have individuals who lack heart and desire and who will not put in the effort. I want no part of either of these two types, ever, in any round, or even undrafted on my practice squad, period.

Then you have some kids who had a lapse in judgment, got caught, but have shown contrition and have not done anything wrong since. You also have kids who did things that many kids do in their dumber, more capricious, youthful years, but just happened to be the ones who got caught. All situations are different.

I want to be clear: I am not advocating specifically targeting low character guys. My point is simply that in the later rounds, where the stakes are lower, I think being open to doing some individual due diligence on a very talented player who has slipped due to off-the-field stuff is worthwhile. Your due diligence may well lead you to the conclusion that you don't want any part of this kid, and that's great. You have done your job as a front office and can move on.

However you may find from time to time that your investigation and judgment have you believing that a kid with this label may be worth taking a shot on. Clearly, if you're wrong, and the kid turns out to be a nightmare, then you cut him very painlessly, as cutting a sixth or seventh rounder is kind of BAU and not the end of the world. At least you're giving yourself a chance at some real upside though. If you are totally unwilling to even look at kids like this you're missing out on potential opportunities while simultaneously giving teams who are open to it a competitive advantage over you.

I am with you.  Draft a 1st round bad character and you are taking enormous risk.  Your 1sts have to be good.  Hy the 5th round and later ideally making the team becomes the realistic goal so why not gamble at the back end of the draft?

[AZGiantFan]

You also have to be realistic in terms of your team's ability to handle bad characters.  The Cowboys are masters at keeping questionable characters from having problems.

Or covering up the problems.  Cough . . . Michael Irvin stabbing . . .

[Doc16LT56]

Should we be giving more credit to coordinators like Spags and Gilbride who helped successfully develop some of those later round picks and undrafted free agents?

Every time I hear good coordinators speak, I always feel like they are focused on developing their players and identifying skills that they can deploy situationally.

[MightyGiants]

Or covering up the problems.  Cough . . . Michael Irvin stabbing . . .

That was certainly a shameful part of the Jerrah's and the Cowboy's past. I suspect that the Cowboys have really good relationships with law enforcement throughout the area.    I suspect many an arrest gets waylaid as a result.   Plus the Cowboys have a system of babysitters for their more troubled players.