Do you agree or disagree with Mike Lombardi's belief?

[MightyGiants]

I thought this was an interesting point that wasn't really addressed in the Mike Lombardi criticism thread.   I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy.   Mike Lombardi is of the school where the GM and/or HC decide the types of players that make up the team.    Schoen is of the school of thought that suggests getting players that best fit the scheme your coaches are running.  What are your thoughts on the issue?


"There was no real conversation about what wins in the league. The Giants had that formula for years."

This is another part of what Lombardi said Wednesday:

"This is a franchise that believed in a system, believed in a process by the great George Young that have kind of deviated away from it. When they brought Shane Bowen in and said what are you looking for in your defense, that goes against everything that the Giants when they were successful believed in."

[DaveBrown74]

I've never been able to get totally sold on the philosophy of specifically (and only) targeting players who fit the scheme your present coaching staff wants to employ. Two main reasons I have issues with this:

(1) You're getting away from a BPA type of philosophy if you do that. The idea of drafting a B+ guy who fits my current scheme whilst passing on an A or A+ guy who doesn't is one I have a lot of trouble with. Ideally you find a way to merge talent and scheme priority, but I just can't get comfortable with the idea of passing on the clearly more talented player in the sole interest of scheme fit.

(2) Head coaches and coordinators get fired at a more frequent rate than GMs and other front office people. What are you supposed to do if you draft a bunch of guys (often passing on more talented players) who fit a specific scheme, and the team struggles enough so as to merit wholesale coaching changes? Does that then mean you have to go find a group of coaches who employ the exact same schemes as the guys you just fired? The whole concept just seems very constricting.


Obviously, I have no objection to the notion that different coaches employ different schemes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with drafting players with scheme fit in mind. I'm all for that. And I think you can certainly do that in free agency. What I'm not all for is being so beholden to the scheme fit stuff that, when presented with a choice between two players in a draft, you pick the one with clearly inferior talent because he's a better fit of the current scheme you happen to have at that time. Any good coach should be able to figure out a way to utilize a high quality player in virtually any scheme.

[Doc16LT56]

I pretty much agree with everything Dave just wrote.

I will also add, I stopped reading the previous Lombardi thread because it looked like people were just attacking Lombardi's credibility instead of dealing with the points he made. Lombardi was working in media for years when he was hired as GM of the Browns. He failed in his one year there, but it was only one year with a historically inept franchise. To pretend that says more about Lombardi than it does about Cleveland seems silly to me.

There are a lot of guys who have years of NFL experience but were never hired as GMs. Some/many of those guys have a wealth of knowledge that we can learn from. I wouldn't remove Lombardi from that category just because he was given one year in an impossible job.

[MightyGiants]

I pretty much agree with everything Dave just wrote.

I will also add, I stopped reading the previous Lombardi thread because it looked like people were just attacking Lombardi's credibility instead of dealing with the points he made. Lombardi was working in media for years when he was hired as GM of the Browns. He failed in his one year there, but it was only one year with a historically inept franchise. To pretend that says more about Lombardi than it does about Cleveland seems silly to me.

There are a lot of guys who have years of NFL experience but were never hired as GMs. Some/many of those guys have a wealth of knowledge that we can learn from. I wouldn't remove Lombardi from that category just because he was given one year in an impossible job.

Doc,

Mike Lombardi learned football from legends like Bill Belichick, Al Davis, and Bill Walsh.  On top of that, he is an avid reader and a life-long learner.  I can't imagine a good reason not to listen to what he has learned. 

[MightyGiants]

I've never been able to get totally sold on the philosophy of specifically (and only) targeting players who fit the scheme your present coaching staff wants to employ. Two main reasons I have issues with this:

(1) You're getting away from a BPA type of philosophy if you do that. The idea of drafting a B+ guy who fits my current scheme whilst passing on an A or A+ guy who doesn't is one I have a lot of trouble with. Ideally you find a way to merge talent and scheme priority, but I just can't get comfortable with the idea of passing on the clearly more talented player in the sole interest of scheme fit.

(2) Head coaches and coordinators get fired at a more frequent rate than GMs and other front office people. What are you supposed to do if you draft a bunch of guys (often passing on more talented players) who fit a specific scheme, and the team struggles enough so as to merit wholesale coaching changes? Does that then mean you have to go find a group of coaches who employ the exact same schemes as the guys you just fired? The whole concept just seems very constricting.


Obviously, I have no objection to the notion that different coaches employ different schemes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with drafting players with scheme fit in mind. I'm all for that. And I think you can certainly do that in free agency. What I'm not all for is being so beholden to the scheme fit stuff that, when presented with a choice between two players in a draft, you pick the one with clearly inferior talent because he's a better fit of the current scheme you happen to have at that time. Any good coach should be able to figure out a way to utilize a high quality player in virtually any scheme.

Jeff,

I think you make a compelling argument.  I will say that it is somewhat negated by the reality that many of the really talented players transcend scheme.  In other words, they will thrive regardless of the scheme they find themselves in.   

Still, I am not 100% on board with your view.  Winning involves team building rather than talent collecting, in my opinion.  Say you want a team that is smart, tough, and dependable.  If you just let talent drive your player acquisition, it will be a pure chance that you will achieve your goal.  Say you believe that a good offensive line is big and powerful.  If you draft a bunch of lighter finesse types, you are not going to achieve your goal.  If you want a fast defense because you feel that's the type of defense that wins in the NFL, drafting slower players because they are higher on your board isn't going to help achieve your goal.

I think what teams do sort of split the difference.  The things they value will be the things the team will be looking for when scouting.  So, the types of players (usually scheme-specific to some degree) tend to get better grades.

[DaveBrown74]

Jeff,

I think you make a compelling argument.  I will say that it is somewhat negated by the reality that many of the really talented players transcend scheme.  In other words, they will thrive regardless of the scheme they find themselves in.   

Still, I am not 100% on board with your view.  Winning involves team building rather than talent collecting, in my opinion.  Say you want a team that is smart, tough, and dependable.  If you just let talent drive your player acquisition, it will be a pure chance that you will achieve your goal.  Say you believe that a good offensive line is big and powerful.  If you draft a bunch of lighter finesse types, you are not going to achieve your goal.  If you want a fast defense because you feel that's the type of defense that wins in the NFL, drafting slower players because they are higher on your board isn't going to help achieve your goal.

I think what teams do sort of split the difference.  The things they value will be the things the team will be looking for when scouting.  So, the types of players (usually scheme-specific to some degree) tend to get better grades.

I think those are all perfectly fair points Rich. What I would say is that a winning GM who prioritizes scheme in drafts needs to, at the absolute least, have the nimbleness and relationships around the league to move around in the draft (up and down) to avoid scenarios where he is leaving significant value on the table.

In such an ultra-competitive league where every little edge matters, the opportunity cost of passing on a more talented player in favor of a lesser one because the lesser one more closely fits what Shane Bowen is trying to do schematically is massive. By not being nimble in one's ability to move up or down and take some calculated risks during drafts, I strongly question the long term viability of any front office strategy that willfully passes up on superior talent for scheme fit.

To Schoen's credit, he has displayed this sort of nimbleness in drafts and seems to have various scenarios pre-planned ahead of time, which I really like. I think having this skill set as a GM is critical to being able to draft for scheme without squandering value all the time.

You still have to pick good players though, of course. And so far (and it's still early), the evidence of Schoen's ability to do that has been mixed at best.

[MightyGiants]

I think those are all perfectly fair points Rich. What I would say is that a winning GM who prioritizes scheme in drafts needs to, at the absolute least, have the nimbleness and relationships around the league to move around in the draft (up and down) to avoid scenarios where he is leaving significant value on the table.

In such an ultra-competitive league where every little edge matters, the opportunity cost of passing on a more talented player in favor of a lesser one because the lesser one more closely fits what Shane Bowen is trying to do schematically is massive. By not being nimble in one's ability to move up or down and take some calculated risks during drafts, I strongly question the long term viability of any front office strategy that willfully passes up on superior talent for scheme fit.

To Schoen's credit, he has displayed this sort of nimbleness in drafts and seems to have various scenarios pre-planned ahead of time, which I really like. I think having this skill set as a GM is critical to being able to draft for scheme without squandering value all the time.

You still have to pick good players though, of course. And so far (and it's still early), the evidence of Schoen's ability to do that has been mixed at best.

I think another aspect to consider is that matching a player's talents to a scheme can result in better results.   Consider Ronde Barber the great CB for the Bucs.   He looked as good as he did because the Bucs played predominately zone.   Ronde excelled at zone coverage (his smarts gave him an edge).  Had Ronde been drafted on a team that played more M2M (which Ronde wasn't as good at), then I doubt he would have had the career he did.  He may not even have been considered a good CB if he was forced to be mostly a M2M corner.

Another example would be the Giants offense.  The WRs all talk about how challenging it is to learn Daboll's offense.  Imagine if you draft a talented WR whose weakness is he isn't that good at learning offenses and struggles with complexity.   He could be a Pro Bowler in a scheme that is easy for receivers to learn but in Daboll's he is likely to struggle.

[Philosophers]

Each player drafting situation is unique so probably adjust on the fly.

[Doc16LT56]

Each player drafting situation is unique so probably adjust on the fly.

As an organization you have to start with a coherent philosophy that points you toward long-term success. The adjustments come into play when you don't have ideal options. But if you don't start with a clear philosophy, simply picking talented players is unlikely to result in success.

[Ed Vette]

All good points.

Drafting BPA at a position of need covers that. If there are three top Offensive Linemen high up in the First Round, a team should draft the one that fits the blocking scheme best but be most balanced because teams employ multiple schemes. For the Giants and most teams, Pass Protection is paramount over Zone Vs Angle Blocking.

If the team had a Base 3/4 Defense, the MLB's need to have Coverage skills. The Giants signed Bobby Okereke because he was adept at both Pass Coverage and Gap Filling.

I think in this discussion it's refined to position and need and not just an overall philosophy. Nabors vs Odunze was a choice based on not just talent, but QB and Oline compatibility.

Asking the DC what he needs and his response was a partner to Dex and someone who can apply pressure, they went with priority. So they signed Burns and did the sign of the Cross on the Dlineman and Boogie Woogie. That came down to a lot of factors which included capital, and talent availability.

To sum it up, it's never about either or.

[Philosophers]

As an organization you have to start with a coherent philosophy that points you toward long-term success. The adjustments come into play when you don't have ideal options. But if you don't start with a clear philosophy, simply picking talented players is unlikely to result in success.

Prospect 1 - BPA CB - lock down MTM CB who you think has a 90% chance to ne an excellent zone CB.

Prospect 2 - BPA CB - lock down MTM CB who you think has a 20% chance to be an excellent zone CB.

What you do in a year in which only one of above is available is dictated by who is available.

[Doc16LT56]

Prospect 1 - BPA CB - lock down MTM CB who you think has a 90% chance to ne an excellent zone CB.

Prospect 2 - BPA CB - lock down MTM CB who you think has a 20% chance to be an excellent zone CB.

What you do in a year in which only one of above is available is dictated by who is available.

Based on only this info and assuming everything else is equal, I'm taking the guy with the broader skill set, prospect 1.

[Philosophers]

Based on only this info and assuming everything else is equal, I'm taking the guy with the broader skill set, prospect 1.

What I offered up is only 1 is available and you need a CB.  If it's prospect 2 do you pass on him and look at another position?

[MightyGiants]

Asking the DC what he needs and his response was a partner to Dex and someone who can apply pressure, they went with priority. So they signed Burns and did the sign of the Cross on the Dlineman and Boogie Woogie. That came down to a lot of factors which included capital, and talent availability.

I think the Giants are hopeful that Ojulari can stay healthy and be the 4th pass rusher that Bowen wants.  Burns can be pushed inside similar what the team did with Tuck, on obvious passing downs.
 

[BluesCruz]

I think the Giants in general have trouble letting go of their biggest mistakes

Jones
Barkley
Gettleman
Evans
Judge
Waller if he wanted to stay they would have kept him

If the asset is high level, the Giants will bend over backwards to retain them at times
They need to be more ruthless at times

Also they need a VP of Football Operations- an Executive who can act as a buffer between Schoen and Mara

A voice of reason.   Pete Carroll comes to mind as someone who could fill this role....not a day to day asset- more of a Muse