Giants color coding of their draft board

[DaveBrown74]

I'd rather have the better player with an edge than the not quite as good blue tag guy. 

Same here, at least as far as where the Giants' offense is right now make-up wise.

[MightyGiants]

So would Nabers not having a tag mean anything? Theybhad Odunze as blue, clearly liked Nabers better

Nabers was clearly the more talented.  He may not be a plus character guy, but the colors don't speak to talent.

[DaveBrown74]

Nabers was clearly the more talented.  He may not be a plus character guy, but the colors don't speak to talent.

I fully agree, although based on what we watched in HK (which I appreciate was a very incomplete look into their conversations), it seemed like they were decently high on Odunze and would have been more than happy landing him (or Bowers) in a trade-down scenario to the 9-hole.

I couldn't be happier that we got Nabers. If we couldn't get one of the top 3 QBs, that was the guy I personally wanted.

[MightyGiants]

I fully agree, although based on what we watched in HK (which I appreciate was a very incomplete look into their conversations), it seemed like they were decently high on Odunze and would have been more than happy landing him (or Bowers) in a trade-down scenario to the 9-hole.

I couldn't be happier that we got Nabers. If we couldn't get one of the top 3 QBs, that was the guy I personally wanted.

I think Odunze has a ceiling of a high character red chip WR.  Nabers has the ceiling of a blue chip WR

[Philosophers]

What Nabers is demonstrating to me similar to OBJ is a 99th percentile type NFL athleticism.  I don't mean RAS or a 40 but all the athletic attributes of playing the game of football.  Things like his sudden explosiveness to make a lateral move or angular move while stutter stepping or running, how he tracks and adjusts his body to the ball in the air, his ball catching ability with his hands, etc., the kinds of things you do when playing football.

That is where I think he excels above Harrison and Odunze.

[jgrangers2]

Nabers didn't have the dreaded purple tag, which is all I really care about.  I'd rather have the better player with an edge than the not quite as good blue tag guy.  The blue tag reminds me of the year where it seemed as if the Giants drafted all team captains.  How'd that work out?

Completely agree with this. Prioritize avoiding the people who can create problems rather than seeking out the leader types.

[todge]

Interesting - I wonder if that Board is broken down on Draft Day? Reese and DG used to have theirs broken down by positions with the highest rated players at the top.

Reese and DG conducted their Draft in the War Room with all the coaches, scouts and management present. We know that Reese had everyone vote for each selection. Am unsure just what system Schoen uses. Beat writers rarely cover that topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MightyGiants]

Interesting - I wonder if that Board is broken down on Draft Day? Reese and DG used to have theirs broken down by positions with the highest rated players at the top.

Reese and DG conducted their Draft in the War Room with all the coaches, scouts and management present. We know that Reese had everyone vote for each selection. Am unsure just what system Schoen uses. Beat writers rarely cover that topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ted,

There have been videos of the Giants' new high-tech draft room.  It's even been shown extensively on Hard Knocks (and there is a video the Giants did highlighting the new room).  You still have a ton of people in the room, including front office guys, the two owners, scouts, and at least Daboll from the coaching staff.

[todge]

Ted,

There have been videos of the Giants' new high-tech draft room.  It's even been shown extensively on Hard Knocks (and there is a video the Giants did highlighting the new room).  You still have a ton of people in the room, including front office guys, the two owners, scouts, and at least Daboll from the coaching staff.

Thanks Rich, I saw that. I would love it if Pat Traina or someone would write about just how Draft decisions are made with this regime. DG used the Analytics Dept; does Schoen? Reese and DG conducted a democratic Draft with a consensus approach. I get a sense that no longer exists with this regime.

Not sure if you stay in touch with Pat. I used to chat with her when she had her own gig. But perhaps you can ask her if an article on this topic would be of interest to her?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveBrown74]

Completely agree with this. Prioritize avoiding the people who can create problems rather than seeking out the leader types.

I am all for targeting high character individuals and avoiding those with major concerns in that department as a broad policy. That goes without saying.

However, I don't agree with having a blanket, red line type policy on this front. I think highly talented players with "character concerns" should be closely investigated on a case by case basis. The reality is that not all prospects with the "character concerns" label end up being bad people or bad teammates, and plenty of players with no such label do.

To just cross any guy off the list with this label period, end of story, is a great way to end up passing on Micah Parsons and then spending the next 10 years watching him terrorize your QB at least twice a year on a hated rival team. Or to pass up on Laremy Tunsil when he magically falls to you and instead take Eli Apple.

Not all "character concerns" are created equal. And to just auto-eliminate anyone with that label from your board is simply giving the competition a competitive advantage over you. In my opinion, case-by-case due diligence is a much better policy than just automatically eliminating anyone with this label from your board, no matter what.

[MightyGiants]

Thanks Rich, I saw that. I would love it if Pat Traina or someone would write about just how Draft decisions are made with this regime. DG used the Analytics Dept; does Schoen? Reese and DG conducted a democratic Draft with a consensus approach. I get a sense that no longer exists with this regime.

Not sure if you stay in touch with Pat. I used to chat with her when she had her own gig. But perhaps you can ask her if an article on this topic would be of interest to her?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From what I have heard, the Giants use analytics in their draft process. They also seem to get the coaching staff heavily involved.  I think HK did a good job showing how the Giants draft process is done.  The team tries their best to decide on who they will be drafted prior to being on the clock. 

From what we saw, the top-level people (including appropriate coaches) meet to decide on the targets for a given pick.  The scouts get their say when the board is put together.  Sadly (but understandably) we didn't get to glimpse that process.   You often talk about scouts getting on the table or pounding the table for a player. That all occurs as they put their board together and the player is assigned a value.

[MightyGiants]

One odd thing. Of the 6 first-round QBs, only Drake Maye got blue for high character.  One usually wants your QB to be high character

[jgrangers2]

I am all for targeting high character individuals and avoiding those with major concerns in that department as a broad policy. That goes without saying.

However, I don't agree with having a blanket, red line type policy on this front. I think highly talented players with "character concerns" should be closely investigated on a case by case basis. The reality is that not all prospects with the "character concerns" label end up being bad people or bad teammates, and plenty of players with no such label do.

To just cross any guy off the list with this label period, end of story, is a great way to end up passing on Micah Parsons and then spending the next 10 years watching him terrorize your QB at least twice a year on a hated rival team. Or to pass up on Laremy Tunsil when he magically falls to you and instead take Eli Apple.

Not all "character concerns" are created equal. And to just auto-eliminate anyone with that label from your board is simply giving the competition a competitive advantage over you. In my opinion, case-by-case due diligence is a much better policy than just automatically eliminating anyone with this label from your board, no matter what.

This goes to what you define as a character concern. Was Tunsil's concerns anything beyond the picture of him smoking weed? I honestly don't remember. Obviously there needs to be a high level of due diligence involved and there will always be that aspect of "does his on field talent mitigate the character concerns". But my main point is that you should focus on avoiding the guys like Kadarius Toney who can be a huge problem far more than you should worry about bringing back a guy like Saquon Barkley simply because he's a locker room leader.

There are probably people around the sports world that might have prioritized getting a locker room leader type like Odunze over Nabers even if you thought that Nabers was the better on field player.

[DaveBrown74]

This goes to what you define as a character concern. Was Tunsil's concerns anything beyond the picture of him smoking weed? I honestly don't remember. Obviously there needs to be a high level of due diligence involved and there will always be that aspect of "does his on field talent mitigate the character concerns". But my main point is that you should focus on avoiding the guys like Kadarius Toney who can be a huge problem far more than you should worry about bringing back a guy like Saquon Barkley simply because he's a locker room leader.

There are probably people around the sports world that might have prioritized getting a locker room leader type like Odunze over Nabers even if you thought that Nabers was the better on field player.

There was some other stuff about Tunsil involving an altercation with his step-father or divorced father. It was murky detail and I don't precisely remember all of it as this was a while ago now, but I remember it seeming like he got physical because he was defending his mother. It didn't sound like the worst thing in the world to me at the time.

The draft-day slip was due to the picture that came out of him doing a bong hit back when he was in high school. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide whether a high school kid experimenting with pot means he's a terrible person. Tunsil was expected to go for sure in the top three, maybe first overall prior to that. The picture came out a week or two before the draft, and he fell to 13th. The Giants were picking 10th and passed on him for Eli Apple. Tunsil has since gone on to being in four Pro Bowls and being widely considered one of the best tackles in the game. Apple was off the Giants three years later and, ironically, was a bit of a pain in the backside while he was on the team.

To me the above is the sort of thing that happens if you have a blanket policy. Clearly, some players are simply bad apples and should be avoided like the plague. That's obviously not the case with Tunisil, and I doubt there are many Giants fans now would tell you they don't wish the team had drafted Micah Parsons in 2021.

Case-by-case due diligence on the character stuff makes the most sense to me and, I think, is how most smart, winning teams handle it.