By running through all of the positions in Round 1 of the draft from 2000-2009, we have a lot of data that can help us understand the NFL landscape. In today's post we break Round 1 down the past 10 years by team and take a look at how the Giants did before examining the rest of the league.
Recall last week's groundbreaking study of the draft BY SLOT (#1-#32):
#1: The draft value chart places way too much premium at the beginning of the draft.
#2: NFL General Managers are not doing a very good job of drafting and NFL Scouts are not doing a very good job of evaluating.
If you missed that post, we highly recommend it. We were validated on Rule #9 (which recommends trading down) but were honestly surprised by just how poorly GMs were doing. These GMs collectively are showing very little incremental skill when it comes to picking ahead of their peers in Round 1.
We get more evidence which supports those same conclusions when we look at the breakdown by team. We'll look at that in Part 2 later this week.
First things first, let's look at how the Giants did. I bumped Shockey to a 2 and Phillips to a 3 because that is where I think those two belong. BFD, all that did was push the Giants from a 4.3 to a 4.1 in Round 1. The NFL average was a 3.6 for Round 1. A 4.1 from this solid franchise is just not acceptable. Just like with George Young, the current Giants of Accorsi/Reese are not good in the first round of the draft. They are clearly missing something here in Round 1.
This analysis is objective. You're the home team, but the numbers are what they are.
There were 38 '1' ratings given out over the past 10 years of draft picks throughout the NFL and the Giants did not get any of them. That combined with the fact that the team busted ('7') on two selections makes them bring up the rear in this one portion of the draft.
The Giants have drafted very well in the second round, and that is why the team succeeds in the NFL. Guys like Corey Webster, Steve Smith, Terrell Thomas, Chris Snee and Osi Umenyiora give the Giants A BETTER RATING IN ROUND TWO THAN ROUND ONE!!!
How can it be that the Giants do better in R2 than R1?!! It tells us the Giants can evaluate talent because of how well they pick in Round 2. It also tells us the Giants covet in Round 1, because they certainly are targeting players instead of letting the draft come to them. The Giants cannot covet in Round 2 because there are too many variables and too many selections that have to take place before they can make a decision.
This phenomenon where the Giants draft better in Round 2 has been going on for ages now. I won't do all the math on the Jarrod Bunchs, Cedric Joneses, Butch Woolfolks, George Adamses and Derek Browns vs the Michael Strahans, Jumbo Elliotts, Jason Sehorns, Pepper Johnsons and Mark Collins, but we know the result will be the same. The only difference now is that we have the method in place
1=consistent all star
2=all pro, if not in name
to quantify players so they can objectively be compared. To quantitatively see that the Giants are yielding a 3.4 for their 2nd rounders, a better grade that the rest of the league generates in the first round, tells you where the Giants' bread is buttered.
SUMMARY: The Giants are a below average franchise in Round 1. The Giants are a well above average franchise in Round 2. The Giants need to learn from their success in Round 2 and either trade down in Round 1 and/or examine their decision-making because a lot of improvement is available to them.
In Part 2, we will follow this up with a look at how all 32 teams did in Round 1. Once again the answers will be revealing about who the better franchises are.