Post by ThatGuyRich on Mar 22, 2024 11:39:52 GMT -5
Any of us could have become a draft or football analyst everybody started out as fans. The smart ones are making a living at something they love. Doesn't even matter if their that good as long as their entertaining.
There will always be a fail rate. Measuring heart is always difficult once the checks start coming in.
Neal should have been a good player. Still can be. I don't think he can ever be elite and worth the #7 pick though. However, the Giants just need him to be average. Then we can keep him out there.
There will always be a fail rate. Measuring heart is always difficult once the checks start coming in.
Neal should have been a good player. Still can be. I don't think he can ever be elite and worth the #7 pick though. However, the Giants just need him to be average. Then we can keep him out there.
"Neal is the consensus #1 tackle in the 2022 NFL Draft and is viewed as an almost can't miss prospect by most scouts."
That was true at the time fast forward he has had a rough go and has been playing injured more than healthy there is still a chance he reaches his potential.
"Neal is the consensus #1 tackle in the 2022 NFL Draft and is viewed as an almost can't miss prospect by most scouts."
The keywords being "almost" and "most".
Thing is this was not Flowers type eval everyone had him top 5 or at the very least top 10.
I can see it going wrong with Flowers because he was considered a low 1st lower / mid 2nd and even that was to high.
I would like to see Neal completely healthy because there are a lot of reps where he gets out of his stance and gets where he needs to be in plenty of time.
To me he is thinking to much and a lot of the time he was limping around it's his last chance hopefully he comes in healthy and in shape.
"Neal is the consensus #1 tackle in the 2022 NFL Draft and is viewed as an almost can't miss prospect by most scouts."
This shows you how bad our coaching has been. Neal is not a bust because he doesn't have ability, it's been coaching 100%. When we keep drafting these lineman that don't pan out ...well there's really only one culprit...look at JMS he was getting raving reviews for his consistency coming into the league...he's been nothing but inconsistent here...which isn't unusual for a rookie but something just hasn't been right with the coaching...Andrew Thomas is a STUD just for the fact that he played at a high-level with the abysmal coaching this OLINE has received.
Best example is Tyree Phillips...was pretty meh with us and goes to the Eagles / comes back here and looks almost like a starting RT. We gotta get the right guy coaching Oline because it's clearly one of the biggest issues...among several....
90 Drafts with an average 200 picks per draft. That is 18,000. Add 5000 UDFA. That is a pool of 23,000 player profiles.
You would think by now. The entire league would have close to precise Draft profiling on player attributes for each position group in every round. It is very easy to see what qualities are favorable with that many players to draw incidentals from. And which ones to avoid.
Just a theory: I believe the FOs are treating each draft as an island and profiling each player against the competition in that draft class and not against the best and worst in the previous draft classes. To me that is chief contributor to failure and mediocracy within the first 50 picks.
A vast journey lies within the span of an instant.
There will always be a fail rate. Measuring heart is always difficult once the checks start coming in.
Neal should have been a good player. Still can be. I don't think he can ever be elite and worth the #7 pick though. However, the Giants just need him to be average. Then we can keep him out there.
exactly. Be average and go do your damn job and maybe we'll give you a second contract. If he can start least average and keep working, shit who knows maybe we'll have our O line almost just about set at years end......
"Neal is the consensus #1 tackle in the 2022 NFL Draft and is viewed as an almost can't miss prospect by most scouts."
That was true at the time fast forward he has had a rough go and has been playing injured more than healthy there is still a chance he reaches his potential.
the real question is was he playing injured that often at Ala and if not then why so often here............?
90 Drafts with an average 200 picks per draft. That is 18,0000. Add 5000 UDFA. That is a pool of 23,000 player profiles.
You would think by now. The entire league would have close to precise Draft profiling on player attributes for each position group in every round. It is very easy to see what qualities are favorable with that many players to draw incidentals from. And which ones to avoid.
Just a theory: I believe the FOs are treating each draft as an island and profiling each player against the competition in that draft class and not against the best and worst in the previous draft classes. To me that is chief contributor to failure and mediocracy within the first 50 picks.
That may be true, but I don't think the draft profiling is the issue. They probably do have that nailed down. The wildcard is the many variables (most not measurable) that will happen after a player is selected. The coaching, injuries, acclimation to the NFL, money management, interaction with team members, family...etc. I think Evan Neal is a great example of this. I think he probably had a great draft profile and he should have been a hit, but things happen and so far he is not. Anticipating how a human is going to act/react to consistently changing variables is very difficult if not impossible.
90 Drafts with an average 200 picks per draft. That is 18,0000. Add 5000 UDFA. That is a pool of 23,000 player profiles.
You would think by now. The entire league would have close to precise Draft profiling on player attributes for each position group in every round. It is very easy to see what qualities are favorable with that many players to draw incidentals from. And which ones to avoid.
Just a theory: I believe the FOs are treating each draft as an island and profiling each player against the competition in that draft class and not against the best and worst in the previous draft classes. To me that is chief contributor to failure and mediocracy within the first 50 picks.
That may be true, but I don't think the draft profiling is the issue. They probably do have that nailed down. The wildcard is the many variables (most not measurable) that will happen after a player is selected. The coaching, injuries, acclimation to the NFL, money management, interaction with team members, family...etc. I think Evan Neal is a great example of this. I think he probably had a great draft profile and he should have been a hit, but things happen and so far he is not. Anticipating how a human is going to act/react to consistently changing variables is very difficult if not impossible.
Situations do happen in the NCAA that mirror the NFL playing environment. What is in the player head comes out in those situations. He will either rise to the challenge or fold. That is not teachable. He is born with that. The hardest situations that arise during games are the best tells. The easy ones every player can cruise along in that current.
A vast journey lies within the span of an instant.
90 Drafts with an average 200 picks per draft. That is 18,000. Add 5000 UDFA. That is a pool of 23,000 player profiles.
You would think by now. The entire league would have close to precise Draft profiling on player attributes for each position group in every round. It is very easy to see what qualities are favorable with that many players to draw incidentals from. And which ones to avoid.
Just a theory: I believe the FOs are treating each draft as an island and profiling each player against the competition in that draft class and not against the best and worst in the previous draft classes. To me that is chief contributor to failure and mediocracy within the first 50 picks.
In regards to the theory...how else would you treat the classes?
If you compare a weaker WR class to a great WR class wouldn't that mean some of the "best" WRs would be like 5-7th rd grades despite them being the best of the bunch in the current year?
Ex. "Team X has a 6th round grade for the current best WR when compared to better classes...you won't be able to wait until the 6th round because he's the best of the bunch..."
so do you go after other positions even though WR is a glaring weakness on your team? I see what your saying but doesn't really make sense in theory or in reality when a player's true abilities usually won't be revealed until nfl training / coaching are applied regardless (unless you're talking about raw ability / potential)
I guess I'm just curious how you believe a team(s) would deal with that if that was the case...?
90 Drafts with an average 200 picks per draft. That is 18,000. Add 5000 UDFA. That is a pool of 23,000 player profiles.
You would think by now. The entire league would have close to precise Draft profiling on player attributes for each position group in every round. It is very easy to see what qualities are favorable with that many players to draw incidentals from. And which ones to avoid.
Just a theory: I believe the FOs are treating each draft as an island and profiling each player against the competition in that draft class and not against the best and worst in the previous draft classes. To me that is chief contributor to failure and mediocracy within the first 50 picks.
In regards to the theory...how else would you treat the classes?
If you compare a weaker WR class to a great WR class wouldn't that mean some of the "best" WRs would be like 5-7th rd grades despite them being the best of the bunch in the current year?
Ex. "Team X has a 6th round grade for the current best WR when compared to better classes...you won't be able to wait until the 6th round because he's the best of the bunch..."
so do you go after other positions even though WR is a glaring weakness on your team? I see what your saying but doesn't really make sense in theory or in reality when a player's true abilities usually won't be revealed until nfl training / coaching are applied regardless (unless you're talking about raw ability / potential)
I guess I'm just curious how you believe a team(s) would deal with that if that was the case...?
The laws of probability suggest you trade down to the talent level compared to standards set by the talent pool. Or pick a player in a different position group that qualifies with the set standards the previous draft classes provided. By picking a WR just because he is the best in that class and not within set parameters provided by his predecessors is downgrading the value of that pick.
A vast journey lies within the span of an instant.
That was true at the time fast forward he has had a rough go and has been playing injured more than healthy there is still a chance he reaches his potential.
the real question is was he playing injured that often at Ala and if not then why so often here............?
Think like Barkley he was healthy through out college hit the pro's and ankles knees start popping up it's a problem that was one of barkley's strengths health coming out.
These things happen unfortunately so far he has not had any serious injuries.
In regards to the theory...how else would you treat the classes?
If you compare a weaker WR class to a great WR class wouldn't that mean some of the "best" WRs would be like 5-7th rd grades despite them being the best of the bunch in the current year?
Ex. "Team X has a 6th round grade for the current best WR when compared to better classes...you won't be able to wait until the 6th round because he's the best of the bunch..."
so do you go after other positions even though WR is a glaring weakness on your team? I see what your saying but doesn't really make sense in theory or in reality when a player's true abilities usually won't be revealed until nfl training / coaching are applied regardless (unless you're talking about raw ability / potential)
I guess I'm just curious how you believe a team(s) would deal with that if that was the case...?
The laws of probability suggest you trade down to the talent level compared to standards set by the talent pool. Or pick a player in a different position group that qualifies with the set standards the previous draft classes provided. By picking a WR just because he is the best in that class and not within set parameters provided by his predecessors is downgrading the value of that pick.
I hear you but why do you trade down? Aren't the rest of the receivers going to be even worse? Meaning the guys that SHOULD be 5-6th rounders...are technically UDFA material compared to other drafts? Then you're just getting a bunch of scrubs...you see what I mean?
The laws of probability suggest you trade down to the talent level compared to standards set by the talent pool. Or pick a player in a different position group that qualifies with the set standards the previous draft classes provided. By picking a WR just because he is the best in that class and not within set parameters provided by his predecessors is downgrading the value of that pick.
I hear you but why do you trade down? Aren't the rest of the receivers going to be even worse? Meaning the guys that SHOULD be 5-6th rounders...are technically UDFA material compared to other drafts? Then you're just getting a bunch of scrubs...you see what I mean?
You trade down to where the talent level of the pick and talent level of player cross. 3rd 4th 5th 6th and 7th round players are what they are. As I said. It is within the 50 picks where the discrepancies lie.
A vast journey lies within the span of an instant.
I hear you but why do you trade down? Aren't the rest of the receivers going to be even worse? Meaning the guys that SHOULD be 5-6th rounders...are technically UDFA material compared to other drafts? Then you're just getting a bunch of scrubs...you see what I mean?
You trade down to where the talent level of the pick and talent level of player cross. 3rd 4th 5th 6th and 7th round players are what they are. As I said. It is within the 50 picks where the discrepancies lie.
Well, again...they're graded on what they have done in college / tested at the combine...how do you account for their real value especially when it's a guy that's like 20-21 years old and is literally still growing ?
Projects get drafted on potential all the time. I think you're looking too far into the "value" aspect of a pick. If you have no WRs and you take a guy in the second round that is viewed as a ceiling #2 receiver but high floor ...that is justified taking a third/4th round value guy if you really need a WR imo...the problem is teams don't (usually) know how others teams/scouts are valuing the players. The so called "reaches" are never brought back up if they work out...whereas the guys like Will Levis "top 5 potential etc" drop and people are like WTF he's a top 5 pick!!!! when in reality, we don't know where he actually ranks to the pros that understand more then us and the draft "gurus"
You trade down to where the talent level of the pick and talent level of player cross. 3rd 4th 5th 6th and 7th round players are what they are. As I said. It is within the 50 picks where the discrepancies lie.
Well, again...they're graded on what they have done in college / tested at the combine...how do you account for their real value especially when it's a guy that's like 20-21 years old and is literally still growing ?
Projects get drafted on potential all the time. I think you're looking too far into the "value" aspect of a pick. If you have no WRs and you take a guy in the second round that is viewed as a ceiling #2 receiver but high floor ...that is justified taking a third/4th round value guy if you really need a WR imo...the problem is teams don't (usually) know how others teams/scouts are valuing the players. The so called "reaches" are never brought back up if they work out...whereas the guys like Will Levis "top 5 potential etc" drop and people are like WTF he's a top 5 pick!!!! when in reality, we don't know where he actually ranks to the pros that understand more then us and the draft "gurus"
With a pool of 23,000 previous picks. Those that came before them were in their 20s also.
A vast journey lies within the span of an instant.
"Neal is the consensus #1 tackle in the 2022 NFL Draft and is viewed as an almost can't miss prospect by most scouts."
In fairness some draft experts specifically Daniel Jeremiah said “ Evan Neal could be a “good” Tackle but I think he could be a pro bowl level Guard.
Of course. There are always going to be outliers. I'm talking about the majority of "experts" the Buzz is a legit draft source in that it uses combine info/college performance/and often pro scout/gm takes. It's not like me doing a YouTube video.