Mel Kiper recently graded every team's draft and it appears he thinks the Giants could have done better.
Here's his explanation on how he grades based on this criteria:
• How much overall talent did a team add based on board position?
• How effectively did they address key personnel needs?
• How efficient were they in maneuvering on the draft board?
And I use my player grades as the prism. I'm well aware all NFL teams see players differently -- I might have a third-round grade on a safety many teams see as a late-round pick. That's the reality of player evaluations.
Grading Scale: In my mind an "A" means it's exceptional; a "B" is pretty good; a "C" means average, with hits and misses; a "D" means below average with some big questions. An "F" … well, I didn't have one.
Here's his grading of the Giants' draft:
Top needs: LB, DE, CB, OL, RB
Kiper summary: I had linebacker as a big need for them, but the Giants haven't drafted a linebacker in Round 1 since Carl Banks … in 1984. No surprise they didn't take one, but I'm pretty surprised they didn't take one at all. Justin Pugh is a pretty good player, and will start at guard. From there, the Giants fell in love with value over need in Rounds 2 in 3. In Round 2 they got Johnathan Hankins, at one time a likely Round 1 pick. Hankins runs hot and cold, but is a pretty good depth addition on the D-line. Then they got Damontre Moore, who had one of the biggest falls of the evaluation process we've seen in a few years. He had a great year, but tested out very poorly. They needed a defensive end and Moore could end up a steal. Where I question this draft is I'm pretty surprised they didn't get a corner or a linebacker. I really like Cooper Taylor, and you get a nice backup commodity in Ryan Nassib, I just hope they hold up at linebacker and on the edges. But these are smart evaluators and good coaches.
So, what do you guys think of Kiper's assessment?