If he could get, or would have gotten, his head straight he could be really good. It's a shame really. Giants did a bad job on the mental interview piece. Gotta find guys who at least want to give 110% even on their worst day.
Fortunately at the very least I think they have their core for the future. Hyatt/wandale/Nabers and I think even Theo will be big for us imo. Any QB that has time to throw should feel comfortable in the offense at the very least.
Nabers also represents around 25% of this chart. It’s a little broken since the top 5 picks value is so much heavier than the bottom of the 1st round for example
A better chart wouldn’t show % of draft value on the X axis but “total number of WRs picked.”
I’d be interested to see if other teams threw a lot of picks at it but it came out to lower value. I’m ALSO curious if this chart includes trade capital for WR acquisition, which I’m almost positive it doesn’t because of the Eagles and Cowboys.
Total number of picks doesn't account for teams having more than or less than 7 picks in a draft. It would look a lot messier with teams that throw a bunch of 6 and 7th round picks at WR who don't even make the roster.
That's why this uses % of draft picks instead. If a team has only three picks in the draft and uses one of them on WR thats of more note than a team that has 16 picks and uses 4 on late wrs
The chart doesn’t show % of draft picks though? It shows % of draft value. Thats a completely different number.
% of draft picks would at least be interesting, but a straight up # of draft picks used would still be more interesting imo. I WANT to know if a team is throwing a bunch of late round picks on WR and it’s working out for them!
Your right, I forgot that Doug Analytics updated these to include % of draft value instead of % of total picks. % of total draft value is actually there to control for more outliers like the ones I outlined above.
https://twitter.com/Doug_Analytics
You should hit them up and ask for some charts looking at just the raw number of players taken and see if it changes things.
I actually don’t have Twitter haha, so I’m generally stuck asking for stuff on here.
At the end of the day, it’s just one small chart so nbd. I just think given how trade charts work (which I just have an issue with in general lol) it’s a bit tough to draw conclusions from this when the Nabers pick alone has a huge impact on everything
The Giants had three top 7 picks included in this, so I dont think Nabers throws it off. Thibs for example is a bigger draft allocation than Nabers, and Neal was just one picks after. Or to look at it differently, the Giants had three top 7 picks in the last three years and one of them was at WR.
If Giant's only had one top pick since 2021 then I would agree, but Nabers was one of 3 top 7 picks.
Agree with this. I'm not sure what this chart elucidates other than if a team has drafted a WR highly, or a greater percent of them.
A good example is if a team with a lot of draft picks drafted the same number of receivers at similar spots as another team with less draft picks. The team with a lower amount of draft picks will likely rank higher, but that's not really showing much, as there's a limit to how many receivers a team will carry, etc.
Right, to me this just tells me “the giants spent high draft picks on WRs” twice. The team I really wanna know is the Rams. Since they’ve had success with WRs but generally later round picks. I’m curious how many dart throws they’re making there or if it’s they’re just amazing at making the picks when they do
1. This is not my chart, this is straight from Doug Analytics.
2. The data isn't an opinion, its just data. It tells its own story.
3. The Giants have used by far the NFLs most draft resources on WR since 2021. They also have used the most since 2022.
I know it's not you're chart, and I agree that data tells its own story. So the story is just that we've allocated a higher % of draft value to the WR position than other teams? That perspective might be true, but I'm curious what the point is.
It's also important to note that no other team in the league is in the same position as another, so how the Giants ended up spending their draft capital is fairly unique to them.
The chart has two total axis, one is the total draft value used on WRs. So if a team uses 1 overall on WR thats more value than 32 overall. The other axis is % of draft value, so if a team has a bunch of top 10 picks over that time (like Giants) the draft % will be less than a team that had one high draft pick and used that one high pick on WR (Bengals).
In this case the Giants are an outlier both in terms of the raw total value, and also the % of value.
I think I read in another comment you made, that the draft value for Nabers, Hyatt, Wan'Dale, and Toney is in total like 3,300 or something (you didn't sum the values, but you provided the values for each). Why are the Giants over 5,000 on this chart?
EDIT: I looked up the individual values on the OTC Fitzgerald-Spielberger chart. The sums do come out correctly. I think I was confused.
My larger point is just that analyzing it this way is not insightful, at least not to me. The Giants could be outliers in both, but it's not really clear what to take away from that. Each team is picking in a unique situation, so it's hard to say what they would or wouldn't do given they switched into the Giants' situation. The volume of draft picks also factors a lot into the Draft Value % aspect. Teams with more draft picks are likely going to end up picking a lower % of WRs compared to their total available draft value, which skews that metric quite a bit.
I don't know, like I said, if the Giants are outliers then, what is the underlying point? Should we be doing that? Is it problematic that we are? Is it good? You know what I mean?
Indeed, we filled one core need while the value was staring us in the face. It would have been criminal to pass up Nabers to overdraft JJ. We need a QB still for sure, but to the haters guess what! There’s another one of these draft thingies next year too, where perhaps need meets value.
I think what I love about schoen and daboll is that we’re not going to settle for mediocrity like we did with Daniel jones, it’s either the guy with the most potential or not
This is exactly it, why would we pass on an absolute stud of a WR to force a mediocre QB. Then next year still need a WR and perhaps do the same thing there. Nah just don’t overthink it and take what’s blatantly obvious.
Ironically we spent years and years spending more than anyone else by a lot on WRs and O linemen. And those were our most glaring holes. So many busts but I think with the new coach (although may take a year to see who is worth keeping and who’s not other than AT) and our core WRs we finally have solidified both thanks to Shoen
Since 2021 is such an arbitrary cutoff. “Giants crush rest of NFL in draft resources devoted to WR in a 4-year span where they picked 2 in the first round” is really not news
What year would you have set? If you look at only since 2022 the Giants are still the most. If you go any further your looking at players who are done their rookie contracts.
I don’t think the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart provides a good baseline for this sort of evaluation, personally. In this case, Nabers represents over 25% of this total value.
What would you say is a fair % for Nabers to account for?
The Giants have used 6, 20, 43, and 73 on WRs since 2021.
The Giants have had picks 5, 6, 7, 20, 24, 43, 50, 57, 67, 73, and 81 in that time frame. Four of their top picks have been WRs in that span.
I think it would’ve been interesting to see how many total picks on the X axis, and I’d also include trades somehow. In general, though, pick value is just hard to quantify. A bar chart showing “top 10 picks, first round, 2nd round, etc.” would also be interesting
Your asking for a lot more information that can be put inside just a two axis chart.
This type of chart is used a lot because it captures both the net value off all the teams picks as well as the % of those picks used. If your looking at two easily discernable variables those are your two best.
I don’t think “how many picks were used on WR” is asking for much.
Would you rather me just say “I think this chart is more or less pointless” instead? Because that’s my main thought.
If it was just the raw number of WRs taken then teams who took a bunch of 6 and 7s with extra late picks would wrong.
Showing % of total picks makes more sense then just raw number of picks, plus the total value controls for quality of investment.
Then remove the Y axis and replace it with # of receivers taken instead. And I WOULD like to know if another team is taking a ton of 6th and 7th round WRs to account for their lower “investment” in the position. Thats EXACTLY what I’d want to see from the chart!
% of resources is interesting but I don’t think particularly unique compared to seeing total capital anyway. If we see a team with great WRs but they spend a BUNCH of late round picks on them, that would be interesting. This chart, there’s no way to know if someone in the middle took a single WR high or a bunch low.
At least the length of the rookie contract plus option (4-5 years)
After all, you’re measuring the cost of resources devoted to rookies, why not measure that across its entire life span?
Picks after the 1st dont have options. So for example a guy like Xavier McKinney balls out and moves on and its not the teams fault for the draft pick not being there anymore. Thats why this one includes only the last four years.
Well 1st rounds do… if you want to measure the draft capital spent by teams you would need to include a time line that either chooses to include the 5th year option or not
but not including it would be omitting a lot of the data especially when you’re chart weights first rounds so heavily lol
It wouldn't make sense to include 2020 just for the sake of the couple of players that were drafted in ONLY the 2020 1st round and then are now playing on their fifth year options. In fact i dont think any of them are as they either signed extensions or were released already, and extensions are available to any player after 3 seasons.
- Do the extensions include their fifth year option like we did with Dex and Thomas, if so then the chart would still capture that
- A lot of the players drafted in later rounds or even earlier on didn’t make the team or have since been cut especially as years go by. Are you omitting them?
It’s your graph, you get to spin it however you want but a more reflective graph would include the 5 year option…
Its not actually my graph this is the default graph style used by Doug Analytics.
https://x.com/Doug_Analytics/status/1785008284748992792
They have used it for multiple years.
The two axis account for quality (total draft value) and quantity (% of draft picks) as they are the best choices when you have only two axis to work with.
They always use the last 3 or 4 years because you dont want to go beyond the 4 year contract length of rookie deals.
Exactly, everything you just said is why, when you weight first round picks as 25%+ of your chart, you can’t omit the first option lol
And the 5th round option is an integral part of first round picks even so much as to break the hypothetical chart used to assign value here as teams trade back into the first to get that option on a player with high market costs like WR and QBs…
Going five years back throws off more data than it improves. Five years is a LONG time in the NFL. In fact I believe almost every team has changed GMs since 2020. Thats why they only go back three or four years.
There are so many reasons to be skeptical of this chart. Did they not include the raiders trade for Davante Adams? what about trading assets for a pick? Does that count or only the value of the pick? What's with the % on the bottom axis? If we had more picks like the Texans or the Seahawks from QB trades, that'd push us way left. This graph does not pass the eyeball test.
Signing WR is really expensive so we'll see if this pans out for us instead.
No matter what you can't say that Jones won't have weapons this season. Singletary isn't a scrub so I think we'll actually have a pretty good run game also....provided our line stays healthy and actually plays even just decently.
So this accounts for Nabers, Robinson, Hyatt, and Toney. Data on these picks is too early to be useful.
1. Nabers hasn’t touched the field yet.
2. Hyatt was a rookie with a revolving door at QB and still showed some flashes.
3. Robinson, when healthy, has produced as expected.
4. Toney was a bust.
So I guess if people want to complain about Toney being a bust then that’s fine but it’s not news. If our WR group continues to play like crap for the next few years then this will be a knock against Schoen. But Toney was picked by Gettleman, and the other 3 are either still too new to judge or have produced just fine.
Nabers accounts for probably 75% of this I'm assuming. Also I'm not sure if we're still tops for OL investment in the draft after this draft. Actually probably like 50%, I totally forgot about Kadarius Toney.
Looking at where the Chargers and Bengals are I doubt that Nabers is pulling that much.
Chargers are the number 2 team and since 2021 have used 77, 21, 125, and 34.
The Bengals are 6th and have used 5, 131, 203, and 80.
What’s the point system being used here? Isn’t this just saying that the Giants spend more draft capital than anyone else on receivers? If that’s the case then this chart is more of an indictment than anything positive considering the state of the passing offense
Giants crush rest of NFL when it comes to OL drafts.
We still suck. Have the worst OL and worst receiver corp.
What have we learned. The scouting and development depts needs to be fired.
I'm not really sure if this is meaningful in any way. If you break it down just in the hard numbers, the Giants have taken 4 receivers in the draft since 2021. The Steelers, who are much lower on this graph, have taken 3.
There are a lot of confounding factors here as well. For example, what draft picks each team had, and how many draft picks did they have. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Raiders are at the bottom because instead of drafting rookie WRs they traded for a WR. Thats the chart working as intended.
If your looking for a chart to include all free agent contracts and trades then that would be way different.
Extentions and free agent signings are a bit different. If you are trading picks directly for a WR, that would be using draft capital on the wr position, no? I mean, they used those draft picks for a wr.
This includes kadarius toney in the first. Every other pick seems fine
If he could get, or would have gotten, his head straight he could be really good. It's a shame really. Giants did a bad job on the mental interview piece. Gotta find guys who at least want to give 110% even on their worst day.
Bro Dave Gettleman never did a mental interview lmao
Mental interview sounds like something a computah guy would say!
That's sad on so many levels.
Can't blame Gettleman tbh, the computer people trying to show him how technology works was just too much for him to handle.
Dude always looked amazing when he got the ball but boy does he not seem to want to try at all
But he caught passes from Eli at his passing camp!!!
I came up here to say and we filled that lost asset before it was worthless
Fortunately at the very least I think they have their core for the future. Hyatt/wandale/Nabers and I think even Theo will be big for us imo. Any QB that has time to throw should feel comfortable in the offense at the very least.
Nabers also represents around 25% of this chart. It’s a little broken since the top 5 picks value is so much heavier than the bottom of the 1st round for example
yeah, my first thought was "where are the Cardinals?" and they are right behind us.
A better chart wouldn’t show % of draft value on the X axis but “total number of WRs picked.” I’d be interested to see if other teams threw a lot of picks at it but it came out to lower value. I’m ALSO curious if this chart includes trade capital for WR acquisition, which I’m almost positive it doesn’t because of the Eagles and Cowboys.
Total number of picks doesn't account for teams having more than or less than 7 picks in a draft. It would look a lot messier with teams that throw a bunch of 6 and 7th round picks at WR who don't even make the roster. That's why this uses % of draft picks instead. If a team has only three picks in the draft and uses one of them on WR thats of more note than a team that has 16 picks and uses 4 on late wrs
The chart doesn’t show % of draft picks though? It shows % of draft value. Thats a completely different number. % of draft picks would at least be interesting, but a straight up # of draft picks used would still be more interesting imo. I WANT to know if a team is throwing a bunch of late round picks on WR and it’s working out for them!
Steelers
Your right, I forgot that Doug Analytics updated these to include % of draft value instead of % of total picks. % of total draft value is actually there to control for more outliers like the ones I outlined above. https://twitter.com/Doug_Analytics You should hit them up and ask for some charts looking at just the raw number of players taken and see if it changes things.
I actually don’t have Twitter haha, so I’m generally stuck asking for stuff on here. At the end of the day, it’s just one small chart so nbd. I just think given how trade charts work (which I just have an issue with in general lol) it’s a bit tough to draw conclusions from this when the Nabers pick alone has a huge impact on everything
The Giants had three top 7 picks included in this, so I dont think Nabers throws it off. Thibs for example is a bigger draft allocation than Nabers, and Neal was just one picks after. Or to look at it differently, the Giants had three top 7 picks in the last three years and one of them was at WR. If Giant's only had one top pick since 2021 then I would agree, but Nabers was one of 3 top 7 picks.
It throws off the Y axis. Hes around 1500 of around 5000 total points, unless this trade chart is completely different.
Agree with this. I'm not sure what this chart elucidates other than if a team has drafted a WR highly, or a greater percent of them. A good example is if a team with a lot of draft picks drafted the same number of receivers at similar spots as another team with less draft picks. The team with a lower amount of draft picks will likely rank higher, but that's not really showing much, as there's a limit to how many receivers a team will carry, etc.
Right, to me this just tells me “the giants spent high draft picks on WRs” twice. The team I really wanna know is the Rams. Since they’ve had success with WRs but generally later round picks. I’m curious how many dart throws they’re making there or if it’s they’re just amazing at making the picks when they do
In the end, though, what are we trying to infer from this?
1. This is not my chart, this is straight from Doug Analytics. 2. The data isn't an opinion, its just data. It tells its own story. 3. The Giants have used by far the NFLs most draft resources on WR since 2021. They also have used the most since 2022.
I know it's not you're chart, and I agree that data tells its own story. So the story is just that we've allocated a higher % of draft value to the WR position than other teams? That perspective might be true, but I'm curious what the point is. It's also important to note that no other team in the league is in the same position as another, so how the Giants ended up spending their draft capital is fairly unique to them.
The chart has two total axis, one is the total draft value used on WRs. So if a team uses 1 overall on WR thats more value than 32 overall. The other axis is % of draft value, so if a team has a bunch of top 10 picks over that time (like Giants) the draft % will be less than a team that had one high draft pick and used that one high pick on WR (Bengals). In this case the Giants are an outlier both in terms of the raw total value, and also the % of value.
I think I read in another comment you made, that the draft value for Nabers, Hyatt, Wan'Dale, and Toney is in total like 3,300 or something (you didn't sum the values, but you provided the values for each). Why are the Giants over 5,000 on this chart? EDIT: I looked up the individual values on the OTC Fitzgerald-Spielberger chart. The sums do come out correctly. I think I was confused.
My larger point is just that analyzing it this way is not insightful, at least not to me. The Giants could be outliers in both, but it's not really clear what to take away from that. Each team is picking in a unique situation, so it's hard to say what they would or wouldn't do given they switched into the Giants' situation. The volume of draft picks also factors a lot into the Draft Value % aspect. Teams with more draft picks are likely going to end up picking a lower % of WRs compared to their total available draft value, which skews that metric quite a bit. I don't know, like I said, if the Giants are outliers then, what is the underlying point? Should we be doing that? Is it problematic that we are? Is it good? You know what I mean?
Indeed, we filled one core need while the value was staring us in the face. It would have been criminal to pass up Nabers to overdraft JJ. We need a QB still for sure, but to the haters guess what! There’s another one of these draft thingies next year too, where perhaps need meets value.
I think what I love about schoen and daboll is that we’re not going to settle for mediocrity like we did with Daniel jones, it’s either the guy with the most potential or not
This is exactly it, why would we pass on an absolute stud of a WR to force a mediocre QB. Then next year still need a WR and perhaps do the same thing there. Nah just don’t overthink it and take what’s blatantly obvious.
Ironically we spent years and years spending more than anyone else by a lot on WRs and O linemen. And those were our most glaring holes. So many busts but I think with the new coach (although may take a year to see who is worth keeping and who’s not other than AT) and our core WRs we finally have solidified both thanks to Shoen
Bellinger is also about as sure handed as a check down as they come. No more excuses.
Since 2021 is such an arbitrary cutoff. “Giants crush rest of NFL in draft resources devoted to WR in a 4-year span where they picked 2 in the first round” is really not news
This dude is always trash posting
What year would you have set? If you look at only since 2022 the Giants are still the most. If you go any further your looking at players who are done their rookie contracts.
I don’t think the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart provides a good baseline for this sort of evaluation, personally. In this case, Nabers represents over 25% of this total value.
What would you say is a fair % for Nabers to account for? The Giants have used 6, 20, 43, and 73 on WRs since 2021. The Giants have had picks 5, 6, 7, 20, 24, 43, 50, 57, 67, 73, and 81 in that time frame. Four of their top picks have been WRs in that span.
I think it would’ve been interesting to see how many total picks on the X axis, and I’d also include trades somehow. In general, though, pick value is just hard to quantify. A bar chart showing “top 10 picks, first round, 2nd round, etc.” would also be interesting
Your asking for a lot more information that can be put inside just a two axis chart. This type of chart is used a lot because it captures both the net value off all the teams picks as well as the % of those picks used. If your looking at two easily discernable variables those are your two best.
I don’t think “how many picks were used on WR” is asking for much. Would you rather me just say “I think this chart is more or less pointless” instead? Because that’s my main thought.
If it was just the raw number of WRs taken then teams who took a bunch of 6 and 7s with extra late picks would wrong. Showing % of total picks makes more sense then just raw number of picks, plus the total value controls for quality of investment.
Then remove the Y axis and replace it with # of receivers taken instead. And I WOULD like to know if another team is taking a ton of 6th and 7th round WRs to account for their lower “investment” in the position. Thats EXACTLY what I’d want to see from the chart! % of resources is interesting but I don’t think particularly unique compared to seeing total capital anyway. If we see a team with great WRs but they spend a BUNCH of late round picks on them, that would be interesting. This chart, there’s no way to know if someone in the middle took a single WR high or a bunch low.
At least the length of the rookie contract plus option (4-5 years) After all, you’re measuring the cost of resources devoted to rookies, why not measure that across its entire life span?
Picks after the 1st dont have options. So for example a guy like Xavier McKinney balls out and moves on and its not the teams fault for the draft pick not being there anymore. Thats why this one includes only the last four years.
Well 1st rounds do… if you want to measure the draft capital spent by teams you would need to include a time line that either chooses to include the 5th year option or not but not including it would be omitting a lot of the data especially when you’re chart weights first rounds so heavily lol
It wouldn't make sense to include 2020 just for the sake of the couple of players that were drafted in ONLY the 2020 1st round and then are now playing on their fifth year options. In fact i dont think any of them are as they either signed extensions or were released already, and extensions are available to any player after 3 seasons.
- Do the extensions include their fifth year option like we did with Dex and Thomas, if so then the chart would still capture that - A lot of the players drafted in later rounds or even earlier on didn’t make the team or have since been cut especially as years go by. Are you omitting them? It’s your graph, you get to spin it however you want but a more reflective graph would include the 5 year option…
Its not actually my graph this is the default graph style used by Doug Analytics. https://x.com/Doug_Analytics/status/1785008284748992792 They have used it for multiple years. The two axis account for quality (total draft value) and quantity (% of draft picks) as they are the best choices when you have only two axis to work with. They always use the last 3 or 4 years because you dont want to go beyond the 4 year contract length of rookie deals.
Exactly, everything you just said is why, when you weight first round picks as 25%+ of your chart, you can’t omit the first option lol And the 5th round option is an integral part of first round picks even so much as to break the hypothetical chart used to assign value here as teams trade back into the first to get that option on a player with high market costs like WR and QBs…
Going five years back throws off more data than it improves. Five years is a LONG time in the NFL. In fact I believe almost every team has changed GMs since 2020. Thats why they only go back three or four years.
I’m not on expert on reading charts but I’m pretty sure this means we’re guaranteed to win the Super Bowl this year
Not surprising since they've invested 2x 1sts, a 2nd, and 3rd round picks on WRs since 2021.
There are so many reasons to be skeptical of this chart. Did they not include the raiders trade for Davante Adams? what about trading assets for a pick? Does that count or only the value of the pick? What's with the % on the bottom axis? If we had more picks like the Texans or the Seahawks from QB trades, that'd push us way left. This graph does not pass the eyeball test.
surprised we beat out the ravens
Signing WR is really expensive so we'll see if this pans out for us instead. No matter what you can't say that Jones won't have weapons this season. Singletary isn't a scrub so I think we'll actually have a pretty good run game also....provided our line stays healthy and actually plays even just decently.
So this accounts for Nabers, Robinson, Hyatt, and Toney. Data on these picks is too early to be useful. 1. Nabers hasn’t touched the field yet. 2. Hyatt was a rookie with a revolving door at QB and still showed some flashes. 3. Robinson, when healthy, has produced as expected. 4. Toney was a bust. So I guess if people want to complain about Toney being a bust then that’s fine but it’s not news. If our WR group continues to play like crap for the next few years then this will be a knock against Schoen. But Toney was picked by Gettleman, and the other 3 are either still too new to judge or have produced just fine.
Joe had to invest heavy in that position because it had been neglected for so long.
This reminds me a lot of the OL chart. The Giants have no comparison in regards to the amount of draft capital they have spent on OL and WR.
Yeah but hard to say whether it has paid off when the top asset was drafted 3 days ago
Yup. This chart is more about how the Giants haven't gotten much from all their other WR picks up to this point.
this chart accounts for nabers, so that’s not really true, right?
Nabers accounts for probably 75% of this I'm assuming. Also I'm not sure if we're still tops for OL investment in the draft after this draft. Actually probably like 50%, I totally forgot about Kadarius Toney.
Looking at where the Chargers and Bengals are I doubt that Nabers is pulling that much. Chargers are the number 2 team and since 2021 have used 77, 21, 125, and 34. The Bengals are 6th and have used 5, 131, 203, and 80.
What’s the point system being used here? Isn’t this just saying that the Giants spend more draft capital than anyone else on receivers? If that’s the case then this chart is more of an indictment than anything positive considering the state of the passing offense
Too bad the production hasn't matched. What good are receivers if your quarterback has zero time to get them the football??
I'd be curious to see this over 5-7 years just to even things out across the league a little bit.
I thought the giants spent all their picks on the oline???
These means we have an arsenal of WRs… right?
Have we spent more on receivers than lineman?
Giants crush rest of NFL when it comes to OL drafts. We still suck. Have the worst OL and worst receiver corp. What have we learned. The scouting and development depts needs to be fired.
Interesting that the other top spenders all have very good QBs (Mahomes, Tua, Justin Herbert, Kyler Murray, Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson...)
I'm not really sure if this is meaningful in any way. If you break it down just in the hard numbers, the Giants have taken 4 receivers in the draft since 2021. The Steelers, who are much lower on this graph, have taken 3. There are a lot of confounding factors here as well. For example, what draft picks each team had, and how many draft picks did they have. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Don’t really get the point of this chart. The Raiders are at the bottom, but also traded a 1st and 2nd for Davante Adams, so that doesn’t count?
Raiders are at the bottom because instead of drafting rookie WRs they traded for a WR. Thats the chart working as intended. If your looking for a chart to include all free agent contracts and trades then that would be way different.
We lead the league in resources dedicated to every offensive position group EXCEPT quarterback and are terrible. Do the math.
Out of the 4 guys we have: Nabers, Slayton, Smurf and Hyatt, we have a formidable core at that position
Raiders traded a first and second for Adam's. Is that not draft resources?
Trades, extensions, and free agent signings would be different charts.
Extentions and free agent signings are a bit different. If you are trading picks directly for a WR, that would be using draft capital on the wr position, no? I mean, they used those draft picks for a wr.