Why is Crabtree's draft grade so low? (1 Viewer)

fridayfrenzy said:

Code:

Larry Fitzgerald*	5.10Calvin Johnson	5.05Braylon Edwards	4.64Roy Williams	4.48Reggie Williams*	4.46Chad Jackson	4.34Michael Crabtree	4.30Santonio Holmes	4.26Mike Williams	4.23Michael Clayton*	4.22Troy Williamson	4.21Michael Jenkins	4.20Lee Evans	4.19Jeremy Maclin	4.19Rashaun Woods	4.18Ted Ginn Jr.	4.15Robert Meachem	4.14Devin Thomas	4.13Mark Clayton	4.12Dwayne Bowe	4.08Steve Smith	4.05James Hardy	4.04Darrius Heyward-Bey	4.04Anthony Gonzalez	4.03DeSean Jackson	3.99Hakeem Nicks	3.99Percy Harvin	3.94Sharod White	3.92

On a draft grade basis, Crabtree seems to be lacking in terms of a top 5-10 pick WR. I didnt expect to see him with Fitz or Calvin Johnson draft grades, but maybe something close to Braylon Edwards or Roy Williams.Is this draft grade appropriate? Is he just not as good as I had originally thought?Is it low due to him not running the 40?

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

Whose grade is it and what is the criteria and weighting system for the grade?

Click to expand...

az_prof said:

I don't know whose code that is but I wouldn't worry too much about it--it looks completely arbitrary and wrong. You have Desean Jackson and Steve Smith and D. Bowe quite low. Reggie Williams and Chad Jackson quite high. In terms of real NFL performance you could just as well shuffle these up and deal them out.

Click to expand...

fridayfrenzy said:

Draft grades per SI.com going back to 2003

Rashaun Woods 4.18

Click to expand...

Sigmund Bloom said:

He doesn't have elite speed, and he's not 6'4", that's why.

Click to expand...

EBF said:

7 of the 8 guys ahead of him were top 10 picks. Seems about right.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

One thing that interests me is something Bloom mentioned "height and lack of speed." Does a player really get graded down due to his height and how much? I'd take Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, Derrick Mason, and several others over a lot of the guys on this list.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the obsession that people have with size. It's not that important for WRs.Santana Moss - 5'10" 200Steve Smith - 5'9" 185Eddie Royal - 5'9" 185Santonio Holmes - 5'11" 192Joey Galloway - 5'11" 197Marvin Harrison - 6'0" 185Isaac Bruce - 6'0" 188Greg Jennings - 5'11" 197Laveranues Coles - 5'11" 192Derrick Mason - 5'10" 192Donald Driver - 6'0" 194Lee Evans - 5'11" 197Terry Glenn - 5'11" 196Percy Harvin - 5'11" 192

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

Does anyone have the "NFL grading criteria"? Not the scale that accompanies the scores, but the actual method for scoring? I would love to do some grading with their system to see how it turns out. One thing that interests me is something Bloom mentioned "height and lack of speed." Does a player really get graded down due to his height and how much? I'd take Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, Derrick Mason, and several others over a lot of the guys on this list.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

Does anyone have the "NFL grading criteria"?

Not the scale that accompanies the scores, but the actual method for scoring? I would love to do some grading with their system to see how it turns out.

One thing that interests me is something Bloom mentioned "height and lack of speed." Does a player really get graded down due to his height and how much?

I'd take Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, Derrick Mason, and several others over a lot of the guys on this list.

Click to expand...

The Blesto rating scale is distinctly more user friendly and closely resembles the rating scale, that Tom Marino introduced to scout.com in 2007. The second and third numbers in the grade will tell you the predicted round and placement in the round. For example a 1.38 grade would put the prospect at or near the bottom of the third round.

Blesto Inc

0.0 - 1.19 – Rd 1

1.20 - 1.29 – Rd 2

1.30 - 1.39 – Rd 3

1.40 - 1.49 – Rd 4

1.50 - 1.59 – Rd 5

1.60 - 1.69 – Rd 6

1.70 - 1.79 – Rd 7

1.80 - 1.89 – Priority FA

2.00 - Free Agent

2.50 - Need more information

4.50 - Insufficient skills

National Scouting

9.0 – 6.5 – Rd 1

6.4 – 6.0 – Rd 2

5.9 – 5.5 – Rd 3 – 4

5.4 – 5.0 – Rd 5 – 7

2.0 - Need more information

1.2 - Insufficient skills but recommended by staff

1.0 - Insufficient skills

Click to expand...

Current Blesto members include Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, NY Giants, Minnesota, Miami and Buffalo, with Miami’s membership in the group tentative at best.

National members include; Arizona, Carolina, Cincinnati, Denver, Green Bay, Kansas City, New Orleans, NY Jets, Philadelphia, St Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, San Diego, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco and Houston.

Baltimore, Indianapolis, Chicago, Oakland, New England, Cleveland and Washington have all chosen to remain independent.

Click to expand...

EBF said:

Matt Waldman said:

One thing that interests me is something Bloom mentioned "height and lack of speed." Does a player really get graded down due to his height and how much? I'd take Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, Derrick Mason, and several others over a lot of the guys on this list.

Click to expand...

I think the public puts too much stock in WR height. It can be asset, but it's not a pre-requisite for greatness in the NFL. Here's something I posted in a Percy Harvin thread a little while back:

I don't understand the obsession that people have with size. It's not that important for WRs.Santana Moss - 5'10" 200Steve Smith - 5'9" 185Eddie Royal - 5'9" 185Santonio Holmes - 5'11" 192Joey Galloway - 5'11" 197Marvin Harrison - 6'0" 185Isaac Bruce - 6'0" 188Greg Jennings - 5'11" 197Laveranues Coles - 5'11" 192Derrick Mason - 5'10" 192Donald Driver - 6'0" 194Lee Evans - 5'11" 197Terry Glenn - 5'11" 196Percy Harvin - 5'11" 192

Click to expand...

I think a segment of the general punditry has fallen into the trap of thinking that you have to be Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or Andre Johnson to be an effective pro WR. In reality, successful NFL wideouts come in many sizes and styles. Crabtree has a good build for a possession WR at 6'1" 215. That puts him snugly in the same general range as other YAC type WRs like Cotchery, Boldin, and Bowe. This kind of WR generally doesn't need great timed speed to excel.

Click to expand...

fridayfrenzy said:

EBF said:

7 of the 8 guys ahead of him were top 10 picks. Seems about right.

Click to expand...

All those guys are graded significantly higher than Crabtree though. They are on tiers above Crabtree in terms of these grades. Crabtree is going to be a top 6-8 pick, but is grading out with Santonio Holmes, Chad Jackson who were taken late 1st, early 2nd.

Click to expand...

Holy Schneikes said:

I've made the same or similar arguments in the past with regard to size, so I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here but...If you look at the truly ELITE guys (the guys that win you championships with monster years), almost all of them have either elite speed or elite size or both. Most of the little guys you list have elite speed, and the ones that don't haven't really been elite guys (really good, but not great). On the other side, you have some really big guys who have decent speed (among other positive attributes) or better, like Fitz.There are a few counter-examples, Boldin being the best one I can think of, but for the most part, all of the truly elite guys are really big, really fast or both. Crabtree WAS sort of in the big category until they measured him in the combine, which kind of dropped him back into slightly above average. So some people are a little concerned about putting him into that "could be dominant" category. Few are doubting he can be really good, it's just that some wonder if he can be better than that without elite measurables. Dunno if it's right or not, but I get it.

Click to expand...

EBF said:

I think a segment of the general punditry has fallen into the trap of thinking that you have to be Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or Andre Johnson to be an effective pro WR. In reality, successful NFL wideouts come in many sizes and styles.

Crabtree has a good build for a possession WR at 6'1" 215. That puts him snugly in the same general range as other YAC type WRs like Cotchery, Boldin, and Bowe. This kind of WR generally doesn't need great timed speed to excel.

Click to expand...

Sigmund Bloom said:

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a quote from a scout saying something like, "I'm much less likely to lose my job for recommending a 6'4" WR that busts than for recommending a 5'10" WR that busts".That is really what is driving this whole thing.Now teams are getting smarted - winnowing down their boards by looking for players that have the specific skills for their schemes, more heavily weighting character and things like being a team captain, having more clarity and agreement between scouts/coaches/front office about what makes a good football play - but there are still teams that are pulled in more than direction because of meddling owners/coaches or different football philosophies, or lack of a clear football philosophy.Most scouts would tell you that they are paid for teams to ignore what they say on draft day. Lande has told us all kinds of hilarious stories about this stuff that we can never share - like a scout putting a certain Qb with a 7th-FA grade when he was likely to go #1 overall, and the team insisting that he changed the grade, and the scout refusing at the danger of being fired.I see a lot of people say stuff like "I trust the opinions of the people that are paid to do this more than the people on this board" - if you saw the way some organizations are run, you would definitely trust them LESS than all of us jokers on this board. Sometimes it really is as bad it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

BuckeyeArt said:

fridayfrenzy said:

EBF said:

7 of the 8 guys ahead of him were top 10 picks. Seems about right.

Click to expand...

All those guys are graded significantly higher than Crabtree though. They are on tiers above Crabtree in terms of these grades. Crabtree is going to be a top 6-8 pick, but is grading out with Santonio Holmes, Chad Jackson who were taken late 1st, early 2nd.

Click to expand...

If you look at where all of them were drafted, it looks like Jackson and Holmes are the ones out of place, rather than Crabtree.Larry Fitzgerald* 5.10 -- 3

Calvin Johnson 5.05 ---- 2

Charles Rogers 4.80 ---- 2

Andre Johnson 4.78 ---- 3

Braylon Edwards 4.64 -- 3

Roy Williams 4.48 ------ 7

Reggie Williams* 4.46 -- 10

Chad Jackson 4.34 ----- 36

Michael Crabtree 4.30 - ?

Santonio Holmes 4.26 --- 25

Mike Williams 4.23 ------ 10

Michael Clayton* 4.22 -- 15

Troy Williamson 4.21 ---- 7

Michael Jenkins 4.20 ---- 29

Lee Evans 4.19 --------- 13

Jeremy Maclin 4.19 ----- ?

Rashaun Woods 4.18 --- 31

Ted Ginn Jr. 4.15 ------- 9

Robert Meachem 4.14 --- 27

Devin Thomas 4.13 ------ 34

Mark Clayton 4.12 ------- 22

Dwayne Bowe 4.08 ------ 23

Click to expand...

offdee said:

EBF said:

I think a segment of the general punditry has fallen into the trap of thinking that you have to be Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or Andre Johnson to be an effective pro WR. In reality, successful NFL wideouts come in many sizes and styles.

Crabtree has a good build for a possession WR at 6'1" 215. That puts him snugly in the same general range as other YAC type WRs like Cotchery, Boldin, and Bowe. This kind of WR generally doesn't need great timed speed to excel.

Click to expand...

One reason why Crabtree seems to play "bigger" than his 6-1 size:http://www.nextseasonsports.com/2009/02/se...h-freakish.html

Click to expand...

Holy Schneikes said:

Sigmund Bloom said:

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a quote from a scout saying something like, "I'm much less likely to lose my job for recommending a 6'4" WR that busts than for recommending a 5'10" WR that busts".That is really what is driving this whole thing.Now teams are getting smarted - winnowing down their boards by looking for players that have the specific skills for their schemes, more heavily weighting character and things like being a team captain, having more clarity and agreement between scouts/coaches/front office about what makes a good football play - but there are still teams that are pulled in more than direction because of meddling owners/coaches or different football philosophies, or lack of a clear football philosophy.Most scouts would tell you that they are paid for teams to ignore what they say on draft day. Lande has told us all kinds of hilarious stories about this stuff that we can never share - like a scout putting a certain Qb with a 7th-FA grade when he was likely to go #1 overall, and the team insisting that he changed the grade, and the scout refusing at the danger of being fired.I see a lot of people say stuff like "I trust the opinions of the people that are paid to do this more than the people on this board" - if you saw the way some organizations are run, you would definitely trust them LESS than all of us jokers on this board. Sometimes it really is as bad it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

For the most part I trust them more because they have access to all kinds of information I don't (and I would guess none or very few of the board/FBG guys do). Do they (scouts/management) do dumb things? Sure. But criticizing mistakes after the fact is a LOT easier than doing your own real analysis.I spend a lot of time reading about prospects, a lot of time watching football, and a lot of time "talking" about it. I'd put my "analysis" up against most of the people I have come across. But my opinions mean squat next to ANY guy who spent real time time breaking down real game film, has done actual interviews with players, has had players come to their building for private workouts, was standing on the field watching guys do drills at the combine etc. And these guys do all of that stuff 24/7.Even the analysis we see around here (don't mean to slam FBG in particular), is all extremely derivative. If the big boys (which are ALSO derivative when you get right down to it) move a guy up or down in their "rankings" all of the "lesser" lists tend to do the same to some degree. What would "we" be basing all of this player movement on otherwise? What has happened that we are privy to since January? We are basing it on what some SCOUTS said some dude did at his pro day (for example). That's why we see huge swings after the combine - it is the only real, "first hand" data we actually get to make our own "valuations" on.I like the FBG lists. It gives us something to talk about. Some of them might even be "good" for what that is worth. But just like I get annoyed when people complain the "experts" here (you guys were selected because you do good work and I assume get paid for your efforts in some form or other, and are therefore entitled to be called "experts" IMO), I get annoyed when people complain about the experts on an NFL staff. Yes, Al Davis is senile and crazy. Danny Snyder has a Napoleonic complex. But when you look at the NET knowledge of the combined NFL staffs, and say to yourself, my analysis is in general better than theirs, I think it's a bit delusional.Where the heck did that come from. I really got on a tear there. Sorry. My point is that if "the NFL" downgrades a guy for whatever reason, there is probably some reasoning behind it. If 32 staffs pass on a guy (like Manningham last year) at least once, chances are against him being complete stud, no matter what he did in college. Obviously, many guys are missed. But we remember them because they are the exceptions, not because the NFL guys suck at what they do.Take Marques Colston for example. Oh my gosh, the NFL guys don't know what they are doing! You'll hear stuff like that all the time. But wait, where did I see a list ranking him above all of the WRs taken before him in the draft? I didn't. Some homer may have gushed over him at some point, but some homer will gush over EVERY prospect at some point.I'm just saying, we all take ourselves a little too seriously at times.

Click to expand...

Sigmund Bloom said:

Matt Waldman said:

Does anyone have the "NFL grading criteria"?

Not the scale that accompanies the scores, but the actual method for scoring? I would love to do some grading with their system to see how it turns out.

One thing that interests me is something Bloom mentioned "height and lack of speed." Does a player really get graded down due to his height and how much?

I'd take Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Steve Smith, Derrick Mason, and several others over a lot of the guys on this list.

Click to expand...

Players absolutely get graded down for poor 40 times, less than ideal height, weight, and every other measureable, not to mention injury history, character, and many other things. Anthony Munoz failed 14 teams physicals because of his knees! Some teams take players completely off their boards if they don't fit into a range that they think is necessary for the position (btw, former scout Russ Lande told us that he thinks this is the most common mistake NFL teams make in the draft).Link

Well I can't speak for SI's scale, but National and BLESTO, two services that a lot of teams use, have these scales:

The Blesto rating scale is distinctly more user friendly and closely resembles the rating scale, that Tom Marino introduced to scout.com in 2007. The second and third numbers in the grade will tell you the predicted round and placement in the round. For example a 1.38 grade would put the prospect at or near the bottom of the third round.

Blesto Inc

0.0 - 1.19 – Rd 1

1.20 - 1.29 – Rd 2

1.30 - 1.39 – Rd 3

1.40 - 1.49 – Rd 4

1.50 - 1.59 – Rd 5

1.60 - 1.69 – Rd 6

1.70 - 1.79 – Rd 7

1.80 - 1.89 – Priority FA

2.00 - Free Agent

2.50 - Need more information

4.50 - Insufficient skills

National Scouting

9.0 – 6.5 – Rd 1

6.4 – 6.0 – Rd 2

5.9 – 5.5 – Rd 3 – 4

5.4 – 5.0 – Rd 5 – 7

2.0 - Need more information

1.2 - Insufficient skills but recommended by staff

1.0 - Insufficient skills

Click to expand...

Current Blesto members include Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, NY Giants, Minnesota, Miami and Buffalo, with Miami’s membership in the group tentative at best.

National members include; Arizona, Carolina, Cincinnati, Denver, Green Bay, Kansas City, New Orleans, NY Jets, Philadelphia, St Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, San Diego, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco and Houston.

Baltimore, Indianapolis, Chicago, Oakland, New England, Cleveland and Washington have all chosen to remain independent.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Holy Schneikes said:

offdee said:

EBF said:

I think a segment of the general punditry has fallen into the trap of thinking that you have to be Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or Andre Johnson to be an effective pro WR. In reality, successful NFL wideouts come in many sizes and styles.

Crabtree has a good build for a possession WR at 6'1" 215. That puts him snugly in the same general range as other YAC type WRs like Cotchery, Boldin, and Bowe. This kind of WR generally doesn't need great timed speed to excel.

Click to expand...

One reason why Crabtree seems to play "bigger" than his 6-1 size:http://www.nextseasonsports.com/2009/02/se...h-freakish.html

Click to expand...

That one cracks me up a little. So Crabtree has long arms. That's cool. But when you get right down to it, he's 4 inches shorter than CJ, probably has AT LEAST a couple of inches shorter vertical, so the net result is Johnson can get his hands 5 or 6 inches higher off the ground than Crabtree can. Which is a lot.It's not really fair comparing measurables with a freak like Johnson, but since the article's primary purpose is to make that comparison, it jumps out at me.

Click to expand...

Sigmund Bloom said:

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a quote from a scout saying something like, "I'm much less likely to lose my job for recommending a 6'4" WR that busts than for recommending a 5'10" WR that busts".That is really what is driving this whole thing.Now teams are getting smarted - winnowing down their boards by looking for players that have the specific skills for their schemes, more heavily weighting character and things like being a team captain, having more clarity and agreement between scouts/coaches/front office about what makes a good football play - but there are still teams that are pulled in more than direction because of meddling owners/coaches or different football philosophies, or lack of a clear football philosophy.Most scouts would tell you that they are paid for teams to ignore what they say on draft day. Lande has told us all kinds of hilarious stories about this stuff that we can never share - like a scout putting a certain Qb with a 7th-FA grade when he was likely to go #1 overall, and the team insisting that he changed the grade, and the scout refusing at the danger of being fired.I see a lot of people say stuff like "I trust the opinions of the people that are paid to do this more than the people on this board" - if you saw the way some organizations are run, you would definitely trust them LESS than all of us jokers on this board. Sometimes it really is as bad it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

Sigmund Bloom said:

Holy Schneikes said:

Sigmund Bloom said:

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a quote from a scout saying something like, "I'm much less likely to lose my job for recommending a 6'4" WR that busts than for recommending a 5'10" WR that busts".That is really what is driving this whole thing.Now teams are getting smarted - winnowing down their boards by looking for players that have the specific skills for their schemes, more heavily weighting character and things like being a team captain, having more clarity and agreement between scouts/coaches/front office about what makes a good football play - but there are still teams that are pulled in more than direction because of meddling owners/coaches or different football philosophies, or lack of a clear football philosophy.Most scouts would tell you that they are paid for teams to ignore what they say on draft day. Lande has told us all kinds of hilarious stories about this stuff that we can never share - like a scout putting a certain Qb with a 7th-FA grade when he was likely to go #1 overall, and the team insisting that he changed the grade, and the scout refusing at the danger of being fired.I see a lot of people say stuff like "I trust the opinions of the people that are paid to do this more than the people on this board" - if you saw the way some organizations are run, you would definitely trust them LESS than all of us jokers on this board. Sometimes it really is as bad it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

For the most part I trust them more because they have access to all kinds of information I don't (and I would guess none or very few of the board/FBG guys do). Do they (scouts/management) do dumb things? Sure. But criticizing mistakes after the fact is a LOT easier than doing your own real analysis.I spend a lot of time reading about prospects, a lot of time watching football, and a lot of time "talking" about it. I'd put my "analysis" up against most of the people I have come across. But my opinions mean squat next to ANY guy who spent real time time breaking down real game film, has done actual interviews with players, has had players come to their building for private workouts, was standing on the field watching guys do drills at the combine etc. And these guys do all of that stuff 24/7.Even the analysis we see around here (don't mean to slam FBG in particular), is all extremely derivative. If the big boys (which are ALSO derivative when you get right down to it) move a guy up or down in their "rankings" all of the "lesser" lists tend to do the same to some degree. What would "we" be basing all of this player movement on otherwise? What has happened that we are privy to since January? We are basing it on what some SCOUTS said some dude did at his pro day (for example). That's why we see huge swings after the combine - it is the only real, "first hand" data we actually get to make our own "valuations" on.I like the FBG lists. It gives us something to talk about. Some of them might even be "good" for what that is worth. But just like I get annoyed when people complain the "experts" here (you guys were selected because you do good work and I assume get paid for your efforts in some form or other, and are therefore entitled to be called "experts" IMO), I get annoyed when people complain about the experts on an NFL staff. Yes, Al Davis is senile and crazy. Danny Snyder has a Napoleonic complex. But when you look at the NET knowledge of the combined NFL staffs, and say to yourself, my analysis is in general better than theirs, I think it's a bit delusional.Where the heck did that come from. I really got on a tear there. Sorry. My point is that if "the NFL" downgrades a guy for whatever reason, there is probably some reasoning behind it. If 32 staffs pass on a guy (like Manningham last year) at least once, chances are against him being complete stud, no matter what he did in college. Obviously, many guys are missed. But we remember them because they are the exceptions, not because the NFL guys suck at what they do.Take Marques Colston for example. Oh my gosh, the NFL guys don't know what they are doing! You'll hear stuff like that all the time. But wait, where did I see a list ranking him above all of the WRs taken before him in the draft? I didn't. Some homer may have gushed over him at some point, but some homer will gush over EVERY prospect at some point.I'm just saying, we all take ourselves a little too seriously at times.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... in most cases. There are some franchises that are run like the owner in your FF league that you always make fun of is in charge - and I agree even more if you're talking about scouts and them being privy to info that we don't get except in rumor form (if at all) and our research being derivative - but again, even in the scouting community there is that groupthink you talk about.I'm not saying that we shouldn't trust the pros over us amateurs - just there are some pros that are doing their job like the most incompetent person at your workplace. Your point about Manningham is a good one - when all 32 teams agree, that's something to take notice of - it's the opposite - when a team reaches for a player (and we never really know how far that player would have fallen if they didn't), that we shouldn't assume that they know better - sometimes they really are just looking at 40 times or listening to what an agent says,

Click to expand...

Carolina Hustler said:

Sigmund Bloom said:

Holy Schneikes said:

Sigmund Bloom said:

I don't remember exactly where I read it, but there was a quote from a scout saying something like, "I'm much less likely to lose my job for recommending a 6'4" WR that busts than for recommending a 5'10" WR that busts".That is really what is driving this whole thing.Now teams are getting smarted - winnowing down their boards by looking for players that have the specific skills for their schemes, more heavily weighting character and things like being a team captain, having more clarity and agreement between scouts/coaches/front office about what makes a good football play - but there are still teams that are pulled in more than direction because of meddling owners/coaches or different football philosophies, or lack of a clear football philosophy.Most scouts would tell you that they are paid for teams to ignore what they say on draft day. Lande has told us all kinds of hilarious stories about this stuff that we can never share - like a scout putting a certain Qb with a 7th-FA grade when he was likely to go #1 overall, and the team insisting that he changed the grade, and the scout refusing at the danger of being fired.I see a lot of people say stuff like "I trust the opinions of the people that are paid to do this more than the people on this board" - if you saw the way some organizations are run, you would definitely trust them LESS than all of us jokers on this board. Sometimes it really is as bad it appears from the outside.

Click to expand...

For the most part I trust them more because they have access to all kinds of information I don't (and I would guess none or very few of the board/FBG guys do). Do they (scouts/management) do dumb things? Sure. But criticizing mistakes after the fact is a LOT easier than doing your own real analysis.I spend a lot of time reading about prospects, a lot of time watching football, and a lot of time "talking" about it. I'd put my "analysis" up against most of the people I have come across. But my opinions mean squat next to ANY guy who spent real time time breaking down real game film, has done actual interviews with players, has had players come to their building for private workouts, was standing on the field watching guys do drills at the combine etc. And these guys do all of that stuff 24/7.Even the analysis we see around here (don't mean to slam FBG in particular), is all extremely derivative. If the big boys (which are ALSO derivative when you get right down to it) move a guy up or down in their "rankings" all of the "lesser" lists tend to do the same to some degree. What would "we" be basing all of this player movement on otherwise? What has happened that we are privy to since January? We are basing it on what some SCOUTS said some dude did at his pro day (for example). That's why we see huge swings after the combine - it is the only real, "first hand" data we actually get to make our own "valuations" on.I like the FBG lists. It gives us something to talk about. Some of them might even be "good" for what that is worth. But just like I get annoyed when people complain the "experts" here (you guys were selected because you do good work and I assume get paid for your efforts in some form or other, and are therefore entitled to be called "experts" IMO), I get annoyed when people complain about the experts on an NFL staff. Yes, Al Davis is senile and crazy. Danny Snyder has a Napoleonic complex. But when you look at the NET knowledge of the combined NFL staffs, and say to yourself, my analysis is in general better than theirs, I think it's a bit delusional.Where the heck did that come from. I really got on a tear there. Sorry. My point is that if "the NFL" downgrades a guy for whatever reason, there is probably some reasoning behind it. If 32 staffs pass on a guy (like Manningham last year) at least once, chances are against him being complete stud, no matter what he did in college. Obviously, many guys are missed. But we remember them because they are the exceptions, not because the NFL guys suck at what they do.Take Marques Colston for example. Oh my gosh, the NFL guys don't know what they are doing! You'll hear stuff like that all the time. But wait, where did I see a list ranking him above all of the WRs taken before him in the draft? I didn't. Some homer may have gushed over him at some point, but some homer will gush over EVERY prospect at some point.I'm just saying, we all take ourselves a little too seriously at times.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... in most cases. There are some franchises that are run like the owner in your FF league that you always make fun of is in charge - and I agree even more if you're talking about scouts and them being privy to info that we don't get except in rumor form (if at all) and our research being derivative - but again, even in the scouting community there is that groupthink you talk about.I'm not saying that we shouldn't trust the pros over us amateurs - just there are some pros that are doing their job like the most incompetent person at your workplace. Your point about Manningham is a good one - when all 32 teams agree, that's something to take notice of - it's the opposite - when a team reaches for a player (and we never really know how far that player would have fallen if they didn't), that we shouldn't assume that they know better - sometimes they really are just looking at 40 times or listening to what an agent says,

Click to expand...

Are the "National and BLESTO" rankings available for these guys? I'd like to see how they match up.

Click to expand...