Draft Grades (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

In this post I will evaluate how certain draft graders fared in their evaluations of the 2010 NFL Draft.

FoxNews.com

Pretty fair critique of the Broncos draft, but a little too giddy over Jimmy Clausen and overly skeptical of Houston's selections.

Grade: C

USA Today

Pretty conventional in its praise of the Seahawks', Raiders', and Lions' drafts, and in its criticism of the Broncos' and Jaguars' drafts. USA Today seems afraid to stick its neck out, content to play it safe. In doing so, it failed to recognize the solidity of the Buffalo Bills' draft.

Grade: C+

Rick Gosselin

Gosselin eschews conventional wisdom and tells us what he really thinks. He unfairly penalized the Redskins for having few selections, and is probably too optimistic about the Chiefs' (admittedly decent) draft. Overall not bad, but not what we've come to expect from Gosselin, who has done better work in past years.

Grade: C

Mel Kiper, Jr.

Kiper excels at grading the lower rounds of the drafts, where many of his colleagues are much weaker. He gives due respect to the Ravens' excellent draft. Overall, solid effort.

Grade: B+

NFL Fanhouse

Grade inflation is evident, as it seems they're loathe to give anyone poor marks. Ignore the grades, though, and focus on the analysis: while lacking tremendous depth, it is pretty much on the mark the whole way through.

Grade: B

 

[Kenny Powers]

Not sure I agree with how good Kiper's job was since he only graded 2 teams

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I don't think its meaningful to grade the graders for at least 3 years, at which time we'll know whether their grades were accurate. Of course, the benefit of hindsight makes grading the graders at a later date itself an unfair undertaking. These draft graders have to grade the draft today, based on what they know today. They put their reputations on the line with those grades, so its a bit unfair to grade the graders after the results are in.

btw - I think your grading of the graders is a bit better than other analysis I've seen, so I'll give it a B+, which incidentally is the same grade I gave the Portland Trailblazers for their performance in the 1984 NBA draft.

 

[John 14:6]

Now we need someone to evaluate how Maurile did grading the draft evaluators.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/05/11/do-inst...ing-not-really/

 

[road warrior]

What would be more interesting is the Shark Pool evaluating the 2007 draft, since it's always said it takes 3 years to really be in an evaluating position.

 

[gianmarco]

Now we need someone to evaluate how Maurile did grading the draft evaluators.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I wont qualify what a "bust" is. Different perceptions for different people. My perception is that 50% of 1st rounders are busts. And 90% of the "experts" all agree that they are head and shoulders better than all the rest. Which means that they are all proved wrong about 45% of the time. I know, some fuzzy math. If you cherry pick, you can find comments from all of them that make them look foolish.

These grades mean nothing because there will be some great players coming out in the later rounds, and there are sure to be some duds. Are we grading on a curve here? Last I checked, whenever I got an exam back with 55% right, it was scored an F.

ETA: If you were to put together a consensus round 1 list, place the names on a 32 triangle dartboard, have a trained monkey throw darts at it, the monkey would do as good as the experts.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Talk about grade inflation. Maurile plays it safe by giving no one a failing grade. At the same time, he allows no one to excel.

He must be a liberal.