This is why you shouldnt care about draft "grades" (1 Viewer)

[biggamer3]

This is why draft grades from these supposed "experts" is pure BSWhen they give the grades if they are way off, which they always are no one ever gives them #### the following year and they just give the next years draft grades again.My Gmen won the super bowl in 2007 mainly because they drafted very very well, no studs but many contributors on a championship team.This is what the supposed experts said about the 2007 Gmen draft (which later most analysts said was the best of any team, AFTER they won the SB.)From Mel Kiper JR.

New York Giants: GRADE: C-I would have gone differently with the Giants' draft. CornerbackAaron Ross has very good ball skills but not great catchup speed. I was surprised they didn't take left tackle Joe Staley because they need someone who can protect Eli Manning's blind side. The Giants took offensive tackle Adam Koets in the sixth round and even passed on left tackle Jermon Bushrod. If they had taken Staley, they could have drafted Eric Wright from UNLV instead of WR Steve Smith. I would rather have had Staley and Wright, but Smith is a good receiver and will be someone who holds onto the ball. Zak DeOssie was a really good long snapper in college and, at worst, will be a backup linebacker in the NFL. Kevin Boss (fifth round) is a natural pass-catching tight end with speed and has a chance to make an impact in the passing game. Safety Michael Johnson was a good pick in the seventh round but needs to be more physical.

heres yahoo's grades:

New York Giants: Cornerback Aaron Ross and wide receiver Steve Smith should both develop into good starting players and give the Giants some much-needed depth at their respective positions. Defensive tackle Jay Alford might have been a reach in the third round. He needs a lot of scheming to get production. The real puzzlement of this draft was waiting four rounds to go after a linebacker, and then using that pick on Zak DeOssie, who could take several years to develop into starting material. The Giants need help at that position now, if not sooner. The Giants also needed to get some depth on the offensive line, and then took tackle Adam Koets, who has been criticized for not working hard enough to take advantage of his skill set.Grade: C

This is the 2007 Gmen draft that was ripped:Rd. Pk Ovr Player Pos School1 20 20 Aaron Ross - Bio | Video CB Texas2 19 51 Steve Smith - Bio | Video WR USC3 18 81 Jay Alford - Bio DT Penn State4 17 116 Zak DeOssie - Bio | Video LB Brown5 16 153 Kevin Boss TE Western Oregon6 15 189 Adam Koets T Oregon State7 14 224 Michael Johnson S Arizona7 40 250 Ahmad Bradshaw RB Marshall

 

[djcolts]

Immediate draft grades are simply this: How the team drafted compared to the board the draft expert created. It means nothing - and I think most of us know that.

 

[The Jacket]

I think anyone who's been watching the NFL for at least a few years should know that "grading" a draft 24 hours after it happens is dumb. In fact, it seems that the "best" drafts produce the least results -- probably because said "best" drafts simply contain the most well-known players and/or guys with physical talent but questionable characters, work ethics, etc.

 

[moleculo]

two points:

1. I'm not sure if a C or a C- equates to "ripped".

2. You are closer to the team, but was this draft what put the Giants into the SB? Could they have done equally well with different guys? That in mind, was this draft that great? I see three starters here - Ross, Boss, and Johnson. it's great to find starters in the 5th and 7th, but that's probably more about luck than anything else - consider everyone else in the league passed on Boss and Johnson at least 4 times. I'd argue that the impact that this draft had on the giants winning a SB was minimal - I'd like to see some "expert"say that this was the best draft of 2007, like you claim.

 

[TankRizzo]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

 

[Avery]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

The OPs point is well taken but as others have said, I think we all knew that already, and all the grading and discussion is a drink of water for those of us dying of thirst for some actual football news and talk.We could always go back to discussing whether or not Jerry Angelo publicly tacitly approved of Jay Cutler partying.

 

[T Bell]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

 

[simmonjm]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

starving being the key word

 

[Avery]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

Should they say, "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!"?

 

[T Bell]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

Should they say, "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!"?

If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes. In practical terms, draft grades are fluff regardless, because by the time you can accurately assign them nobody much cares anymore as it's common knowledge.

 

[Sabertooth]

I agree. This blogger kinds of supports this

http://www.giantsgab.com/2009/04/13/i-hope...-men-a-c-draft/

 

[Steed]

2. You are closer to the team, but was this draft what put the Giants into the SB? Could they have done equally well with different guys? That in mind, was this draft that great? I see three starters here - Ross, Boss, and Johnson. it's great to find starters in the 5th and 7th, but that's probably more about luck than anything else - consider everyone else in the league passed on Boss and Johnson at least 4 times. I'd argue that the impact that this draft had on the giants winning a SB was minimal - I'd like to see some "expert"say that this was the best draft of 2007, like you claim.

I'd argue Bradshaw, Ross, and Boss had a big impact on them winning the SuperBowl. And I'm pretty sure Alford came up with a huge sack on the Pats last drive.

 

[Avery]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

Should they say, "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!"?

If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes. In practical terms, draft grades are fluff regardless, because by the time you can accurately assign them nobody much cares anymore as it's common knowledge.

Seriously?!?Guys like Kiper are paid to give their opinion on college players and the NFL draft. There are no facts on how these guys will perform as of yet.

You think the only way an NFL journalist can show any integrity is by simply saying, "I refuse to say anything about the potential success of these players because all the facts are not in. I will report on the final draft grade of the Jets once Sanchez retires."

 

[Tex Goldstein]

Immediate draft grades are simply this: How the team drafted compared to the board the draft expert created. It means nothing - and I think most of us know that.

This and

I think anyone who's been watching the NFL for at least a few years should know that "grading" a draft 24 hours after it happens is dumb. In fact, it seems that the "best" drafts produce the least results -- probably because said "best" drafts simply contain the most well-known players and/or guys with physical talent but questionable characters, work ethics, etc.

This3-4 years down the line is the time to assess a draft. "Can't Miss" guys like Tony Mandarich, Todd Blackledge show their true colors by then - so too "Long-Shots" like Tom Brady, Jerry Rice, James Harrison (UFA there)....

 

[biggamer3]

two points:1. I'm not sure if a C or a C- equates to "ripped". 2. You are closer to the team, but was this draft what put the Giants into the SB? Could they have done equally well with different guys? That in mind, was this draft that great? I see three starters here - Ross, Boss, and Johnson. it's great to find starters in the 5th and 7th, but that's probably more about luck than anything else - consider everyone else in the league passed on Boss and Johnson at least 4 times. I'd argue that the impact that this draft had on the giants winning a SB was minimal - I'd like to see some "expert"say that this was the best draft of 2007, like you claim.

honestly if the Giants didnt draft Boss, Bradshaw, Smith, (who was huge in SB) Johnson, there was no way they would have won SB.All these guys really contributed when called upon, even Alford.To say a 5th round pick was "luck" is silly, the Pats get all the credit for taking Brady late, you still gotta do the right scouting to pick great late

 

[TankRizzo]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

I don't see a problem with it, nobody is forcing you to read it. If you're THAT worried about your journalistic integrity, then don't write it. It's kind of like a troll thread...some people will love it, others will jump in to complain it, but it got people's attention. I mean, I HATE ESPN and everything they represent any more, so I simply don't watch the network (other than games and the draft).

 

[biggamer3]

I agree. This blogger kinds of supports this

http://www.giantsgab.com/2009/04/13/i-hope...-men-a-c-draft/

Good blog, the guy is on the ball.

In 2005 The Second “C” draft:

2nd Round Corey Webster

3rd Round Justin Tuck

4th Round Brandon Jacobs

6th round Eric Moore.

Wow! What a haul for only four picks. Obviously the 1st (Merriman) and the fifth (Nate Kaeding) went to the Chargers in the Eli Manning trade.

Now, I don’t think the Giants would have drafted Shawne Merriman then either and it’s tough to predict although if I could go back in time with that pick and select whatever player I wanted from the first round past the Merriman pick it’d probably be Roddy White WR.

Anyway,

Corey Webster SHOULD be a Pro-Bowler this year, he had a great season this past season.

Justin Tuck is a beast and is a pro bowler.

Brandon Jacbos is awesome-many would argue he makes the Giants go. He could very well be a pro bowler. He averages more than 5 yards a carry for the past TWO seasons combined.

Draft Regrade A/B+

An “A” because of what the Giants did get out of this draft-Webster, Tuck, and Jacbos. A B+ if you want to take into consideration what else the Giants might have had, but the draft was spectacular.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Immediate draft grades are simply this: How the team drafted compared to the board the draft expert created. It means nothing - and I think most of us know that.

This and

I think anyone who's been watching the NFL for at least a few years should know that "grading" a draft 24 hours after it happens is dumb. In fact, it seems that the "best" drafts produce the least results -- probably because said "best" drafts simply contain the most well-known players and/or guys with physical talent but questionable characters, work ethics, etc.

This3-4 years down the line is the time to assess a draft. "Can't Miss" guys like Tony Mandarich, Todd Blackledge show their true colors by then - so too "Long-Shots" like Tom Brady, Jerry Rice, James Harrison (UFA there)....

Jerry Rice was a first round pick.

 

[T Bell]

Point blank, it's April and we're starving for football. I'd rather read through draft grades and mini-camp reports than watch a minute of baseball.

But shouldn't this be an embarrassment to people who call themselves "journalists" to peddle such garbage simply because "my readers want garbage"?

Should they say, "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!"?

If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes. In practical terms, draft grades are fluff regardless, because by the time you can accurately assign them nobody much cares anymore as it's common knowledge.

Seriously?!?Guys like Kiper are paid to give their opinion on college players and the NFL draft. There are no facts on how these guys will perform as of yet.

You think the only way an NFL journalist can show any integrity is by simply saying, "I refuse to say anything about the potential success of these players because all the facts are not in. I will report on the final draft grade of the Jets once Sanchez retires."

Your attempt to falsely exaggerate my position in order to lampoon it is weak. I wrote this in another thread discussing assessment of draft picks, and it pretty well lays out my position:There are a number of ways to view whether or not a draft was "successful". Only one of them is whether the players justified their draft position. I agree that that is something that requires the passage of time on, usually around 1-3 years.

Another is whether the players were drafted at, above or below their expected draft position. That's something you know right away.

Related to this is whether the player drafted was the "best player available" at least as far as scouting consensus goes. While you obviously want to see how the player develops over time, you certainly can form initial impressions right after the draft.

Another is whether the players drafted fit team needs. Again, that's something you can assess right away.

I have no problems with people saying "Player X was drafted too early", or "this team didn't address their OL needs despite numerous highly rated OL's being on the board", but these "experts'" grades don't even pretend to be interim impressions, and rarely do their superficial comments even pretend to qualify themselves.

At least with Kiper you're dealing with a supposed "draft guru" (one who never played football at any level of competition I'm aware of, BTW) rather than a journalist, but when guys like Prisco "weigh in" I have to laugh for the reasons stated.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think anyone who's been watching the NFL for at least a few years should know that "grading" a draft 24 hours after it happens is dumb. In fact, it seems that the "best" drafts produce the least results -- probably because said "best" drafts simply contain the most well-known players and/or guys with physical talent but questionable characters, work ethics, etc.

There's nothing wrong with grading a draft. But I think usually two things get conflated -- the quality of the players taken and the quality of the players taken relative to their draft position.The Lions had the best draft, ignoring draft position. Does that mean they get an A? Or an A+? Or do we dock them for having high picks? I see nothing wrong with draft analysis as long as you're clear exactly what you're grading.

 

[Avery]

Your attempt to falsely exaggerate my position in order to lampoon it is weak. I wrote this in another thread discussing assessment of draft picks, and it pretty well lays out my position:

There are a number of ways to view whether or not a draft was "successful". Only one of them is whether the players justified their draft position. I agree that that is something that requires the passage of time on, usually around 1-3 years.

Another is whether the players were drafted at, above or below their expected draft position. That's something you know right away.

Related to this is whether the player drafted was the "best player available" at least as far as scouting consensus goes. While you obviously want to see how the player develops over time, you certainly can form initial impressions right after the draft.

Another is whether the players drafted fit team needs. Again, that's something you can assess right away.

I have no problems with people saying "Player X was drafted too early", or "this team didn't address their OL needs despite numerous highly rated OL's being on the board", but these "experts'" grades don't even pretend to be interim impressions, and rarely do their superficial comments even pretend to qualify themselves.

At least with Kiper you're dealing with a supposed "draft guru" (one who never played football at any level of competition I'm aware of, BTW) rather than a journalist, but when guys like Prisco "weigh in" I have to laugh for the reasons stated.

OK. Then I'm confused by your position.On one hand you say that "If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes." in response to whether they should just say " "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!""

Now you list all the ways they can immediately report on the success of a draft.

Not lampooning here, but your position(s) on this seems a bit

 

[T Bell]

Your attempt to falsely exaggerate my position in order to lampoon it is weak. I wrote this in another thread discussing assessment of draft picks, and it pretty well lays out my position:

There are a number of ways to view whether or not a draft was "successful". Only one of them is whether the players justified their draft position. I agree that that is something that requires the passage of time on, usually around 1-3 years.

Another is whether the players were drafted at, above or below their expected draft position. That's something you know right away.

Related to this is whether the player drafted was the "best player available" at least as far as scouting consensus goes. While you obviously want to see how the player develops over time, you certainly can form initial impressions right after the draft.

Another is whether the players drafted fit team needs. Again, that's something you can assess right away.

I have no problems with people saying "Player X was drafted too early", or "this team didn't address their OL needs despite numerous highly rated OL's being on the board", but these "experts'" grades don't even pretend to be interim impressions, and rarely do their superficial comments even pretend to qualify themselves.

At least with Kiper you're dealing with a supposed "draft guru" (one who never played football at any level of competition I'm aware of, BTW) rather than a journalist, but when guys like Prisco "weigh in" I have to laugh for the reasons stated.

OK. Then I'm confused by your position.On one hand you say that "If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes." in response to whether they should just say " "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!""

Now you list all the ways they can immediately report on the success of a draft.

Not lampooning here, but your position(s) on this seems a bit

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is not sufficient cause for me to reconsider it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How much difference is there between pre-season projections and post-draft grades?

 

[T Bell]

How much difference is there between pre-season projections and post-draft grades?

Draft grades make even less sense than do projections. At least with projections you have some information from prior years of actual NFL performance on which to base things. Of note, I'm against preseason college rankings for these very reasons - the first official polls should come at least a few weeks into the season IMHO.

 

[Avery]

Your attempt to falsely exaggerate my position in order to lampoon it is weak. I wrote this in another thread discussing assessment of draft picks, and it pretty well lays out my position:

There are a number of ways to view whether or not a draft was "successful". Only one of them is whether the players justified their draft position. I agree that that is something that requires the passage of time on, usually around 1-3 years.

Another is whether the players were drafted at, above or below their expected draft position. That's something you know right away.

Related to this is whether the player drafted was the "best player available" at least as far as scouting consensus goes. While you obviously want to see how the player develops over time, you certainly can form initial impressions right after the draft.

Another is whether the players drafted fit team needs. Again, that's something you can assess right away.

I have no problems with people saying "Player X was drafted too early", or "this team didn't address their OL needs despite numerous highly rated OL's being on the board", but these "experts'" grades don't even pretend to be interim impressions, and rarely do their superficial comments even pretend to qualify themselves.

At least with Kiper you're dealing with a supposed "draft guru" (one who never played football at any level of competition I'm aware of, BTW) rather than a journalist, but when guys like Prisco "weigh in" I have to laugh for the reasons stated.

OK. Then I'm confused by your position.On one hand you say that "If they want to hold any journalistic integrity beyond what writers for the National Enquirer do, then yes." in response to whether they should just say " "Honestly, we really won't know the true draft grades for 3-5 years so it is pointless to report on it. Now, onto my draft grades for the 2004 NFL draft!""

Now you list all the ways they can immediately report on the success of a draft.

Not lampooning here, but your position(s) on this seems a bit

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is not sufficient cause for me to reconsider it.

I don't at all.Feel free to hold multiple positions on the same question all you like. Doesn't affect me in the slightest although it doesn't forward the discussion much.

 

[FantasyTrader]

This is why draft grades from these supposed "experts" is pure BSWhen they give the grades if they are way off, which they always are no one ever gives them #### the following year and they just give the next years draft grades again.My Gmen won the super bowl in 2007 mainly because they drafted very very well, no studs but many contributors on a championship team.This is what the supposed experts said about the 2007 Gmen draft (which later most analysts said was the best of any team, AFTER they won the SB.)From Mel Kiper JR.

New York Giants: GRADE: C-I would have gone differently with the Giants' draft. CornerbackAaron Ross has very good ball skills but not great catchup speed. I was surprised they didn't take left tackle Joe Staley because they need someone who can protect Eli Manning's blind side. The Giants took offensive tackle Adam Koets in the sixth round and even passed on left tackle Jermon Bushrod. If they had taken Staley, they could have drafted Eric Wright from UNLV instead of WR Steve Smith. I would rather have had Staley and Wright, but Smith is a good receiver and will be someone who holds onto the ball. Zak DeOssie was a really good long snapper in college and, at worst, will be a backup linebacker in the NFL. Kevin Boss (fifth round) is a natural pass-catching tight end with speed and has a chance to make an impact in the passing game. Safety Michael Johnson was a good pick in the seventh round but needs to be more physical.

heres yahoo's grades:

New York Giants: Cornerback Aaron Ross and wide receiver Steve Smith should both develop into good starting players and give the Giants some much-needed depth at their respective positions. Defensive tackle Jay Alford might have been a reach in the third round. He needs a lot of scheming to get production. The real puzzlement of this draft was waiting four rounds to go after a linebacker, and then using that pick on Zak DeOssie, who could take several years to develop into starting material. The Giants need help at that position now, if not sooner. The Giants also needed to get some depth on the offensive line, and then took tackle Adam Koets, who has been criticized for not working hard enough to take advantage of his skill set.Grade: C

This is the 2007 Gmen draft that was ripped:Rd. Pk Ovr Player Pos School1 20 20 Aaron Ross - Bio | Video CB Texas2 19 51 Steve Smith - Bio | Video WR USC3 18 81 Jay Alford - Bio DT Penn State4 17 116 Zak DeOssie - Bio | Video LB Brown5 16 153 Kevin Boss TE Western Oregon6 15 189 Adam Koets T Oregon State7 14 224 Michael Johnson S Arizona7 40 250 Ahmad Bradshaw RB Marshall

With all due respect, you're reading it, analyzing it, re-clicking it and now mentioning it on the most popular fantasy sports forums that exist. That's all they wanted out of you really and THAT's why they'll continue grading the draft. It's an opinion piece that gets people talking and clicking.

 

[WisWolvrns]

overall grading drafts typically are based on past performance and the probability of it continuing in the future. Good graded drafts have alot of good past performance/future hyped players. Bad ones don't. Albeit, what the future results actually turn out to be is unpredictable.

just look at your fantasy drafts. how many times have your "best" drafted teams in a league actually won it all? most times they don't win it all and could even not make the playoffs. it's because the best looking teams are the ones with players who did well in the past and/or were hyped to do well in the future. how things actually play out during the year is unpredictable.

look at it like the stock market. same thing. you can look at all the raw data and make projections, but sometimes they work out sometimes they don't and in either case you don't have control over the outcome.

it's just entertainment writing anyhow. kinda similar to how women watch their soaps on tv...

 

[Avery]

overall grading drafts typically are based on past performance and the probability of it continuing in the future. Good graded drafts have alot of good past performance/future hyped players. Bad ones don't. Albeit, what the future results actually turn out to be is unpredictable.

just look at your fantasy drafts. how many times have your "best" drafted teams in a league actually won it all? most times they don't win it all and could even not make the playoffs. it's because the best looking teams are the ones with players who did well in the past and/or were hyped to do well in the future. how things actually play out during the year is unpredictable.

look at it like the stock market. same thing. you can look at all the raw data and make projections, but sometimes they work out sometimes they don't and in either case you don't have control over the outcome.

it's just entertainment writing anyhow. kinda similar to how women watch their soaps on tv...

I really like this analogy.

Mel Kiper = Jim Crammer