Does anyone ever grade the graders?

[detlef]

So, on draft night, dude's like Kiper go ballistic over and over about "crappy" picks or fawn over "amazing value". Then, of course, the grades come out. Does anyone ever bother to actually go back and look if these guys are even close to being correct?

 

Now, there are certainly knuckleheads in the NFL who botch pick after pick, Al Davis and Matt Millen both come to mind. Of course, nobody was dogging Millen when he took Rodgers that year. We just saw highlight after highlight of him making crazy catches.

 

At any rate. So, considering the dollars at stake, one has to assume that, for the most part, we're looking at the people most equipped in the entire world to make the decisions they're making. That if you, or I, or Mel were actually better at this job, they'd find us and pay us instead. And these teams know what they need just like you, me, or Kiper knows what they need. If their O-line was like a sieve, they're looking to address that if it makes sense. And so on. So, for months, these teams have had a bunch of dudes scouring film, working guys out, interviewing their coaches, etc. I can assure you that they know more about these guys than Kiper does because, unlike Kiper, they don't have to research each and every player in the draft.

 

After all, pretty much every team but maybe 3-4 did not have to bother trying to figure out who was better between Bradford and Claussen or between Suh and McCoy because it just wasn't going to have to be a decision for them to make. I'm sure they took a look, because you never know. But you have to think that they were mostly looking at the guys they 1)had a realistic shot of picking and 2) play a position that they actually need. Further, they're looking at guys that make sense to them in terms of what style of offense or defense they play (or want to play).

 

Lastly, when you think about the fact that when you're looking at the top couple of guys in the entire draft class at a given position, you are really splitting hairs. Yet, when someone takes a certain OT when Kiper's favorite is still out there, dude acts like they just picked poop over prime rib. Or worse still, if they take a guy at a position other than what he thinks they need most... The second one cracks me up because it assumes that each and every guy taken in the 1st is destined to be a productive starter. Need an OT? No problem. Grab the best one available in the draft and cross that off your list. OK genius, what if you think they're all crap? You've got 22 starting positions you need to fill. Maybe there's a kid at a position that you're not hurting at that you've way more confident about? So, you can either take a guy who you don't like because you need a good version of someone who plays the position he plays on your team or pick someone who you actually think will be good. Nobody was ever bummed because they had too many great LBs. Not much of a head-scratcher, actually.

 

Sorry, I'm sure this is news to pretty much nobody, just had to get it off my chest.

Edited April 23, 2010 by detlef

[loaf]

duh, we grade the graders

[detlef]

duh, we grade the graders

Well, we say things like, "Kiper is an idiot. This dude is better." What I'd like to see, and I'm surprised it hasn't been done is a detailed recap after a few years about how often they're right. Sure we grade them on how accurately they predict who's going where, because that's easy to do and can be done the next day. But that's just part of it. Because these are the guys who they thrust out there as experts and these are the guys who call out all the teams on how good their picks were before any of these kids ever play a snap.

 

Honestly, I'm less interested in how good these guys are at predicting who's gonna pick who and more with how good these guys are at predicting who will or will not become good pros.

[loaf]

I knew what you were after, just had to type that

[tonorator]

good post here by 2V

 

eta: i've never seen any post-draft analysis going years back ... that's not what they pay these guys to do ... they match team needs with players.

Edited April 23, 2010 by tonorator

[detlef]

good post here by 2V

 

eta: i've never seen any post-draft analysis going years back ... that's not what they pay these guys to do ... they match team needs with players.

That's what they do leading up to the draft and leading up to each pick, but that's not what they do after the pick. They grade the pick. They declare the pick to be either good or bad. So they are doing more than simply matching the teams with the players, they make predictions about how good a pro each player will be.

 

As for 2V's post, that is cool and there is certainly something to be said for how well these guys do at predicting the draft. And if that's all they were doing, that's all that would matter. But it isn't and I think it would be fun to see how well they do at actually evaluating talent.

[tonorator]

That's what they do leading up to the draft and leading up to each pick, but that's not what they do after the pick. They grade the pick. They declare the pick to be either good or bad. So they are doing more than simply matching the teams with the players, they make predictions about how good a pro each player will be.

 

As for 2V's post, that is cool and there is certainly something to be said for how well these guys do at predicting the draft. And if that's all they were doing, that's all that would matter. But it isn't and I think it would be fun to see how well they do at actually evaluating talent.

 

you would need to have their lists by position, ranked in terms of how the graders felt they would perform, i.e. mel thinks clausen will be better than mccoy who will be better than tebow, etc. while they do put it together this way, they spend more of their time trying to predict who will pick which player when based on the specific needs of the team, so kind of a different thing. i agree that it would be cool to have their by position lists and then see after, say, 5 to 10 years if they were right.

[detlef]

you would need to have their lists by position, ranked in terms of how the graders felt they would perform, i.e. mel thinks clausen will be better than mccoy who will be better than tebow, etc. while they do put it together this way, they spend more of their time trying to predict who will pick which player when based on the specific needs of the team, so kind of a different thing. i agree that it would be cool to have their by position lists and then see after, say, 5 to 10 years if they were right.

Well, they also typically assign specific grades to each pick. Now, I understand that not only has to do with how the guy pans out but where he was picked, but I often think the "where he was picked" bit gets overrated.

 

For instance, everyone seems to be jumping all over Jacksonville for the guy they took at 10. The logic being that player they took there was projected to go much later. So, according to everyone, they reached. Well, what if dude turns out the be a beast? Maybe Jacksonville knows something Kiper and the rest of the geeks don't know. And, more importantly, they weren't picking at 25, they were picking at 10. If they liked the guy and didn't want to get too cute, trade back, and then find someone step up and take him, they just simply take the guy they want with the pick they have. None the less, the pick gets an F, D, or C depending on who you want to listen to. Well, doesn't it seem strange to evaluate the pick knowing absolutely nothing about what sort of career this guy is going to have?

 

It's not really much different than the way FF drafts are judged. We basically judge them based on value relative to ADP or our favorite rankings. Well ADP is flawed by the fact that it is an average which means that every idiot who drafts is figured into the mix. So, if you're smarter or have knowledge that is better than everyone else, you're going to be picking guys that others don't know about (and thus will not get picked as high). However, if you do know something they don't, these "reaches" will end up being RB1s by mid-season so everyone can suck it. As far as comparing it against your favorite rankings, that's really only as useful as the rankings are, which may or may not be all that.

 

So, it would be as simple as keeping a log of these grades and then seeing how well the players turn out. If they give a pick an A and dude is out of the league or riding the pine in a couple of years, that's a fail. If they give a pick a C or worse and dude turns out to be a reliable starter or better, that's a fail. That sort of thing.

[DMD]

I know I've seen that on the internets before. Not sure where - maybe ESPN? Actually it was probably just evaluating teams and how they had drafted, not draft evaluators.

[keggerz]

Mayock is A+

 

He really is head and shoulders above all the rest....after McNabb got traded the NFLN went and pulled the footage from 4 yrs ago when the Eagles "reached" for Kolb....he spot on then said something along the lines of this guy will be starting in 4 yrs for the Eagles....I am sure he has his misses but he supposedly spends a stupid amount of time breaking down coaches tape and it is easy to see that it pays off for him.

[keggerz]

Well, they also typically assign specific grades to each pick. Now, I understand that not only has to do with how the guy pans out but where he was picked, but I often think the "where he was picked" bit gets overrated.

 

For instance, everyone seems to be jumping all over Jacksonville for the guy they took at 10. The logic being that player they took there was projected to go much later. So, according to everyone, they reached. Well, what if dude turns out the be a beast? Maybe Jacksonville knows something Kiper and the rest of the geeks don't know. And, more importantly, they weren't picking at 25, they were picking at 10. If they liked the guy and didn't want to get too cute, trade back, and then find someone step up and take him, they just simply take the guy they want with the pick they have. None the less, the pick gets an F, D, or C depending on who you want to listen to. Well, doesn't it seem strange to evaluate the pick knowing absolutely nothing about what sort of career this guy is going to have?

 

It's not really much different than the way FF drafts are judged. We basically judge them based on value relative to ADP or our favorite rankings. Well ADP is flawed by the fact that it is an average which means that every idiot who drafts is figured into the mix. So, if you're smarter or have knowledge that is better than everyone else, you're going to be picking guys that others don't know about (and thus will not get picked as high). However, if you do know something they don't, these "reaches" will end up being RB1s by mid-season so everyone can suck it. As far as comparing it against your favorite rankings, that's really only as useful as the rankings are, which may or may not be all that.

 

So, it would be as simple as keeping a log of these grades and then seeing how well the players turn out. If they give a pick an A and dude is out of the league or riding the pine in a couple of years, that's a fail. If they give a pick a C or worse and dude turns out to be a reliable starter or better, that's a fail. That sort of thing.

There are times where teams can get to cute but when you reach for a guy that has a late 1st/early 2nd grade in the top 10 you deserve the criticism...even if he turns out to be the best player of all time.....liken it to a fantasy football owner taking Miles Austin in round 1,2, 3 etc last year...Dude ended up being a top 5ish WR but if you love him you trade back and get value...I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I think it does help to get my point across.

[detlef]

There are times where teams can get to cute but when you reach for a guy that has a late 1st/early 2nd grade in the top 10 you deserve the criticism...even if he turns out to be the best player of all time.....liken it to a fantasy football owner taking Miles Austin in round 1,2, 3 etc last year...Dude ended up being a top 5ish WR but if you love him you trade back and get value...I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I think it does help to get my point across.

But what is that "late 1st/ early 2nd grade" based on? Considering how many 1st round picks actually don't end up being worthy of a first round pick. those grades are hardly something that should be etched in stone. Regardless, "late 1st/early 2nd" means there's a very good chance that dude will not be there for your next pick. Sure, they could have traded back to the late teens and still been very safe in getting him, and maybe they should have. However, it's not like you get a king's ransom to move back from 10 to 18 or something. So that's worth a C or worse? And, yes, if he turns out to be "the best player of all time" then Jax should not take any crap at all for not moving back. It just takes one other team to want him and you just missed out on "the best player of all time" because you tried to get cute and squeeze an extra pick that you ended up using on a gunner.

 

 

At any rate, I almost forgot the reason why I came back to this thread. Pete Prisco just gave the Lions a D- for a 7th round pick because he doesn't know how the kid fits into their scheme. How many 7th rounders fit into anyone's scheme?

[detlef]

Actually, I guess the Lion's aren't alone in making crappy picks in the 7th round. Seems as if every team sucks.

 

So far, only one team has gotten even a B for their 7th round pick.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

I think MJD has been grading them his whole career as he was a laugher for them on draft day and is very vocal about the critics that doubted he could make it at his size in the NFL. I think he's getting the last laugh!!