Real Proof of How Stupid "Draft Grades" Are

[BillsPhan]

Walter Football does a "re-grading" of their own draft grades years later. I checked out their 2005 results from their original grades and their re-grading they did 3 years later in 2008. In 20 of the 32 draft grades, they downgraded their own grades. That's a 38% "success rate" in correctly grading teams' drafts right after the 2005 meat market. I don't know too much about Walter Football, they were the first hit to pop up on google when I entered "2005 NFL draft grades." I'm pretty sure they put out annual college draft magazines, though.

 

I think every publication or individual "expert" that announces draft grades should do 3 year "re-gradings" like Walter. Or there should be one "watchdog" blog that does exactly that. I think you would find the Mel Kipers and Todd McShays' having much less credibility if their own "success rates" of their draft grading were announced before the first pick of the draft each year!

[peteski]

http://walterfootball.com/draft2005Gafc.php

Here is the link because he never put it in there. Lots of teams who were graded high didn't do as well and vice versa, with a few exceptions.

[Conch]

I have discovered that Draft Grades are stupid only when they give us bad ones. They are very accurate when we get good ones.

[lets_go_bills]

The draft = buying lottery tickets.

[1B4IDie]

I expect that this year everyone's "mock" will have extremely low grades.

 

Thehuddle has a bit of a watchdog rating as far as mocks go.

 

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/Free/mockdraftscoring.shtml

[Lurker]

I think you would find the Mel Kipers and Todd McShays' having much less credibility if their own "success rates" of their draft grading were announced before the first pick of the draft each year!

That same would apply to most NFL GMs, I suspect...

 

BTW, Walter Football is the worst draft site going, IMO, so I could care less about their re-grades as they probably missed wildly to begin with.

[stuckincincy]

Walter Football does a "re-grading" of their own draft grades years later. I checked out their 2005 results from their original grades and their re-grading they did 3 years later in 2008. In 20 of the 32 draft grades, they downgraded their own grades. That's a 38% "success rate" in correctly grading teams' drafts right after the 2005 meat market. I don't know too much about Walter Football, they were the first hit to pop up on google when I entered "2005 NFL draft grades." I'm pretty sure they put out annual college draft magazines, though.

 

I think every publication or individual "expert" that announces draft grades should do 3 year "re-gradings" like Walter. Or there should be one "watchdog" blog that does exactly that. I think you would find the Mel Kipers and Todd McShays' having much less credibility if their own "success rates" of their draft grading were announced before the first pick of the draft each year!

 

There's not much about football that isn't an opinion.

 

Football is a 4 act play that's been running - with variations - for over a hundred years. It isn't rocket science.

 

It's loaded with opinions. If the preponderance of opinions of the Bills' draft is a "C", so be it. That's what I give it - average. What's wrong with an average draft?

[Cynical]

There's not much about football that isn't an opinion.

 

Football is a 4 act play that's been running - with variations - for over a hundred years. It isn't rocket science.

 

It's loaded with opinions. If the preponderance of opinions of the Bills' draft is a "C", so be it. That's what I give it - average. What's wrong with an average draft?

 

I was thinking along the lines of "A". I think that's a fair grade.

 

Oh, by the way, my rating system consists of 2 grades: A or B.

 

It's a simple system based on whether the draft sucked or it didn't.

[yungmack]

These draft gurus decide what positions a team needs to upgrade, decide which are the best players at each position, then determine which one of their selections each team should select. When a team decides that it really doesn't need to fill a certain position (or that the available players are up to their standards) and chooses to fill a different position, well, then, they've insulted the Draft Guru who, of course, knows more than professional football men.

 

Now, having publicly stated a team's needs, and publicly chosen the "correct" player for each team, they are publicly embarrassed when teams don't do what they tell them to do. So of course, those teams who dare to defy the Draft Gurus wind up with poor grades.

 

That's circular reasoning. But, hey, this is 21st century America, where stupidity not only rules, it is highly rewarded (see: Sarah Palin, and half the people who post around here...if spelling and grammar are any indicators).

[IHFO]

I have discovered that Draft Grades are stupid only when they give us bad ones. They are very accurate when we get good ones.

probably the first thing i've ever agreed with you on +1

[silvermike]

It's funny most grades go down and not up. It seems like a lot of mock drafters get excited about too many prospects, and rarely really anticipate busts.

[BobbyC81]

These draft gurus decide what positions a team needs to upgrade, decide which are the best players at each position, then determine which one of their selections each team should select. When a team decides that it really doesn't need to fill a certain position (or that the available players are up to their standards) and chooses to fill a different position, well, then, they've insulted the Draft Guru who, of course, knows more than professional football men.

 

Now, having publicly stated a team's needs, and publicly chosen the "correct" player for each team, they are publicly embarrassed when teams don't do what they tell them to do. So of course, those teams who dare to defy the Draft Gurus wind up with poor grades.

 

That's circular reasoning. But, hey, this is 21st century America, where stupidity not only rules, it is highly rewarded (see: Sarah Palin, and half the people who post around here...if spelling and grammar are any indicators).

 

 

You ain't got no right critisizen' spellin and grammer. This iz a futbol bored

[RealityCheck]

Walter Football does a "re-grading" of their own draft grades years later. I checked out their 2005 results from their original grades and their re-grading they did 3 years later in 2008. In 20 of the 32 draft grades, they downgraded their own grades. That's a 38% "success rate" in correctly grading teams' drafts right after the 2005 meat market. I don't know too much about Walter Football, they were the first hit to pop up on google when I entered "2005 NFL draft grades." I'm pretty sure they put out annual college draft magazines, though.

 

I think every publication or individual "expert" that announces draft grades should do 3 year "re-gradings" like Walter. Or there should be one "watchdog" blog that does exactly that. I think you would find the Mel Kipers and Todd McShays' having much less credibility if their own "success rates" of their draft grading were announced before the first pick of the draft each year!

Better yet, I think their pay scale should be adjusted accordingly. Now that would be putting your money where your mouth is.

[Packerland Bills Fan]

Even the best miss a majority of the time. The problem is that's where we get most of the information a lot of the players.

 

Last year, due to a lot of what I read, the thing I was pulling for was for the Bills not to draft Michael Oher. Why? Because eveyone was saying that he wasn't a hard worker, that because of the difficult backround he had he was coddled. He also probably wasn't suited for the left side and we had Langston Walker on the right. He sounded like Mike Williams II. How wrong that was. He was great last year and we'd be set at OLT for a decade.

 

He might have saved Dick Jauron's job. That's the only negative I can think of if they had taken him.

[stuckincincy]

I was thinking along the lines of "A". I think that's a fair grade.

 

Oh, by the way, my rating system consists of 2 grades: A or B.

 

It's a simple system based on whether the draft sucked or it didn't.

 

 

Sounds like Harvard, Stanford and others - didn't hand out anything less than a "B" for years...

 

 

I use C or D. It's the same as yours, but without the grade inflation.

 

 

Here's our little Prisco's grades for the '07 draft:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1331339...overlist_footer

[eball]

Personally, I like Nolan Nawrocki's draft grading analysis. He actually provides concrete criteria for why he gives a team a certain grade. He assigns grades based upon the number of projected starters he believes a team acquired during the draft -- with a tweak allowed for trades of picks that acquire veteran starters.

 

4 starters -- A

3 starters -- B

2 starters -- C

1 starter -- D

0 starters -- F

 

This system provides some accountability, as it's very easy to look back a few years down the road and determine how accurate the projections were.

 

Here's a link to this year's grades:

 

Nawrocki's AFC Grades

[stuckincincy]

Personally, I like Nolan Nawrocki's draft grading analysis. He actually provides concrete criteria for why he gives a team a certain grade. He assigns grades based upon the number of projected starters he believes a team acquired during the draft -- with a tweak allowed for trades of picks that acquire veteran starters.

 

4 starters -- A

3 starters -- B

2 starters -- C

1 starter -- D

0 starters -- F

 

This system provides some accountability, as it's very easy to look back a few years down the road and determine how accurate the projections were.

 

Here's a link to this year's grades:

 

Nawrocki's AFC Grades

 

Thanks - that's a pretty good way to view a draft. I guess there has to be some bias in it, though...a club that is in a relatively greater need of players to fill starting positions would then tend to grade higher. I think...dunno.

[grelit]

The draft proves how stupid the Buffalo Bills are.

[eball]

Thanks - that's a pretty good way to view a draft. I guess there has to be some bias in it, though...a club that is in a relatively greater need of players to fill starting positions would then tend to grade higher. I think...dunno.

That's true in a sense, but I think adding "projected" into the equation also factors in draft picks that a team hopes will eventually become starters, even on a veteran or playoff squad. Some examples of high grades for "good" teams include the Ravens and Pats*.