I've always agreed with this statement. A GM's goal is to get as many starters out of the draft group as possible. Yes you pay more to the guys picked first, but you pay the same total amount to each draft class. It's like elementary school kids expecting more out of the first kid picked for kickball teams. Yes there is a reason that you picked somebody first but you just want to win the game, not dissect the order in which players were chosen.This article proves that it doesn´t make any sense rating a players performance based on his draft position.
It's bang for your buck. That's why tom Brady would be graded higher than peyton manning
Yeah, but nobody should care about it. Drafting a franchise QB (or any other player) in the sixth round doesn't make your team better than getting a similar talent with the first pick.
No, but this appears to be about the ability of a GM to draft players. There are players who have it all, talent, toughness, brains, and desire to succeed. The Peyton Mannings and Andrew Lucks are top of the draft as the likelihood of their success is obvious. Guys like Brady are a gamble because they do not have it all but have the ability to get better. Brady was not the refined star coming out of Michigan that he is today - he developed into it. And you have to give extra credit to a GM who sees the possibility and selects a player. A lot of the credit goes to the coaches who helped him develop as well.Yeah, but nobody should care about it. Drafting a franchise QB (or any other player) in the sixth round doesn't make your team better than getting a similar talent with the first pick.
No, but this appears to be about the ability of a GM to draft players. There are players who have it all, talent, toughness, brains, and desire to succeed. The Peyton Mannings and Andrew Lucks are top of the draft as the likelihood of their success is obvious. Guys like Brady are a gamble because they do not have it all but have the ability to get better. Brady was not the refined star coming out of Michigan that he is today - he developed into it. And you have to give extra credit to a GM who sees the possibility and selects a player. A lot of the credit goes to the coaches who helped him develop as well.
Luck was drafted first overall.I think having success with late round draft picks like Brady or Sherman is mostly based on luck.
It's bang for your buck. That's why tom Brady would be graded higher than peyton manning
I love value as much as the next guy but that's what makes ignoring UFA even sillier. It also seems like the numerical scoring system was used to create the illusion of an objectivity (i.e., mathematical precision) while obscuring what seems like a remarkably subjective evaluation on the part of the writer...
Good to know PFF continues to churn out content during the off season but I can find better things to look at on the internet.
I'm wondering if everyone is missing the point that it's not a traditional draft grade. Obviously any ufa you keep and that makes an impact would have a very high rating on this. So obvious in fact, that you wouldn't really need to address it.
Yeah, but nobody should care about it. Drafting a franchise QB (or any other player) in the sixth round doesn't make your team better than getting a similar talent with the first pick.
I'm wondering if everyone is missing the point that it's not a traditional draft grade. Obviously any ufa you keep and that makes an impact would have a very high rating on this. So obvious in fact, that you wouldn't really need to address it.
These rankings (and PFF in general) are kind of a silly attempt to try to get baseball-like stats shoe horned into football.
The top five guys are probably better than the bottom five, I'll give them that. There are an awful lot of guys in the middle though that are better than the guys they rank at the top, and the contracts that guys get prove it. Only the coaches on the team know what each player's assignments were on any given play, and other top football guys (coaches, GMs etc) can probably guess a lot of the time. Those guys do their rankings and pay guys accordingly. The guys at PFF just try to find some stats to keep etc and then rank them based on what they think they could/should have done on one play or another. The guys whose entire lives have led up to player evaluation and whose dream jobs as GMs come down to making the right decisions on player evaluations go in different directions that PFF, which gives me confidence that it's just some BS stats for fans to play with and for lousy/mediocre "journalists" on bleacher report and/or blogs to use to have player comparison discussions all the time.I think the stats at PFF are a pretty good indicator of a player´s performance.
I haven't been on this forum too long but was anyone on here rooting for us to grab datone jones last year? How about Perry the year before?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The top five guys are probably better than the bottom five, I'll give them that. There are an awful lot of guys in the middle though that are better than the guys they rank at the top, and the contracts that guys get prove it.
Only the coaches on the team know what each player's assignments were on any given play, and other top football guys (coaches, GMs etc) can probably guess a lot of the time. Those guys do their rankings and pay guys accordingly. The guys at PFF just try to find some stats to keep etc and then rank them based on what they think they could/should have done on one play or another. The guys whose entire lives have led up to player evaluation and whose dream jobs as GMs come down to making the right decisions on player evaluations go in different directions that PFF, which gives me confidence that it's just some BS stats for fans to play with and for lousy/mediocre "journalists" on bleacher report and/or blogs to use to have player comparison discussions all the time.
I was excited for them to take Jones, as he was supposed to have the potential to be a legit three down 3-4 DE with a ton of pass rush. In training camp he was whipping guys in the one-on-ones but he seemed too lost against the run to get many snaps as the year went on. Given his athleticism though, if he can make the kind of jump from first to second year that Daniels made, he'll be great.
As for Perry, I've always felt like the bears did a murder-suicide in that draft. Shea McClellan was the "high motor, super athletic, versatile" guy that would be a perfect 3-4 olb and Perry was (is?) a 4-3 DE with a ton of strength but not the balance/athleticism to operate out as a 3-4 olb. The bears took McClellan and he's been way to small for a 4-3 DE and we have a big strong 4-3 DE playing olb and trying to figure it out. Both teams would have been way better taking the other guy.
That said, considering what the needs were and who was left at the time (and, lets be honest, 99.9999% of fans, including the "experts" on this board, don't know more than fifty names on draft day anyway) I was fine with it. Sure there were better guys taken after him that most fans, if they're being honest, hadn't heard of at the time and so now it can look like a really stupid pick. That's hindsight for you though.