Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Draft Talk
Team Needs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 490284"><p>Of course, jack, these kinds of rankings, being opinions, are like a**holes...everybody has one, even if the "professional" lists are remarkably similar. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/coffee.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":coffee:" title="Coffee :coffee:" data-shortname=":coffee:" /> (That's a picture of a professional draft tout googling what the other guys are saying.) Presumably, they've looked at tons of film, but that's just a presumption.</p><p> </p><p>So I'll just throw out a couple of examples:</p><p> </p><p>(1) <a href="http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:ol" target="_blank">http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:ol</a></p><p> </p><p>An nfl.com grade of 85-100 ranges from "immediate starter" to "future HOFer". There are 4 guys in this group. Given the value placed on the LT position, the consensus of mocks have all these guys off the board in the 1st round, with a good chance they'll be gone by #26.</p><p> </p><p>A grade of 70-84 is indicated to be an "eventual starter", which is a conservative way of viewing it. There are 8 guys in this group. While some of these guys are projected at RT, and some might even end up at G, Rang is probably thinking about one these guys for the Bears in the 2nd round (#50). Pick the right guy and "eventual" could mean immediately after preseason; the law of averages says most will struggle at game 1, play 1 at LT. Keep in mind that starting at OT for the Bears is not a high hurdle. Rang is probably thinking they'll find their Urlacher replacement in the first round.</p><p> </p><p>(2) nfldraftscout.com ranks 12 OTs as potential 3rd. round or higher...pretty much the same guys in roughly the same order as nfl.com. If 1/8 of the picks in the first 3 rounds were OTs (not necessarily LTs), I guess that's a stronger than average class, but not notably so.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/probe.php?genpos=OT&draftyear=2013&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC" target="_blank">http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/probe.php?genpos=OT&draftyear=2013&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC</a></p><p> </p><p>(3) espn.com shows only the top 32 in their rankings unless you want to pay. Again, the same 4 guys in the first round. espn's grades are very generous...everybody in the first round sounds like the second coming, everybody in the second round sounds like a sure-fire immediate starter, etc.</p><p> </p><p>(4) If you google "nfl draft prospect rankings" you'll find a ton of sites, many of uncertain pedigree, who engage in this. And like most endeavors in life, particularly on the interest, there's a lot of group think in an echo chamber. I doubt you'll find much variation from the 12 in the top 3 rounds.</p><p> </p><p>In short, I would not expect the Pack to be able to draft a guy in the 3rd. round who'd be better than Newhouse at game 1, play 1.</p><p> </p><p>As for C, there's never any depth after the top guys. Colleges are not unlike the pros in this respect...if a guy has abundant talent, he gets moved to G or T at some point, unless he's short or has stumpy arms. Otherwise, the high grade C's are as much a fluke of concentrated talent on one team as anything else. Even Konz, last season's consensus first round C pick until he managed only 17 reps at the Combine, ended last season playing at G.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 490284"] Of course, jack, these kinds of rankings, being opinions, are like a**holes...everybody has one, even if the "professional" lists are remarkably similar. :coffee: (That's a picture of a professional draft tout googling what the other guys are saying.) Presumably, they've looked at tons of film, but that's just a presumption. So I'll just throw out a couple of examples: (1) [url]http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:ol[/url] An nfl.com grade of 85-100 ranges from "immediate starter" to "future HOFer". There are 4 guys in this group. Given the value placed on the LT position, the consensus of mocks have all these guys off the board in the 1st round, with a good chance they'll be gone by #26. A grade of 70-84 is indicated to be an "eventual starter", which is a conservative way of viewing it. There are 8 guys in this group. While some of these guys are projected at RT, and some might even end up at G, Rang is probably thinking about one these guys for the Bears in the 2nd round (#50). Pick the right guy and "eventual" could mean immediately after preseason; the law of averages says most will struggle at game 1, play 1 at LT. Keep in mind that starting at OT for the Bears is not a high hurdle. Rang is probably thinking they'll find their Urlacher replacement in the first round. (2) nfldraftscout.com ranks 12 OTs as potential 3rd. round or higher...pretty much the same guys in roughly the same order as nfl.com. If 1/8 of the picks in the first 3 rounds were OTs (not necessarily LTs), I guess that's a stronger than average class, but not notably so. [url]http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/probe.php?genpos=OT&draftyear=2013&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC[/url] (3) espn.com shows only the top 32 in their rankings unless you want to pay. Again, the same 4 guys in the first round. espn's grades are very generous...everybody in the first round sounds like the second coming, everybody in the second round sounds like a sure-fire immediate starter, etc. (4) If you google "nfl draft prospect rankings" you'll find a ton of sites, many of uncertain pedigree, who engage in this. And like most endeavors in life, particularly on the interest, there's a lot of group think in an echo chamber. I doubt you'll find much variation from the 12 in the top 3 rounds. In short, I would not expect the Pack to be able to draft a guy in the 3rd. round who'd be better than Newhouse at game 1, play 1. As for C, there's never any depth after the top guys. Colleges are not unlike the pros in this respect...if a guy has abundant talent, he gets moved to G or T at some point, unless he's short or has stumpy arms. Otherwise, the high grade C's are as much a fluke of concentrated talent on one team as anything else. Even Konz, last season's consensus first round C pick until he managed only 17 reps at the Combine, ended last season playing at G. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: milani
34 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
36 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
36 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
41 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Draft Talk
Team Needs
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
