Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Means absolutely nothing. FWIW, I like Kiper as he was the first of the "draft gurus" that I followed and I bought his book for many years. I just don't think he (or even the NFL teams) know everything. For instance, he certainly hasn't met with many of the players or talked with their college coaches to get the "deep scoop". He does have asccess to many of their game tapes - and I believe that he does study those, but that does not necessarily mean that his evaluations are definitive.

Posted

Sweet! I'm glad he doesn't like it. The hell with the Hair's assesment... we'll see in a few years how this draft plays out.

Posted

If he's grading the same way he did in the past, his grades are based on how close teams are to picking his picks at or around the values he placed on them.

 

The draft gurus--like Kiper--shouldn't be allowed to grade drafts. Their grades are just going to be a reflection of their mocks.

Posted

Not surprising.

 

Chances are, Kiper is correct, just because we have a poor history of drafts with this FO. BUT, Kiper is also a blowhard who is wrong way more often than he is right, so hopefully this ends up in the BS category. :D

Posted

Some guy on NFL.com said the best pick in round 1 was....Vaccaro! A DB from......Texas!

 

What a joke.

 

Anyway, prior to that pick, the Saints had picked defense every 1st round for 5 years, and their D still sort of blows.

Posted

He likes Alonso, but decries that Arthur Brown was still on the board at the time Alonso was picked. Kiper having Arthur Brown rated higher is one thing, but not taking into consideration that Brown likely doesn't fit Pettine's defense whereas Alonso appears to be engineered in a lab to fit it is why these grades mean little. It's interesting and it adds to the fun of the overall draft experience, but these guys don't really know which players are fits, so it borders on extreme chutzpah when they get all huffy on camera determining "winners" and "losers".

Posted (edited)

They made Kiper look bad by taking Manuel higher than he projected. He under estimated how in demand Manuel was and it made him look bad. These grades have nothing to do with how good or bad the players are but rather just how well teams drafted according to Kipers board. But Kipers board is only one mans projections which based off how high he had a lot of players who fell a lot farther than he thought means he is prone to mistakes.

 

That being said I like Kiper but he has to be taken with a grain of salt. McShay I just hate I don't consider his opinion to be worth anything.

Edited by billsfan89
Posted

I guess they have to grade the draft. He's subject to audit, so if his mocks were one way and the Bills chose the opposite, he owes it to himself to grade accordingly. Otherwise, he'd be a total hypocrite as opposed to a partial one.

Posted

He lost a lot of credibility - especially analysing that position - when he chatted up klausen a few years ago. When he fell to rd2 Mel was speechless. Now that he rides the pine behind newton Mel is like "jimmy who?" At least mcshay for all his faults, correctly called the ascension of tannehill up the board last year.

Posted

Mel "Cordy Glenn is a guard" Kiper doesn't like our draft? Ouch. What now? If only we would have drafted Jimmy Clausen like he said we wouldn't have had to reach for a QB....oh wait....

Posted

And if the Bills had taken Nassib or Barkley at 8 without trading down and acquiring extra picks the grade would have been a B probably.

×
×
  • Create New...