VABills Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Here is the Scouts writeup on what the rankings mean 90-100 Rare Prospect Player demonstrates rare abilities and can create mismatches that have an obvious impact on the game. Is a premier college player that has all the skill to take over a game and play at a championship level. He rates in the top 5 players in the nation at his position and is considered a first round draft prospect. 80-89 Outstanding Prospect Player has abilities to create mismatches versus most opponents in the NFL. A feature player that has an impact on the outcome of the game. Cannot be shut down by a single player and plays on a consistent level week in and week out. He rates in the top 10 at his position and is considered a second round draft prospect. 70-79 Solid Prospect Still a standout player at the college level that is close to being an elite player. He has no glaring weaknesses and will usually win his individual matchups, but does not dominate in every game, especially when matched up against the top players in the country. He will usually rate in the top third of players at his position and is considered a third round draft prospect. 60-69 Good Prospect This player is an good starter that will give a solid effort week in and week out, but he is overmatched versus the better players in the nation. His weaknesses will be exposed against top competition. He is usually a prospect that is missing something from his game. For example, he has the size and skills to be an outstanding prospect, but lacks the speed. He will usually rate in the top half of the players at his position and is considered a middle round draft choice. 50-59 Adequate Prospect These are usually players that play at a high level in college, but lack some measurables or skills to play at that same level in the NFL. He may be a player that has a lot of developmental qualities, or could be a player that will contribute right away on special teams or in a situational capacity. He will usually rate in the second-third at his position and is considered a fifth round draft choice. 21-49 Borderline Draft Prospect These are players that teams like something about, but certainly do not have the full package in terms of NFL talent. A lot of times, teams will take chances on character players or developmental type athletes with this grade. And often, these are players that come from smaller schools or did not standout at the college level. NFL teams are looking for 'diamonds in the rough' with this type of prospect. He will usually rate in the bottom third of players at his position and will be considered a late round draft choice or un-drafted free agent. 20 Free Agent Prospect These are players that did not make our original 'evaluation list' but are prospects that need to be monitored. Especially in the pre-season, these players will fluctuate up and down depending on performance in their final year of eligibility. 10 Not a legitimate Prospect These are players that lack NFL measurables and/or skills. They are players that we feel would not even make a solid contribution as a training camp body.
VABills Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 Well we all know that Big Ben was the stud in last year's QB class. It didn't hurt that he had an awesome running game and stifling defense to make things alot easier for him either. JP might have something considerably similar but we'll have to wait and see if he has the mental aptitude to take this team deep into January. 278452[/snapback] Last year, Big Ben was a 99 ranking and they seemed to have nailed that one. http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft04/.../player?id=7840 Grade: 99Comments: Roethlisberger's arm is not quite elite but is still stronger than those of most starting NFL quarterbacks. He has good velocity on deep out routes; throws downfield passes over the middle on a line and fits passes into spots better than most NFL quarterbacks. He also throws with fine accuracy and velocity on the run. Roethlisberger has a high release point, and an adequate release that is made better by his arm strength and good, consistent mechanics. He has excellent accuracy and good timing, can lead receivers on crossing routes, and can throw to a spot on the field with excellent accuracy when running. His field vision keeps improving. Roethlisberger reads coverages well and makes adjustments. He has a lot of poise in the pocket, and surveys the entire field. He has the patience and confidence to check down to backside receivers and has learned to make better decisions. Roethlisberger has terrific pocket presence and creates second chances with his feet. He is quick and deceptively athletic. He is a model leader and competitor with toughness and the ability to handle pressure. But he isn't perfect. He isn't a running threat because he lacks elusiveness and acceleration. Roethlisberger is also inexperienced. He was not heavily recruited in high school because he was a wide receiver for three years before moving to quarterback. Still, Roethlisberger is the next great quarterback from the MAC. He has ideal size, a strong arm and terrific leadership skills. He doesn't have the quickest release, but he can make all the NFL throws. The level of competition he faced in college will always be a concern, but Chad Pennington and Byron Leftwich have shown that MAC QBs can succeed in the NFL. Overall, Roethlisberger is the most physically gifted quarterback in this draft. He might be drafted after Eli Manning, who is a safer choice for obvious reasons, but we think Roethlisberger will be the better NFL quarterback. Other ranking of player at or with JP, last year: All at 99 were Fitzgerald Gallery Big Ben Taylor at 98 Manning Roy Williams at 97 Winslow Hall Udeze M Williams Wilfolk at 96 Robinson W Smith at 95 Rivers Harris Reggie William Jackson at 94 Evans At 93 Dj Williams Andrews at 92 Gamble Vilma Clayton Jones at 91 Troupe at 90 Tubbs Dansby Jenkins at 89 R Woods Losman Carey Starks Grove Perry Carroll Watson S Jones So if you look at the list, most of the guys in the 90 range were almost all instant starters and most had serious impacts for there teams. Once you get to the 80 grouping, there really was a huge dropoff in onfield performance and ability. Sure seems to my amateur eye that Scouts has a pretty good handle at least last year on who the studs were right away.
Justice Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 I wonder where all these so called experts had Favre and Brady?
VABills Posted March 17, 2005 Posted March 17, 2005 5th rated QB in that draft: http://www.sportsnetwork.com/?c=detnews&pa...0/offensive.htm behind Pennington, Redmond, Carmazzi, and Bulger Pennington is a solid Qb, Bulger also is fairly solid. Carmazzi is a backup with SF, Redmond maybe out of the league. So while he wasn't drafted until the 6th round he was one of the top five.
Bill from NYC Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 It is certainly too early to tell, but, so far, it looks as if TD made the right decision on getting Losman last year. Another thing, since when has being "cocky" been necessarily a bad thing in sports? Few complain about TO being "too cocky" or Shaq being "too cocky". Why is it a supposed problem ONLY with Losman? 277285[/snapback] Well. I guess that settles that! With this kind of good news, and the Bills getting either Robert Gallery or Jason Taylor in a trade for Travis Henry, I am thinking that the Lombardi Trophy is all but gauranteed! I cant wait for JP to be enshrined to Canton. He already deserves it for his stellar performance in 04!
mead107 Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Simple...Not proven himself in NFL. 277288[/snapback] drew proven crap
KnightRider Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 can these rankings be compared year to year or are they subjective to the year in which they are ranked? 277938[/snapback] You can only be rated based on the level of competition you play against, no matter what they claim... I thought I heard before the draft last year that the 2004 draft was one of the deepest in years, and that the 2005 draft was weak... No proof mind you just a cloudy memory... Regardless, given where we would have drafted (at 20), we wouldn't have been in the position to take either of the first two QB's anyway. Instead, we have a young QB who has been tutored by some very good coaches for a year. Will he work out? Who knows? However, I feel a lot better going into next fall with a guy who has a year in the system compared to a rookie or FA...
JimBob2232 Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Hmm... Losman > Alex Smith Losman > Aaron Rogers Aaron Rogers or Alex Smith =#1 overall... Therefore Losman = #1 Overall If you think of it that way...perhaps it will make some of you TD Doubters go crazy.
ajzepp Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Well. I guess that settles that! With this kind of good news, and the Bills getting either Robert Gallery or Jason Taylor in a trade for Travis Henry, I am thinking that the Lombardi Trophy is all but gauranteed! I cant wait for JP to be enshrined to Canton. He already deserves it for his stellar performance in 04! 278833[/snapback] *shaking head* lol
Wiz Posted March 18, 2005 Author Posted March 18, 2005 Well I have concerns as Losman had one barely winning year in college. The top 2 guys coming out Smith was 12-0 this year. Cal with Rogers was ranked 9th at 10-2. These guys both have good skills and prove it with the bullets flying. 277302[/snapback] Since when has the Mountain West, formerly part of the WAC, become a big time conference? Yeah, there were some serious bullets flying when Smith had to face powerhouses such as New Mexico, Colorado State, Wyoming and UNLV. The stats can be deceiving as has been proven by all the qb busts to come out of this conference, Kelly Stouffer, Ty Detmer and many more BYU qb's, Dan McGuire, etc., etc,...
VABills Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Since when has the Mountain West, formerly part of the WAC, become a big time conference? Yeah, there were some serious bullets flying when Smith had to face powerhouses such as New Mexico, Colorado State, Wyoming and UNLV. The stats can be deceiving as has been proven by all the qb busts to come out of this conference, Kelly Stouffer, Ty Detmer and many more BYU qb's, Dan McGuire, etc., etc,... 278879[/snapback] Bad argument. Remember Tulane was in the powerhouse conference CUSA. Louisville, Cinci, Memphis. Good basketball, terrible football. The WAC (Mountain West) is 10X the conference in football. Also explain Rodgers and his great record at Cal which is PAC-10 and is one of the premiere footbal conferences. Also seems that Utah distroyed Pitt who "won" the Big East in the bowl game. They also destroyed Texas A&M from Big 12 and Arizona from Pac-10.
VABills Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 You can only be rated based on the level of competition you play against, no matter what they claim... I thought I heard before the draft last year that the 2004 draft was one of the deepest in years, and that the 2005 draft was weak... No proof mind you just a cloudy memory... Regardless, given where we would have drafted (at 20), we wouldn't have been in the position to take either of the first two QB's anyway. Instead, we have a young QB who has been tutored by some very good coaches for a year. Will he work out? Who knows? However, I feel a lot better going into next fall with a guy who has a year in the system compared to a rookie or FA... 278871[/snapback] What is missing is the "top" guys. Last year there were 5 guys or so ranked at "99". This year there are none. However this year there is more overall depth. There are 35 or so guys ranked by Scouts at 90 or better, last year only 20 or so. Again, we are missing the "stars" this year but a lot of solid depth.
Simon Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Also explain Rodgers and his great record at Cal which is PAC-10 and is one of the premiere footbal conferences. Two simple words: Jeff Tedford The WAC (Mountain West) is 10X the conference in football. CUSA and the WAC are both second-tier groupings at about the same talent level; I don't know if either is considerably superior to the other. But to say the WAC is 10X better is simply ridiculous.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Two simple words: Jeff TedfordCUSA and the WAC are both second-tier groupings at about the same talent level; I don't know if either is considerably superior to the other. But to say the WAC is 10X better is simply ridiculous. I'd say Smith and Rodgers' surrounding talent was 10X better than Losman's.
Recommended Posts