Draft grade review chart comprising 18 different reviewers for every team

[newcam2012]

51 minutes ago, Floydboy12 said:

I know it’s sacrilege to be negative of the Bills draft. But this seemed to be a lazy effort from them. The Chiefs and Ravens beat them to the punch every round. Don’t think the Bills added a starter besides maybe the punter. 

I think Elam is a starter as well. The rest of the guys are hopefully solid contributors. 

[LABILLBACKER]

7 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

In general, everyone thought the Jest had the best draft, almost impossible not to with all those picks.  Bills are solidly in the middle, and the Fish and Cheats at the bottom of the pile.  AFCE Champs, just don't McChoke it away again.

Such a shame the Jets will waste such good "potential" players with a garbage qb. Bills at 13 is about right. We drafted players we needed to fill an already loaded roster.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

 

It is true that they don't have all the information, however, if there is a general consensus that a pick is a huge reach, it usually turns out the draft graders are correct.

 

 

For the most part agree as usually the info they are missing would just bring a players grade down never up.  And that's likely why the player has dropped, but they doesn't know that.  A team will either get ripped for taking a guy to high or prasied for getting a guy lower than they should have, but that's more dumb luck than being smart.

 

It's like everyone still praises NE for drafting Brady.  Really they should just be ripping the other 31 teams for passing.  If NE had really been smart, they'd have drafted him earlier.

[The Red King]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Okay, so here's something that I've never seen discussed before.   When people are giving draft grades to teams, are they grading how much talent they came away with or how well they did given the draft capital they had?   

 

Assuming these grades are grades of how much talent teams came away with, then the relevant stat would be a ratio of how well they did versus how much draft capital they had.   If the Bills were 13th in talent acquired, that's pretty good, given that they were essentially 25th in draft capital, or in any case not higher than 20th.  

 

My sense is that Beane was pretty nimble and did a good job getting a good collection of talent out of what he had to work with in picks.  Obviously, would have been better if he'd stayed at 25 and still gotten Elam, but if he'd stayed at 25 and NOT gotten him, his draft would have been much worse.  

 

Wanted to bring this up as well, as it is a valid point.  What constitutes a "good" draft?  Is it how much it will improve a team?  Is it what they got with the picks available?  A team that traded their 1st round pick away and drafts late each other round is going to come into the draft in a tougher spot then a team with three high 1st round picks.

 

Teams are not drafting on equal footing, so what criteria are you grading teams on?

Edited May 2, 2022 by The Red King

[DCofNC]

I think the back half of the Bills draft saved them on the ratings.  No surprise the Jets got the top grade, they look to have crushed it.  The Ravens and Chiefs also looked good.  The best part is seeing the Pats dead ass last, which is not so Strange.

[DCofNC]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Okay, so here's something that I've never seen discussed before.   When people are giving draft grades to teams, are they grading how much talent they came away with or how well they did given the draft capital they had?   

 

Assuming these grades are grades of how much talent teams came away with, then the relevant stat would be a ratio of how well they did versus how much draft capital they had.   If the Bills were 13th in talent acquired, that's pretty good, given that they were essentially 25th in draft capital, or in any case not higher than 20th.  

 

My sense is that Beane was pretty nimble and did a good job getting a good collection of talent out of what he had to work with in picks.  Obviously, would have been better if he'd stayed at 25 and still gotten Elam, but if he'd stayed at 25 and NOT gotten him, his draft would have been much worse.  

I think it’s based on what you came away with based on your available capital.  The Bills look to have reached in at least the second and third rounds and gave up their 4th for a guy that most had as a borderline 1st round pick.  To be clear, I have no problem with the first round pick or giving up the 4th to make sure they got their guy. I do think Cook was an obvious reach, even to them as they traded down TWICE, before picking him.  I think they wanted McBride and completely panicked when he went 1 pick before them, no proof, just a hunch.  He was a good pick at a position of high value, especially looking at next year, and what he could bring this year.  Immediately, they traded down and down, to take a third round player in the late second and I still feel they over drafted him.  Then there’s the real WTF pick of the draft in the third.  Nothing in the 4th and from there on out, I view it as fliers on potential.  They got great potential in the back half of the draft.  Honestly, I think the draft sucked.  I see exactly 1 player in the first 5 rounds that looks like a starter and that would hold for the whole draft, but there is a punter in there that has potential.  To me, and I’m a nobody, this is the worst draft of the McBeane era.   Anyway, long and short, you work with what you have and you need to maximize the players you can get.  You get the best talent or you don’t. 
 

This is the first draft where I strongly believe they picked for needs instead of BPA.  I get it, they needed a CB and I like Elam.  Everything else, besides possibly Arizia was a need pick (yeah it’s still a need, but at least I can buy the BPA argument).  This was more Buddy Nix than Beane to me.  I have the Bills draft closer to the bottom 1/4 on this draft than the top half, but we shall see.

[SCBills]

6 hours ago, Floydboy12 said:

I know it’s sacrilege to be negative of the Bills draft. But this seemed to be a lazy effort from them. The Chiefs and Ravens beat them to the punch every round. Don’t think the Bills added a starter besides maybe the punter. 

You seem to be the only person on the internet that doesn’t think Kaiir Elam is a Day 1 starter.  You say you’ve seen him play quite a bit.. So have I.  I live down south, best friend is a Gator fan and I’ve been to multiple UF games.  Elam can ball.. and his ‘20 tape is up there with Stingley’s.  ‘21 fell off a bit, but the team around him was a dumpster fire. 
 

Also, this isn’t old school football, teams typically have multiple RB’s… especially a team like Buffalo that is never going to value the traditional workhorse RB position.  Pass catching RB was our RD2 pick.. not a starter, per se, but he’s going to play a lot. 
 

After CB & RB, the only position where we could’ve drafted a starter was at OG.  Tell me which Guard we should’ve drafted, and when?  You can say Parham, who we clearly didn’t want, but someone like him likely isn’t beating out Saffold or Bates. 
 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by SCBills

[Doc Brown]

I don't know who Thor Nystrom is but I like him already.  He gave 19 teams a B- or worse.

[Big Blitz]

 

 

 

[Saxum]

15 hours ago, Logic said:

If you like seeing “experts” grade each team’s draft class, you might enjoy this chart. I feel like letter grades right after the fact are an exercise in futility, but maybe not everyone agrees.

 

 

 

Hate that twitter sometimes does not allow you see items unless you are logged in.

 

 

Open image in new tab or window for best result.

[Billy Claude]

7 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

For the most part agree as usually the info they are missing would just bring a players grade down never up.  And that's likely why the player has dropped, but they doesn't know that.  A team will either get ripped for taking a guy to high or prasied for getting a guy lower than they should have, but that's more dumb luck than being smart.

 

It's like everyone still praises NE for drafting Brady.  Really they should just be ripping the other 31 teams for passing.  If NE had really been smart, they'd have drafted him earlier.

 

This is a good point.  The draft graders to not have access to the interviews or medicals, both of which tend to lower the players draft position.

 

I would argue that a consensus bad draft grade from the pundits tend to be pretty accurate while a good draft grade is meaningless.  Over the last few years, the Raiders, Giants, and Seahawks have been generally ripped for their drafts, and deservedly so, as two of the GMs are no longer with their teams.

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Billy Claude

[Nextmanup]

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Okay, so here's something that I've never seen discussed before.   When people are giving draft grades to teams, are they grading how much talent they came away with or how well they did given the draft capital they had?   

 

Assuming these grades are grades of how much talent teams came away with, then the relevant stat would be a ratio of how well they did versus how much draft capital they had.   If the Bills were 13th in talent acquired, that's pretty good, given that they were essentially 25th in draft capital, or in any case not higher than 20th.  

 

My sense is that Beane was pretty nimble and did a good job getting a good collection of talent out of what he had to work with in picks.  Obviously, would have been better if he'd stayed at 25 and still gotten Elam, but if he'd stayed at 25 and NOT gotten him, his draft would have been much worse.  

I would assume this type of calculation is built into the grades for each team.

If it isn't, the "grade" doesn't really make any sense.

 

The idea should be to evaluate how well each team did given their draft position, needs, etc., and that calculation would have to change for each team accordingly.

 

Now, how one goes about doing that a day after the draft is beyond me.

 

We might know more in 3 years.

 

 

 

 

[Matt_In_NH]

It would be good if we can compare the grades at the time of the draft vs the grades 5 years later based on how the players performed.  I wonder if there is any correlation between the two when you look over the years.   

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, DCofNC said:

I think it’s based on what you came away with based on your available capital.  The Bills look to have reached in at least the second and third rounds and gave up their 4th for a guy that most had as a borderline 1st round pick.  To be clear, I have no problem with the first round pick or giving up the 4th to make sure they got their guy. I do think Cook was an obvious reach, even to them as they traded down TWICE, before picking him.  I think they wanted McBride and completely panicked when he went 1 pick before them, no proof, just a hunch.  He was a good pick at a position of high value, especially looking at next year, and what he could bring this year.  Immediately, they traded down and down, to take a third round player in the late second and I still feel they over drafted him.  Then there’s the real WTF pick of the draft in the third.  Nothing in the 4th and from there on out, I view it as fliers on potential.  They got great potential in the back half of the draft.  Honestly, I think the draft sucked.  I see exactly 1 player in the first 5 rounds that looks like a starter and that would hold for the whole draft, but there is a punter in there that has potential.  To me, and I’m a nobody, this is the worst draft of the McBeane era.   Anyway, long and short, you work with what you have and you need to maximize the players you can get.  You get the best talent or you don’t. 
 

This is the first draft where I strongly believe they picked for needs instead of BPA.  I get it, they needed a CB and I like Elam.  Everything else, besides possibly Arizia was a need pick (yeah it’s still a need, but at least I can buy the BPA argument).  This was more Buddy Nix than Beane to me.  I have the Bills draft closer to the bottom 1/4 on this draft than the top half, but we shall see.

I think there's a lot more logic that went into it than you say, but there's a part of me that agrees with you on the result.   What I've said about the draft was it was a B, with some great upside and some real downside.   I don't think you can be sure that you're right in what you say, but you describe the real downside possibilities of this draft - that the Bills got a decent corner in the first round and no long-term starters after that, except maybe a punter.   The class has a look that is very different previous Beane drafts, and I've wondered if that was by design or because Beane guessed wrong and things fell badly. 

 

I say there's more logic because I think what happened is sort of what Beane described.  He had one first round talent left on his board, and it was coincidentally at a position of need, so he did the sure thing, traded up, and got the corner.  What that did, however, was hamstring in the second and third round, because that fourth pick was what would have let him make a more dramatic move in the second round for a full-time starter prospect, maybe a lineman or a receiver.  Instead, stuck at the end of the second with no practical way to move up (he has said he doesn't like trading future picks), he didn't see any really good starter value.   So, he traded back, which is the right thing to do if you don't like the value on the board. 

 

Now, you say that Cook was a high third value, and I simply don't get into discussions with people about what the actual value of prospects is.  You say third, but Beane certainly could have had him as a low second.   The guy certainly seems like a perfect fit for the Bills offense, so he might very well have been valued highly for that reason.  And although I see him this season as a situational back, he has some characteristics that suggest he could be a full-time starter before too long.   Getting a guy in the second round who wins the starting job is always a good pick.  

 

Then, you come to Bernard, which is where I think your argument fails.   You say Beane panicked in this draft, but taking Bernard was the opposite of someone panicking.  Beane's pick seems to have surprised everyone, and that could have happened only if Bernard was their BPA.  If the first two picks had, in Beane's mind, gone badly and he panicked, the panic move would have been reaching for player at a position of need, reaching for an OG or a receiver, like reaching for Shakir.  Beane says he would have taken Shakir in the fourth, and if he panicked, he would have taken him in the third.  Instead, he took a guy who was on no one's radar, and I think that can only mean that the Bills see a role for Bernard that is bigger than would appear from his draft profiles.  Maybe they see him as a five-year captain of the special teams.  I think they see him as a situational linebacker in the 4-3, a defense I think they'd like to run more.  Why?  Because if a trend toward more running hasn't begun, last season at least seemed like the end of the more-passing trend.   Several teams drove their offense with good running balanced with good passing, and going with a 4-2 base defense left the Bills exposed to the run.  And if Bernard really works out, maybe he takes Milano's job and MIlano moves to the middle, ending the Edmunds era (or the MIlano era).   I don't know what the plan is, but it's pretty clear to me that the Bills have something in mind for Bernard that is more than a spot player role.  

 

I can't say I'm as enthused about Shakir as some, but we'll see.  And I agree, nothing much happened beyond him, although I'm intrigued that the Bills may see a future safety in Benford.  If Beane found a 2023 or 2024 starting safety deep in the 2022 draft, that would be a big win.  But that's pure speculation at this point. 

 

So, I don't think Beane panicked.  I think there was solid thinking behind what he did.   However, this draft could end up being as disappointing as you describe.  This is the first Beane draft that has the potential of being a largely empty draft.  

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I would assume this type of calculation is built into the grades for each team.

If it isn't, the "grade" doesn't really make any sense.

 

The idea should be to evaluate how well each team did given their draft position, needs, etc., and that calculation would have to change for each team accordingly.

 

Now, how one goes about doing that a day after the draft is beyond me.

 

We might know more in 3 years.

 

I agree about the three years, for sure.   But it actually makes more sense to me to ask two different questions in grading drafts immediately.   

 

I think it's a fair and important question to ask which teams improved themselves most immediately.  That is, which team acquired the most players who are likely to get serious playing time this year.   When projecting the 2022 season, that's an important question.  It's meaningful, for example, to say that the Jets got a lot better simply because they seem to have gotten guys who are going to play soon.   If things go okay for the Bills, they got a starting corner, a situational running back and maybe a linebacker or receiver who will get on the field occasionally.   In the short term, Jets likely had a better draft.  In the long term, it's a question that can be answered only by waiting to see how these guys work out.

 

How well the GM did with the assets he had at his disposal is really a different question.  Beane drafting for the Jets probably would have acquired just as much talent as the Jets did.  The question is whether relative to the assets he had to spend, did Beane do better or worse.  That's much more difficult to judge.  That really has to wait.   Five years from now, Shakir and Bernard could be starting and Araiza could be the best punter in the world.  Benford might be a starting safety.  There's simply no way to know today how well Beane spent his limited assets.

 

What I'm hoping for is that the Bills have a Lombardi trophy in nine months, in part because they have a rookie starting corner who is a man-to-man problem like White, and a situational running back who adds a new dimension to the offense.  If Bernard and Shakir are getting playing time, all the better, and if Araiza is the punter, even better.  If all that happens, Beane will deserve all the praise he will get. 

 

[mjt328]

I'm starting to realize that Draft expectations from fans (myself included) are WAY out of whack...

 

First of all, most of the national "rankings" we go by, are based on rough evaluations from total amateurs.  Not professional scouts who actually do this for a living.  We are always missing critical information, such as medical results, interviews/recommendations from college coaches and how a prospect comes across in personal meetings.  

 

Once Draft Day arrives, we want to see VALUE VALUE VALUE.  If our team is drafting #25, we need to get a guy ranked in the #10-15 range.  Then our 2nd Round Pick needs to be a guy who "really should have gone in the 1st"... and so on.  Trading down for extra picks is a sign of strength and confidence.  Trading up is a sign of panic and desperation.  And we absolutely cannot finish any draft without addressing EVERY SINGLE NEED with a guy ESPN.com expects to be a future star.

 

Of course, once the player actually hits the field.... they ALSO must be tremendously successful.  Anyone who goes in the 1st Round absolutely MUST be a regular All-Pro and future Hall of Famer, or he is a bust.  Our 2nd-3rd Round guys should at least make a few Pro-Bowls, or they are also busts.  And we also must get 2-3 starters out of our late round guys.

 

Looking back at previous Brandon Beane/Sean McDermott drafts, some of his best value picks were Cody Ford and AJ Epenesa.  Both were considered 1st Round talents, who dropped into the 2nd Round.  Zay Jones and Zack Moss were hugely popular targets by the fans, and most were thrilled when we landed them.  There wasn't quite as much fanfare for guys like Dion Dawkins, Matt Milano, Taron Johnson, Dawson Knox or Gabriel Davis.

 

[Big Blitz]