I'm trying to do a mock draft like I do every year and this is impossible. Last year I had no more than 20 guys with a 1st round grade. This year I'm at 45 guys and counting with a 1st round grade.I don't even care who is available at #7, trade down is the way to go. A couple years ago the Browns started with the 5th pick in the 1st round and ended up at 21. Their draft sucked but they ended up with that 1st and 3 2nds(one of which was from the Winslow trade). That has to be the target more than any individual player.
Agree - strongly.
2010 was better IMO. The top end of it was so so but the depth was incredible. A whole bunch of great players in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Hell even Greg Hardy went in the 6th I believe. And we missed on both our high 2s, our 3rd, our 5th and 6th....and even though you could consider mike Williams a hit in the 4th there were still better players available.
There are 98 underclassmen in this draft vs 53 in 2010. I agree 2010 was a great draft but this is on another level. There are going to be players going in the 4th-6th rounds that would be 2nd or 3rd round picks in 2015 if they stayed in school.
Yep. Sucks we have only 5 picks. I hope we get that 7th round compensatory pick I heard we might. It's not much, but in this draft it could actually get us a solid football player.
Why do people feel the need to try and place general "first round grade" on players as if every draft is of the same caliber?There is no such thing as a "1st round grade," there is a grade for an area in the draft of that years group of prospects for the team making the board based on their own needs.If somebody insists on using the whole 1st round grade idea how exactly do you get more than 32 players with a first round grade (for this year), the top 32 on your board obviously have first round grades the rest don't no matter how good they are.
That argument is flawed when you look at a draft like 2013 where it is hard to find 20 players who were worth a 1st round pick despite there being 32. Just because a player isn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean they wouldn't warrant a 1st round pick. Look at Mike Williams when we drafted him. We all know some teams had a 1st round grade but off the field concerns dropped him as far as it did.
See, you've made the same exact mistake, you used the mythical "1st round grade" to try and make a point and it falls flat for the simple reason that for THAT draft class the top 32 players are worth a first round rating no matter how good or bad they are.A standard first round grade is moronic because not all drafts are equal so why would the rating remain the same?What exactly is this first round grade based on?Who decided that's the standard for a first rounder?The quality of a player who's worth a first round grade is fluid year to year based on that draft class.
Why do people feel the need to try and place general "first round grade" on players as if every draft is of the same caliber?There is no such thing as a "1st round grade," there is a grade for an area in the draft of that years group of prospects for the team making the board based on their own needs.If somebody insists on using the whole 1st round grade idea how exactly do you get more than 32 players with a first round grade (for this year), the top 32 on your board obviously have first round grades the rest don't no matter how good they are.
That argument is flawed when you look at a draft like 2013 where it is hard to find 20 players who were worth a 1st round pick despite there being 32. Just because a player isn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean they wouldn't warrant a 1st round pick. Look at Mike Williams when we drafted him. We all know some teams had a 1st round grade but off the field concerns dropped him as far as it did.
See, you've made the same exact mistake, you used the mythical "1st round grade" to try and make a point and it falls flat for the simple reason that for THAT draft class the top 32 players are worth a first round rating no matter how good or bad they are.A standard first round grade is moronic because not all drafts are equal so why would the rating remain the same?What exactly is this first round grade based on?Who decided that's the standard for a first rounder?The quality of a player who's worth a first round grade is fluid year to year based on that draft class.
Gotta disagree with your philosophy. Your grading system shouldn't change each year depending on the talent level of the draft. You standards should stay consistent. For example, if you use a number system that grades a player between 0-100, and you consider anyone over 90 to be worthy of a 1st round grade.....you don't change that and except an 86 with your 1st round pick unless you can't trade back and have to.
It's the same point I made poorly in another thread a month ago...depth is ridiculous... elite talent is lacking... but damn pick anywhere from 15 to 100 and you've got a good / great football player.///I'll never understand why Buc fans feel the need to biatch about everything...
Good thing we traded our 3rd rounder for a guy who was going to be an restricted free agent in 2014.
too bad we couldn't get a 7 for Freeman
Why do people feel the need to try and place general "first round grade" on players as if every draft is of the same caliber?There is no such thing as a "1st round grade," there is a grade for an area in the draft of that years group of prospects for the team making the board based on their own needs.If somebody insists on using the whole 1st round grade idea how exactly do you get more than 32 players with a first round grade (for this year), the top 32 on your board obviously have first round grades the rest don't no matter how good they are.
That argument is flawed when you look at a draft like 2013 where it is hard to find 20 players who were worth a 1st round pick despite there being 32. Just because a player isn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean they wouldn't warrant a 1st round pick. Look at Mike Williams when we drafted him. We all know some teams had a 1st round grade but off the field concerns dropped him as far as it did.
See, you've made the same exact mistake, you used the mythical "1st round grade" to try and make a point and it falls flat for the simple reason that for THAT draft class the top 32 players are worth a first round rating no matter how good or bad they are.A standard first round grade is moronic because not all drafts are equal so why would the rating remain the same?What exactly is this first round grade based on?Who decided that's the standard for a first rounder?The quality of a player who's worth a first round grade is fluid year to year based on that draft class.
Gotta disagree with your philosophy. Your grading system shouldn't change each year depending on the talent level of the draft. You standards should stay consistent. For example, if you use a number system that grades a player between 0-100, and you consider anyone over 90 to be worthy of a 1st round grade.....you don't change that and except an 86 with your 1st round pick unless you can't trade back and have to.
Couldn't disagree more.What is the point in grading a talent against previous years classes, the players aren't getting drafted those years.There is no logical reason to say the 40th ranked player on your draft board for this year is graded as a 1st rounder because you would never take them in the first due to having 39 others ranked better and there only being 32 picks.
