Anonymous

Inactive
Post count: 2847

    Good comments!    Another factor on where a team ranks a guy on their draft board is when a team is already established, they are looking for a specific skill to fit into their team's scheme. A team may have been looking at only one aspect of players' total skillset, already having guys who were just as good at other skills he had. That would lower his value to them. To another team, those other skills may have been lacking on the team, which increases the rookie's rating on their board.   

That may affect whether a team drafts a player or not, but in theory should not affect how they evaluate him. Scouts aren't supposed to evaluate players based on team needs. If they think a player is a B+ run defender, they're supposed to think he's a B+ run defender whether the team already has ten B+ run defenders or not. The Packers ranked Aaron Rodgers where they ranked him because that's what kind of player they thought he was. They didn't call him a 4th rounder because they had Brett Favre.

Certainly would make us arm-chair QBs ‘jobs’ easier if they did draft boards your way consistantly. I shoulda used the ‘MIGHT’ word in my comment. Anyway, it just seems very likely different teams’ scouts are given different agenda (find me a SPEED WR,, a strong-armed QB, or whatever) and give their rating value. Agenda, at last in some cases, could influence rating. Then the coach/GM builds their board based on who is more desirable to their team. Higher-placed players on the board may not be the highest-rated players. That explains comments from GM/coaches about signing guys who are the best FIT over the best pure PLAYERS. Could also explain the Cowboy’s media-exposed board…

Please wait…