Colts draft: All the way too early grades

[EastStreet]

Colts.com put out all the grades. See the link for the highlights. There's also links to all the individual/full reviews.

 

Some fare pros and cons from most. As we all know, some sources give just about everyone a good grade (no where close to the bell curve lol), but a few are more objective. Anyway, enjoy if you have seen it already.

 

I personally graded the draft alone (without Buckner trade) as a C+/B-, and with the Buckner trade closer to a B+. Warming up to some of the folks as I research, so my grades are trending up. Just doing a quick scan of all the grades, I think the average would be B/B+.

 

I should probably post some of the detail for each player as I go through them.

https://www.colts.com/news/jacob-eason-jonathan-taylor-michael-pittman-jr-2020-nfl-draft-grades

 

Andy Benoit, Sports Illustrated: A-

Dane Brugler, The Athletic: No. 17 in NFL

Nate Davis, USA Today: A

Ryan Dunleavy, New York Post: A-

Luke Easterling, DraftWire: B

Eric Edholm, Yahoo Sports: B

Doug Farrar, TouchdownWire: B

Vinnie Iyer, Sporting News: B+

Dan Kadar, SBNation: B

Mel Kiper Jr., ESPN: A-

Mark Maske, Washington Post: B+

Pete Prisco, CBS Sports: B-

Pro Football Focus: B

Chad Reuter, NFL.com: A-

Evan Silva, Establish The Run: B-

Mike Tagliere, FantasyPros: C+

TheScore: B

WalterFootball.com: B

Hayden Winks, Rotoworld: C

 

 

[King Colt]

Everyone on Monday after the draft on ESPN agrees the Colts won the AFC South draft and it should come down to a run off between the Colts and the Titans.

[Four2itus]

Thor Nystrom from Rotoworld gave the Colts a D+

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Everyone on Monday after the draft on ESPN agrees the Colts won the AFC South draft and it should come down to a run off between the Colts and the Titans.

IDK. Jax had a pretty good, and big draft class. TN had a small draft, but pretty darn good day 1 and 2. 

 

Take a look at SI's article, which is pretty decent for the high level.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/26/nfl-draft-2020-team-grades-picks-analysis

[csmopar]

18 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Everyone on Monday after the draft on ESPN agrees the Colts won the AFC South draft and it should come down to a run off between the Colts and the Titans.

Yeah and after last years draft, and FA period, everyone swore the Browns would be in the Super Bowl....

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Thor Nystrom from Rotoworld gave the Colts a D+

Thanks for sharing. That's a graphic that makes it easy to point out the easy and hard graders lol. Kiper was actually harder on folks this year. I don't necessarily agree with Nystrom, but I do like that he's a hard grader and is closer to the bell curve than anyone. Looking at Reuter lol, he's handing out participation trophies.... good lord. 

 

I do agree with the overall grade/average. I see the Colts as a solid B or even B+ including the Buckner trade. I wonder if some folks included that trade while some did not, in their grades.

[PrideOfAthens17]

My grade is a solid B, also considering just the draft picks, and not getting Buckner for their 1st pick. It would be up a grade to an A if I factored him in.

[BornHoosier]

37 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Thor Nystrom from Rotoworld gave the Colts a D+

I'm not even gonna click on this graphic to know that it is a disrespect to a gather of data and somewhere Einstein himself is turning in his grave.  Anybody that watches this game knows that a D+ is not only inexcusable but darn right laughable.  I personally gave it an A- and all I heard is the Colts, Vikings and Ravens killed the draft.  End of the day, Opinions are like...

[2006Coltsbestever]

I say B+. If you include the Buckner trade it's an A.  You have to include that trade because it is like we basically drafted him at 13.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I am going to be mean for a change. Thor is clueless, D+  

[dw49]

Adam Schein had Dallas at 1. Chargers at 2 and the Colts at 3 . Below are his thought on the Colt's draft. BTW he ripped GB up and down for trading up for Love. He also hated their 2nd and 3rd round picks.

 

3) Indy's first-round pick went to San Francisco in the DeForest Buckner trade, which was a win for both sides. (Buckner is a stud, while the Niners used the pick to snag a cheaper replacement in Javon Kinlaw.) And then Colts GM Chris Ballard just owned the second round. USC receiver Michael Pittman at No. 34 is a dream. He's the perfect No. 2 receiver to T.Y. Hilton, as a big-bodied playmaker with great hands and contested-catch ability. Meanwhile, my love affair with Jonathan Taylor has been well-documented. Scoring him at No. 41 was another master stroke. I think the Wisconsin back will have a Rookie of the Year type of season running the ball for the Colts. Pittman and Taylor: two first-round talents acquired on Day 2.

I liked how Ballard built depth on defense throughout the rest of the draft. And I am obsessed with QB Jacob Eason's upside. He has a rocket arm, and if there's ever a coach to foster growth in the rest of his game, it's Frank Reich. Worthwhile project to pick in Round 

 

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I say B+. If you include the Buckner trade it's an A.  You have to include that trade because it is like we basically drafted him at 13.

While I include Buckner in my B/B+, I also have to temper that with the fact we have to pay him a lot too (we don't get the cheap rook contract), and there is little risk (like all other draft picks). So it's not as good for instance as draft Kinlaw + Kinlaw turning into a Pro Bowl guy + cheap rook contract for 4-5 years. Definitely a huge positive in the grade, but also need to factor in the no-brainer risk and high cost aspects.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

While I include Buckner in my B/B+, I also have to temper that with the fact we have to pay him a lot too (we don't get the cheap rook contract), and there is little risk (like all other draft picks). So it's not as good for instance as draft Kinlaw + Kinlaw turning into a Pro Bowl guy + cheap rook contract for 4-5 years. Definitely a huge positive in the grade, but also need to factor in the no-brainer risk and high cost aspects.

It will be interesting to see how Kinlaw turns out. At least with Buckner we know what we have and 26 is still pretty young.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It will be interesting to see how Kinlaw turns out. At least with Buckner we know what we have and 26 is still pretty young.

Yup. It was a no-brainer trade to me given our cap situation. I've been wanting a legit 3T FOREVER!!! But it still lacked risk (from the draft) and cost a bunch, so that's why I treat it a bit differently. And heck yes 26 is young. I'm sooooooo stoked to see him wearing blue. I expect his add to have implications to the LBs and DBs too. Most important position on our D IMO.

[BornHoosier]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

While I include Buckner in my B/B+, I also have to temper that with the fact we have to pay him a lot too (we don't get the cheap rook contract), and there is little risk (like all other draft picks). So it's not as good for instance as draft Kinlaw + Kinlaw turning into a Pro Bowl guy + cheap rook contract for 4-5 years. Definitely a huge positive in the grade, but also need to factor in the no-brainer risk and high cost aspects.

Cant forget what a VET probowler slash Superbowl experienced player brings to this team.  Kinlaw may be a stud but he wouldn't bring a VET presence to help lead this young team to the next level.  VET leadership is worth $20mil per yr over a promising rookie that has yet to step foot on an NFL field!  This team needs VET leadership and Ballard knew it!!!  

[EastStreet]

Just now, BornHoosier said:

Cant forget what a VET probowler slash Superbowl experienced player brings to this team.  Kinlaw may be a stud but he wouldn't bring a VET presence to help lead this young team to the next level.  VET leadership is worth $20mil per yr over a promising rookie that has yet to step foot on an NFL field!  This team needs VET leadership and Ballard knew it!!!  

I don't disagree with any of what you said. Just from a pure "draft grade", some aspects I don't factor in when it comes to trades.

[BornHoosier]

Everybody has their own formula but Buckner at 13, Pittman Jr at 34 and Taylor at 44 is an A draft grade no matter the curve or formula used.

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

While I include Buckner in my B/B+, I also have to temper that with the fact we have to pay him a lot too (we don't get the cheap rook contract), and there is little risk (like all other draft picks). So it's not as good for instance as draft Kinlaw + Kinlaw turning into a Pro Bowl guy + cheap rook contract for 4-5 years. Definitely a huge positive in the grade, but also need to factor in the no-brainer risk and high cost aspects.

 

I don't include Buckner in my grade. We didn't have a first, that drops the quality of the players we could draft. Same as it does for any other team that came into the draft without their full complement of picks. And if a team like the Niners or Dolphins comes away with a greater amount of quality players from the draft because they had more picks, it bumps up the quality of their grade.

 

That's my approach. My grade is about who we drafted. If we traded our second for OBJ, I wouldn't count him in my draft grade. I'm probably in the minority.

 

I intend to give my thoughts on the entire offseason at a later date. That will include a grade for trades and FAs and all that, and there I'll account for acquiring Buckner. But my draft grade is all about who we drafted.

 

Again, JMO.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't include Buckner in my grade. We didn't have a first, that drops the quality of the players we could draft. Same as it does for any other team that came into the draft without their full complement of picks. And if a team like the Niners or Dolphins comes away with a greater amount of quality players from the draft because they had more picks, it bumps up the quality of their grade.

 

That's my approach. My grade is about who we drafted. If we traded our second for OBJ, I wouldn't count him in my draft grade. I'm probably in the minority.

 

I intend to give my thoughts on the entire offseason at a later date. That will include a grade for trades and FAs and all that, and there I'll account for acquiring Buckner. But my draft grade is all about who we drafted.

 

Again, JMO.

Agreed, that's why I graded it both ways. It's all a bit murky, and like you said, it really a subset of the entire off season. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

Adam Schein had Dallas at 1. Chargers at 2 and the Colts at 3 . Below are his thought on the Colt's draft. BTW he ripped GB up and down for trading up for Love. He also hated their 2nd and 3rd round picks.

 

3) Indy's first-round pick went to San Francisco in the DeForest Buckner trade, which was a win for both sides. (Buckner is a stud, while the Niners used the pick to snag a cheaper replacement in Javon Kinlaw.) And then Colts GM Chris Ballard just owned the second round. USC receiver Michael Pittman at No. 34 is a dream. He's the perfect No. 2 receiver to T.Y. Hilton, as a big-bodied playmaker with great hands and contested-catch ability. Meanwhile, my love affair with Jonathan Taylor has been well-documented. Scoring him at No. 41 was another master stroke. I think the Wisconsin back will have a Rookie of the Year type of season running the ball for the Colts. Pittman and Taylor: two first-round talents acquired on Day 2.

I liked how Ballard built depth on defense throughout the rest of the draft. And I am obsessed with QB Jacob Eason's upside. He has a rocket arm, and if there's ever a coach to foster growth in the rest of his game, it's Frank Reich. Worthwhile project to pick in Round 

 

 

I think if you focus on need, you'll get wrapped up in the nonsense. (For example, I have no problem with the Packers moving up for Jordan Love... besides the fact that it deprived the Colts of him. I have no problem with the Eagles drafting Jalen Hurts; my thoughts on the player himself are a different story.)

 

So if someone focuses on the Colts' perceived needs, the Taylor pick looks problematic. We have a 25 year old RB who hit 1K last year, and a really good run blocking OL. We didn't need another "bell cow" back. 

 

But if you focus on the quality of the player -- and extra credit if you account for the auxiliary considerations, like usage, contract status, etc. -- then drafting a player of Taylor's pedigree at #39 is a winning move.

 

If you focus more on value, maybe it's 50/50. Maybe too high for a RB, plus we traded up, plus we have a starter already... but Taylor is more gifted than anyone we have, he's a difference-making, TD scoring prospect, and our coach wants to run the living daylights out of the ball.

 

I think most people's opinions of our draft hinges on the Taylor pick, and most people focus on perceived need. So since it's a low value position that wasn't a high need and we used our second pick of the draft on him, it's going to affect how people view our draft.

[BornHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think if you focus on need, you'll get wrapped up in the nonsense. (For example, I have no problem with the Packers moving up for Jordan Love... besides the fact that it deprived the Colts of him. I have no problem with the Eagles drafting Jalen Hurts; my thoughts on the player himself are a different story.)

 

So if someone focuses on the Colts' perceived needs, the Taylor pick looks problematic. We have a 25 year old RB who hit 1K last year, and a really good run blocking OL. We didn't need another "bell cow" back. 

 

But if you focus on the quality of the player -- and extra credit if you account for the auxiliary considerations, like usage, contract status, etc. -- then drafting a player of Taylor's pedigree at #39 is a winning move.

 

If you focus more on value, maybe it's 50/50. Maybe too high for a RB, plus we traded up, plus we have a starter already... but Taylor is more gifted than anyone we have, he's a difference-making, TD scoring prospect, and our coach wants to run the living daylights out of the ball.

 

I think most people's opinions of our draft hinges on the Taylor pick, and most people focus on perceived need. So since it's a low value position that wasn't a high need and we used our second pick of the draft on him, it's going to affect how people view our draft.

You are correct in saying the draft hinges on the Taylor pick which is why I thing the Colts stole the draft.  Yes, we have Mack but he doesn't scare any defense and Taylor brings that factor to the table.  You can't dismiss a 4.39 forty, 5'10" and 226 lbs and what that can mean to this offense.  Still not convinced, how about 6,000 yds, 6.7 ypa and 50 tds in just 3 yrs against a top conference with teams stacking the box?  Taylor is the X factor in this draft grade.

[dw49]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think if you focus on need, you'll get wrapped up in the nonsense. (For example, I have no problem with the Packers moving up for Jordan Love... besides the fact that it deprived the Colts of him. I have no problem with the Eagles drafting Jalen Hurts; my thoughts on the player himself are a different story.)

 

So if someone focuses on the Colts' perceived needs, the Taylor pick looks problematic. We have a 25 year old RB who hit 1K last year, and a really good run blocking OL. We didn't need another "bell cow" back. 

 

But if you focus on the quality of the player -- and extra credit if you account for the auxiliary considerations, like usage, contract status, etc. -- then drafting a player of Taylor's pedigree at #39 is a winning move.

 

If you focus more on value, maybe it's 50/50. Maybe too high for a RB, plus we traded up, plus we have a starter already... but Taylor is more gifted than anyone we have, he's a difference-making, TD scoring prospect, and our coach wants to run the living daylights out of the ball.

 

I think most people's opinions of our draft hinges on the Taylor pick, and most people focus on perceived need. So since it's a low value position that wasn't a high need and we used our second pick of the draft on him, it's going to affect how people view our draft.

 

Yep I agree with that. The good GM's all say they only draft for need when that player is equal to the others players available in that spot. I would guess in reality , it's more like "close" instead of "equal." I think the real mistakes are made when a team really needs say a LT and they are just hell bent to draft one with their first pick.

As to the GB pick , IMO it was really bad. If they looked the draft through the first 25 picks , it was pretty obvious Love would fall to them at 30. The Colts let it pass through NE and NO . Those 2 teams seem to me the most logical along with us to have somewhat of a need. Drew Brees is 41 years old.. right ? They could have instead used that 4th rounder to move up in the second day for a WR for Rodgers. Also , IMO, that team was 13-3 and a game away from the SB. Do you really take a "developmental QB in that spot. There are mixed opinions on how good Love might end up but they all agree he is far from a finished product . You would have to think Rodgers has 3 years left ? Just me... but I would have taken  either Higgins or Pittman as Rodgers for sure needed a little help. Or just the best player on my board not named Jordan Love.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

Yep I agree with that. The good GM's all say they only draft for need when that player is equal to the others players available in that spot. I would guess in reality , it's more like "close" instead of "equal." I think the real mistakes are made when a team really needs say a LT and they are just hell bent to draft one with their first pick.

As to the GB pick , IMO it was really bad. If they looked the draft through the first 25 picks , it was pretty obvious Love would fall to them at 30. The Colts let it pass through NE and NO . Those 2 teams seem to me the most logical along with us to have somewhat of a need. Drew Brees is 41 years old.. right ? They could have instead used that 4th rounder to move up in the second day for a WR for Rodgers. Also , IMO, that team was 13-3 and a game away from the SB. Do you really take a "developmental QB in that spot. There are mixed opinions on how good Love might end up but they all agree he is far from a finished product . You would have to think Rodgers has 3 years left ? Just me... but I would have taken  either Higgins or Pittman as Rodgers for sure needed a little help. Or just the best player on my board not named Jordan Love.

 

Agreed to the first point.

 

And in theory, I agree with the second point. But you have to admit you're focusing on need to a great extent. 'They needed a WR, so why take a developmental QB?'

 

I think it's just about them really liking a player at a really important position, and being willing to give up a mid round pick to secure him, just in case someone else liked him as much as they did. They also may have had him much higher rated than any other QB on their board, while another team -- like the Eagles, for instance -- would be okay with another remaining QB, but might still have drafted the one player the Packers really wanted. So there doesn't have to be a consensus on the player for a team to feel justified in moving up.

 

I know everybody knows all this, I'm just pointing out that whether the Packers bought into unwarranted hype about the Colts or not, what matters is that they got their guy, and it didn't cost them a whole lot.

 

Now, I agree they probably should have gone with Patrick Queen or whoever they had at the top of their board. Or traded down. That would have maximized their value, still secured them a really good player, and probably checked off a serious need or two. But if Love winds up being the real deal and they move on from Rodgers in two years, then they come out just fine. 

[stitches]

IMO, Ballard will never outright win a draft pre-play time because in a lot of cases he drafts niche players that work especially well for our system(especially defensively) but might not be valued as highly by the analysts that evaluate players in general for all teams. Ballard also takes some wild shots on athletic players(again part of it is because of the nature of this defense). Another part about this specific draft is the trade for Taylor. A lot of analysts nowadays seem to be falling in line with the thought that a RB even if a great player doesn't provide enough value to be drafted high. I listened to PFFs grades podcast and they pretty much said "I don't we can give a grade above B for a team that drafts RB earlier than round 3". This was following directly the grade for the Colts. Not all analysts will think that but enough of them will that the commulative grade will drop a bit.

 

(BTW with PFF I'm noticing moving the goalposts a bit about the value of the RB position... at first it was first rounders that didn't give the value required to be a good pick, now they've moved on to say that even second round RBs are not good value, I wonder if next year they would include the 3d round too. Where will be the ultimate limit? This is coming from someone who to some degree agrees with them - RB is not high value position and shouldn't be prioritized early in the draft. Now the question is how early is too early and how good a RB needs to be to justify being drafted in the respective round)

[stitches]

4 hours ago, csmopar said:

Yeah and after last years draft, and FA period, everyone swore the Browns would be in the Super Bowl....

 

Just a few more drafts and the Browns would have won about a decade worth of off-seasons straight without having one winning season.  

[dw49]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed to the first point.

 

And in theory, I agree with the second point. But you have to admit you're focusing on need to a great extent. 'They needed a WR, so why take a developmental QB?'

 

I think it's just about them really liking a player at a really important position, and being willing to give up a mid round pick to secure him, just in case someone else liked him as much as they did. They also may have had him much higher rated than any other QB on their board, while another team -- like the Eagles, for instance -- would be okay with another remaining QB, but might still have drafted the one player the Packers really wanted. So there doesn't have to be a consensus on the player for a team to feel justified in moving up.

 

I know everybody knows all this, I'm just pointing out that whether the Packers bought into unwarranted hype about the Colts or not, what matters is that they got their guy, and it didn't cost them a whole lot.

 

Now, I agree they probably should have gone with Patrick Queen or whoever they had at the top of their board. Or traded down. That would have maximized their value, still secured them a really good player, and probably checked off a serious need or two. But if Love winds up being the real deal and they move on from Rodgers in two years, then they come out just fine. 

 

Agree 

[Myles]

I include Buckner because we essentially took him with our 1st round pick.   Since the Cap space was a non issue, it really doesn't affect anything else.  With Kinlaw's injury history and unknown impact, Buckner seems a huge upgrade over what we could have had. 

I give the draft a B+.  

[csmopar]

9 hours ago, BornHoosier said:

You are correct in saying the draft hinges on the Taylor pick which is why I thing the Colts stole the draft.  Yes, we have Mack but he doesn't scare any defense and Taylor brings that factor to the table.  You can't dismiss a 4.39 forty, 5'10" and 226 lbs and what that can mean to this offense.  Still not convinced, how about 6,000 yds, 6.7 ypa and 50 tds in just 3 yrs against a top conference with teams stacking the box?  Taylor is the X factor in this draft grade.

you know, i was kind of meh at first with Taylor, but i spent the last couple days, periodically watching film from him, good and bad. I think this might be a bit premature, but I think he's got the potential to be a MJD type of guy for us. Behind our OL, with his skill set and strength, dude has potential for sure. I'm starting to really like the move to be honest.

However, I will caution, 3 years, 900+ carries is what concerns me. If you look at top stud RBs taken lately, Barkely, Elliot, even Mack, none of them had that high of mileage.

Barkely, over 3 years, had 671 carries, 3843 yards, 5.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Elliot over 3 years, had 592 carries, 3961 yards, 6.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Mack, over 3 years, had 586 carries, 3609 yards, 6.2 ypc, 32 TD

 

Taylor... 3 years,  926 carries, 6,174 yards. average, 6.7 yards per carry, 50 TDs.

Furthermore, he rushed for 1977 yards, 2194 and 2003 yards per year respectively. incredible numbers when you compare them to the 3 above but still, thats a LOT of mileage on a RB.

 

 

[Myles]

17 minutes ago, csmopar said:

you know, i was kind of meh at first with Taylor, but i spent the last couple days, periodically watching film from him, good and bad. I think this might be a bit premature, but I think he's got the potential to be a MJD type of guy for us. Behind our OL, with his skill set and strength, dude has potential for sure. I'm starting to really like the move to be honest.

However, I will caution, 3 years, 900+ carries is what concerns me. If you look at top stud RBs taken lately, Barkely, Elliot, even Mack, none of them had that high of mileage.

Barkely, over 3 years, had 671 carries, 3843 yards, 5.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Elliot over 3 years, had 592 carries, 3961 yards, 6.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Mack, over 3 years, had 586 carries, 3609 yards, 6.2 ypc, 32 TD

 

Taylor... 3 years,  926 carries, 6,174 yards. average, 6.7 yards per carry, 50 TDs.

Furthermore, he rushed for 1977 yards, 2194 and 2003 yards per year respectively. incredible numbers when you compare them to the 3 above but still, thats a LOT of mileage on a RB.

 

 

Wisconsin usually rides their RB's hard.   They should.  It helps them win and it gets the RB's drafted high.  Not always good for the NFL team that drafts them though.  Luckily, we have Mack who could take the bulk of the carries.  They can limit Taylor to around 100 carries which would be double what the Colts second leading RB had last season.  Of course that depends on how the season is going and how the games go.  If he's running well and games are close, he'll get more carries.  

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

Wisconsin usually rides their RB's hard.   They should.  It helps them win and it gets the RB's drafted high.  Not always good for the NFL team that drafts them though.  Luckily, we have Mack who could take the bulk of the carries.  They can limit Taylor to around 100 carries which would be double what the Colts second leading RB had last season.  Of course that depends on how the season is going and how the games go.  If he's running well and games are close, he'll get more carries.  

 

I don't expect Taylor's involvement to improve till about mid-way point in the season. Just like how Joseph Addai came along in the middle of his rookie season.

[OffensivelyPC]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't include Buckner in my grade. We didn't have a first, that drops the quality of the players we could draft. Same as it does for any other team that came into the draft without their full complement of picks. And if a team like the Niners or Dolphins comes away with a greater amount of quality players from the draft because they had more picks, it bumps up the quality of their grade.

 

That's my approach. My grade is about who we drafted. If we traded our second for OBJ, I wouldn't count him in my draft grade. I'm probably in the minority.

 

I intend to give my thoughts on the entire offseason at a later date. That will include a grade for trades and FAs and all that, and there I'll account for acquiring Buckner. But my draft grade is all about who we drafted.

 

Again, JMO.

I'm not a huge fan of this approach for a few reasons - reasons that probablly don't matter to you, but I'm not attempting to change your mind how you choose to grade.  Just shed some light on why grades never matter without context.

 

First, we're given a set of picks, for every draft, provided we do'nt forfeit them for malpractice.   How we use those picks, now or in the future,  it's still using part of the draft "allowance" or draft capital.  So to me, using a pick in this years draft to acquire a player is part of the draft grade because we used part of the draft capital.  

 

Second, under your draft methodology, you'd have no real way to calculate the value gained or lost by a trade.  Green Bay could have been correct moving up to grab Jordan Love, but what if they incorrectly assessed their opponents (or worse, overvalued Love?).  By your methodology, they got Love and missed out on a late round prospect who wouldn't really (or accurately, I think) compute under your methodology.   On the other hand, had the Packers stayed pat, and still got Love, and then they have their late round prospect.

 

And if it's trade for trade, okay, you can always resort to the draft trade chart, but the value of any pick fluctuates in any given year, not to mention how each individual team values them.  The Colts could have gotten whatever the 49ers got from their 13th pick (to say nothing about whether we would use it differently).  Instead, we got our draft class and Buckner.  

 

Like you said before, I don't think it really matters how anyone grades things, we all see things differently.  But where these draft grades always use the same general measuring sticks (the school GPA system, rank 1-32, rank on a scale of 1 to 100), we often see the grades and assume they're using the same methodology. Tha'ts a bad assumption on our part, but an assumption we're often forced to make because the graders don't always/often share their methodology.  That therefore makes everything bereft of consistency.  At least when people do share their methodology, you can understand where they are coming from and take it a little more seriously, and weed out the bad, non-thought out pieces.  It makes it more helpful when I read differing opinions that differ from mine.

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

you know, i was kind of meh at first with Taylor, but i spent the last couple days, periodically watching film from him, good and bad. I think this might be a bit premature, but I think he's got the potential to be a MJD type of guy for us. Behind our OL, with his skill set and strength, dude has potential for sure. I'm starting to really like the move to be honest.

However, I will caution, 3 years, 900+ carries is what concerns me. If you look at top stud RBs taken lately, Barkely, Elliot, even Mack, none of them had that high of mileage.

Barkely, over 3 years, had 671 carries, 3843 yards, 5.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Elliot over 3 years, had 592 carries, 3961 yards, 6.7 ypc, 43 TDs

Mack, over 3 years, had 586 carries, 3609 yards, 6.2 ypc, 32 TD

 

Taylor... 3 years,  926 carries, 6,174 yards. average, 6.7 yards per carry, 50 TDs.

Furthermore, he rushed for 1977 yards, 2194 and 2003 yards per year respectively. incredible numbers when you compare them to the 3 above but still, thats a LOT of mileage on a RB.

 

Someone posted something a couple days ago suggesting that "mileage" isn't as big a factor as you might think, particularly at a young football age. If a player doesn't sustain injury, then simply having a lot of carries doesn't mean he's worn down. It's not like tread on a tire.

 

It's more like a misaligned tire, where the misalignment represents an injury (or some other deficiency or physical imbalance). The more you drive in that condition, the faster the tire will wear. If everything is aligned properly, you should have a normal life span on your tires. 

 

Anyone can suffer a catastrophic injury, and it has nothing to do with prior usage, or anything else. It's just a matter of circumstance (in most cases). But I don't know that there's a true positive correlation between number of carries and likelihood of injury, especially if you account for variables like prior injury history and exclude catastrophic injuries that are specific to circumstance.

[shasta519]

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

While I include Buckner in my B/B+, I also have to temper that with the fact we have to pay him a lot too (we don't get the cheap rook contract), and there is little risk (like all other draft picks). So it's not as good for instance as draft Kinlaw + Kinlaw turning into a Pro Bowl guy + cheap rook contract for 4-5 years. Definitely a huge positive in the grade, but also need to factor in the no-brainer risk and high cost aspects.

Yeah...the contract is a huge part of this. Buckner is the third-highest paid defensive player in the NFL I think...so surplus value is likely not going to be had. But he’s also a proven talent...which you really can’t compare to a draft pick.
 

So I just prefer to evaluate the draft and the Buckner trade on their own merits. I think we can look at the draft picks Ballard had this past weekend...and how he used them...and evaluate that way. Otherwise...how do you compare teams with different picks?

 

With that said, I think it’s a B to B+...with the chance that Eason alone can make it an A. Every year I want Ballard to grab skill position talent on Day Two...every year. It’s for the very reason many pundits are now praising those picks...because it’s not unheard of to get 1st round talent at these positions on Day Two...especially RB. Plus they are safer (and typically more talented) than project defensive players.

 

And this year particularly...I wanted an offense-heavy approach early...so I was stoked to see Pittman and Taylor taken...as well as Eason in the 4th (really wanted to draft a QB at some point).
 

And I can dream on Eason...even if I was a big Love fan...especially at the value price of a 4th rounder.

 

The picks that kept it from being an A for me was Blackmon and Pinter. Both are projects with considerable risk (either via injury or being raw or both)...and are recent or soon-to-be position changes. The laundry list of preferred players that went around those two picks is very long. Assuming all of these players develop...it is hard to imagine Blackmon being better than Cush, Zuniga, Lewis, Gallimore...or

Pinter being better than Lemieux,

Bryce Hall, Tyler Johnson, Curtis Weaver, Muti, Anae, etc. And I think the chances they do develop or acclimate to the NFL is less than those players as well.

 

The 6th rounders are solid dice rolls though...and should really help bolster the PS and STs for now. (Wouldn’t have minded taking a stab at Hunter Bryant though). 

 

But it’s all JMO. You add a couple of players in place of the Blackmon and Pinter picks...and it’s probably an A for me.

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Someone posted something a couple days ago suggesting that "mileage" isn't as big a factor as you might think, particularly at a young football age. If a player doesn't sustain injury, then simply having a lot of carries doesn't mean he's worn down. It's not like tread on a tire.

 

It's more like a misaligned tire, where the misalignment represents an injury (or some other deficiency or physical imbalance). The more you drive in that condition, the faster the tire will wear. If everything is aligned properly, you should have a normal life span on your tires. 

 

Anyone can suffer a catastrophic injury, and it has nothing to do with prior usage, or anything else. It's just a matter of circumstance (in most cases). But I don't know that there's a true positive correlation between number of carries and likelihood of injury, especially if you account for variables like prior injury history and exclude catastrophic injuries that are specific to circumstance.

While true, I wouldn't dismiss mileage entirely.   First, I'm not an expert and do not think I know that I am certain.   Just going from an entirely different experience.     

I used to work in an office supply distribution center.  Each nigh I would lift several boxes of paper (53 lbs).  After a year of that, I was promoted to second shift supervisor and didn't have to do it anymore.  But the pain in my elbow never left.  

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Someone posted something a couple days ago suggesting that "mileage" isn't as big a factor as you might think, particularly at a young football age. If a player doesn't sustain injury, then simply having a lot of carries doesn't mean he's worn down. It's not like tread on a tire.

 

It's more like a misaligned tire, where the misalignment represents an injury (or some other deficiency or physical imbalance). The more you drive in that condition, the faster the tire will wear. If everything is aligned properly, you should have a normal life span on your tires. 

 

Anyone can suffer a catastrophic injury, and it has nothing to do with prior usage, or anything else. It's just a matter of circumstance (in most cases). But I don't know that there's a true positive correlation between number of carries and likelihood of injury, especially if you account for variables like prior injury history and exclude catastrophic injuries that are specific to circumstance.

I'm not sure I agree with that notion. One can sustain over use injuries. Happens a TON in the Army. I'm not saying our conditioning program is anywhere near an NFL or D1 level of conditioning but knee injuries from overuse happen a lot. I used a civilian doctor, same that did Carson Palmer's ACL when i tore mine, i was told my injury was from wear and tear of overuse. Same story with  my patella tendon tear and LCL tear. Now, my family has weak tendons in the knee and I know everyone is different, I just know from personal experience and having witnessed non contact, non impact knee injuries that wear and tear does cause injuries. Its also why the older a player gets, the more likely they are to sustain those injuries as well. 

[Superman]

38 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I'm not a huge fan of this approach for a few reasons - reasons that probablly don't matter to you, but I'm not attempting to change your mind how you choose to grade.  Just shed some light on why grades never matter without context.

 

...

 

This is a good post, and it's all a perfectly reasonable approach. Like I said, this is all similar to the approach I use when I evaluate the offseason as a whole. And like you said, there's no consistency among "graders" in methodology or even explaining their methodology. Another reason I don't really care about their grades to begin with.

 

My approach is meant to evaluate the quality of the players selected in the draft, because what's important to me in this specific evaluation is whether a team does a good job of identifying good pro prospects. I believe that is automatically adjusted for when you review the players. If Team A has three first rounders, the players they pick will likely have a higher grade than Team B that has no first rounders. And if a team trades around and adds good value, then drafts a lot of solid players, that's reflected as well.

 

But when you add in players that were not part of the draft class -- and while it's true that we spent our first rounder on Buckner, he is not part of the 2020 draft class, and that's reflected in his age, his contract, and his proven history as an NFL player -- you're evaluating more than just whether the team can identify good players in the draft. That matters to me; it's the whole point of a draft grade, so I'm excluding veterans added using draft picks. Other people might have different objectives, but I think methods that include veteran players are muddying the waters. 

 

And to your point about a team like the Packers giving up value to draft Love, that's reflected in an evaluation of the group of players they drafted. They could have had a player rated similarly to Love at #30, plus another solid player at #136. It's also reflected when evaluating what New England did; they added value by moving down from #23 to #37 and adding #71.

 

One more thing about muddying the waters, we're not accounting for the Patriots adding Sanu in 2019 by giving up their second round pick in 2020. I don't think we're including Dee Ford in the Niners draft haul, right? In general, when grading the 2020 draft, we're not accounting for every veteran player added by using a 2020 draft pick. Just the ones the grader remembers and wants to add in. It just adds more inconsistency to the evaluation. (And it has little to do with a team's ability to scout and project draft prospects.)

 

So for me, I'm only looking at the actual draft class -- the rookie players added using 2020 picks, because I want to have a feel for the quality of the players that were drafted in 2020. And I think that approach sufficiently accounts for value added/lost in pick trades. I think veteran players added are accounted for in a different evaluation.

[#12.]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

I listened to PFFs grades podcast and they pretty much said "I don't we can give a grade above B for a team that drafts RB earlier than round 3". This was following directly the grade for the Colts. Not all analysts will think that but enough of them will that the commulative grade will drop a bit.

 

They did, out of principle, but practically every one of them also said he's going to be really good in this offense and behind this O-line.  

 

Mike Renner is the only reasonable member of the group.  He takes the numbers and gives them a real world, football application.  He actually played sports.  With the other analysts, everything is black and white - you should take either a WR or CB with every pick and never take a RB.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, Myles said:

While true, I wouldn't dismiss mileage entirely.   First, I'm not an expert and do not think I know that I am certain.   Just going from an entirely different experience.     

I used to work in an office supply distribution center.  Each nigh I would lift several boxes of paper (53 lbs).  After a year of that, I was promoted to second shift supervisor and didn't have to do it anymore.  But the pain in my elbow never left.  

 

I'm not dismissing mileage. I'm saying there's good mileage and not so good mileage. 

 

Anecdotally, we can find people who have lingering pain from old situations, and we can find people who had similar circumstances but no lingering pain. There isn't necessarily a correlation between having worked a year lifting boxes and developing lingering elbow pain. At least, one person's experience doesn't establish a correlation.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

We got two guys who could of been first rounders who will contribute from day 1. No matter what else we did the rest of the draft that is a A in my book. Plus it looks like we got both guys we wanted. Add the Buckner trade in that’s a A+. Running backs have short playing careers anyway so I don’t even care about mileage. He will be splitting with Mack anyway.

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

They did, out of principle, but practically every one of them also said he's going to be really good in this offense and behind this O-line.  

 

Mike Renner is the only reasonable member of the group.  He takes the numbers and gives them a real world, football application.  He actually played sports.  With the other analysts, everything is black and white - you should take either a WR or CB with every pick and never take a RB.

 

I think they are a bit more nuanced than this, but I absolutely can see your point. They are indeed going overboard with positional value at times. At some point it is better to get a good player at low value position than bad player at high value position. This is coming from someone who absolutely believes positional value is a real thing and is interested in ways of quantifying that and that you need to take it into account when alocating resources.