onejayhawk 3 Posted April 17, 2006 RB for instance. This looks like a poor class, with one big exception. No depth to speak of, and only one star talent. Yet some mags have it as an A grade. On the other hand, this is an outstanding LT class, with 2 at least in the top 15, and maybe 10 in the first day. Yet it is being presented as a B or B+. CB's lack star power, but there is a raft of solid ones, and more S's than I have ever seen with 1st round grades. Tentitively QB - B. Stars, but lacking depth. Three certain top 10, but maybe only 6 first day. RB - B-. Four in the 1st round, but only 9-10 first day. LT - A. possibly the best ever C and OG. - B, compared to a more normal C-. As many as 7 of the first 50, clustered in the second half of that range. WR - D. Compared to the last two years, its a desert. Only one first round grade and maybe 8-9 1st day. TE - B+. A star in Davis, and three more with 1st round grades DE - B. A high demand position, with one major star. Somewhat thin. DT - B-. More solid than talented. Good depth. LB - B. Star power in Hawk, and good depth, but thin in the first round. S - A-. Counting Huff and Williams here, one of the best ever. Very deep. CB - B+. Solid and deep, but no stars ST - C-. No P's and K's of note, but a raft of draftable KR. This is a great draft. Possibly the best in a decade. It lacks a lot of sex appeal, heavy on hitters at grinder positions. The second round might have 10 to 15 players better than the tail of the 05 1st round, and clearly three QB's better than Alex Smith. J Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zap 0 Posted April 17, 2006 Bold mine. QB - B. Stars, but lacking depth. Three certain top 10, but maybe only 6 first day. C. Maybe only four or five on the first day, and I'm not overly impressed with 2/3rds of the top three. There is some interesting depth, but there always is. RB - B-. Four in the 1st round, but only 9-10 first day. B+. A lot of very similar depth after the first four. 9-10 on the first day is a very high number, and I like many of their prospects. Rob Rang called them very deep and strong despite being a smallish batch. LT - A. possibly the best ever Agreed C and OG. - B, compared to a more normal C-. As many as 7 of the first 50, clustered in the second half of that range. I'll give the centers a B-/C++ and the guards an A-. There's a ton of depth and a bunch of college tackles who could move inside and be very good. This a nice group. WR - D. Compared to the last two years, its a desert. Only one first round grade and maybe 8-9 1st day. C. Definitely below average in that an elite player or two is missing and your D is warranted, but the depth is actually very impressive and earns this class an odd C. TE - B+. A star in Davis, and three more with 1st round grades A-. I don't think 4 have first round grades, but I think three do and four more have very high grades and excellent potential. Some are calling it a great TE class. I think that's slightly hyped, but it's a nice group. DE - B. A high demand position, with one major star. Somewhat thin. D. But I have to qualify that low grade. There's a bunch of nice DE talent slated to move to OLB. Thus, really weakening this class for pure DEs. It is very thin. DT - B-. More solid than talented. Good depth. C+. Above average depth, but pretty average talent. LB - B. Star power in Hawk, and good depth, but thin in the first round. B+. The wealth of DE OLB conversions almost makes this class an A-. Several front office types think this this is the strength of the draft. S - A-. Counting Huff and Williams here, one of the best ever. Very deep. Agreed CB - B+. Solid and deep, but no stars A-. Gotta give this incredibly deep group some props. They may not be drafted at the elite level, but I bet there's three stars in this group. Good description-- great class lacking sex appeal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,661 Posted April 17, 2006 I count 5 blue chippers Mario Williams D'Brickshaw Ferguson Michael Huff Vernon Davis AJ Hawk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MahSoonerz 0 Posted April 17, 2006 Excellent analysis all. I don't know what gets into some of these magazines and draft sites. It may just be how much these commentators actually, y'know, watched the games these last few years, versus those who just have read a bunch of combine stats. Thank God for the influx of OL talent this year. I feel stronger NFL defense last year made a lot of OLs look bad, and we need to restore the balance so we can score more FF points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pollardposse 0 Posted April 17, 2006 I agree with most of it, but not the linebackers.... This is one of the best drafts for linebackers I have seen in a long time. Hawk is a superstar in waiting, but what about Sims? He is very underrated! Many sites now have up to 5 linebackers going in round one. I see 3-4 in round one and 4 in round two. That is an excellent year for linebackers if it happens. I give the linebackers and 'A'. Good analysis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildman 0 Posted April 17, 2006 Excellent analysis all. I don't know what gets into some of these magazines and draft sites. It may just be how much these commentators actually, y'know, watched the games these last few years, versus those who just have read a bunch of combine stats. Most of these guys don't watch the games. They get second and third-hand information. At the same time, it's easy to rip on some of these guys before the player they rated high/low actually proves them right. For instance, I see a fair amount of ripping on GM Jr's analysis on NFL.com. What was published looked like (as Zap mentioned) it needed another edit, this guy has a pretty good track record of analysis. He was a regional scout for a pro team for a number of years and his sample reports from his site demonstrate some nice calls in the past: Tom Brady graded as a 3rd round pick with potential (rather than a 6th round nobody), Marc Bulger as a 1st round talent, and Brandon Lloyd as an amazing receiving talent, but likely maxed out on his athletic potential in terms of speed, strength, etc. As someone that spent an average of 35-40 hours per week studying game film of offensive fantasy prospects this year, there is a pretty fine line between a 1st round player and an undrafted player. It may not seem that way when you just casually watch the game but we often forget the dramatic difference between a fine college player and a fine NFL starter. Think about the fact maybe 1% of all college players are drafted. Statistically, you're talking about grading that 99th percentile of college talent--the difference in skill is so marginal. This fall I heard so many analysts and media people talk about Reggie McNeal and Wali Lundy in terms people are now using when discussing Brodie Croyle and Joseph Addai. Now McNeal and Lundy are projected as 2nd day picks...Then you have the difference between an NFL benchwarmer and pro bowl player--an even narrower subset... It's good entertainment value to grade a position or predict where a guy will go, but as a fantasy owner, I'm more interested in their skills and where they actually do wind up....WR Brandon Marshall is getting graded all over the place. Some think he's the #4 WR fantasy (dynasty) prospect but if the offense he goes to doesn't match his skills, he's no where near that level. While I've sipped the Marshall kool aid, I've put the rest of the glass back in the refrigerator... Speaking of WRs...it's difficult to grade the WR class because it is one of these toughest positions to make the transition from college to pro. I remember hearing about Reggie Williams being up there with Fitz and Roy Williams or how Rashaun Woods was the most pro-ready of this great WR class. Or how about Kevin Dyson being more NFL ready than Randy Moss. Derrick Mason was in this class, too. He wasn't even a 1st day prospect. For people to summarily dismiss this class as a dud makes me laugh, because there are several players that could wind up being awesome that are getting seriously dissed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remey 0 Posted April 17, 2006 I count 5 blue chippers Mario Williams D'Brickshaw Ferguson Michael Huff Vernon Davis AJ Hawk Reggie Bush down? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ellisonb11 0 Posted April 17, 2006 I agree with most of it, but not the linebackers.... This is one of the best drafts for linebackers I have seen in a long time. I give the linebackers and 'A'. yea i agree, the linebacker class this year seems to be deep and talented, i also believe they deserve an A. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MahSoonerz 0 Posted April 17, 2006 Sage words as usual Wildman. I'll readily admit that I put way too much emphasis on watching the games and am not all that skilled in predicting who will make the transition from college to pros, especially at WR. I was watching mah Sooner Torrence Marshall playing arena football the other day and recalling how I was so very convinced he was a can't miss prospect when the Packers drafted him, in the 2nd round as I recall. Your dose of reality doesn't make me change my uninspired gut feeling about this year's receiver crop, yet knowing my own track record I'd be more surprised to be proven right than wrong on this. The thing that got me about the analysis at nfl.com is how harsh it was. You get the impression that guy thinks everyone past the middle of the first round will be a bust. Or maybe he's just jaded (your take leads me to that thought). In a way it does speak well of nfl.com though - they certainly aren't just putting a bunch of sugarcoated rah-rah stuff on their site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,661 Posted April 17, 2006 Reggie Bush down? If he was 15 pounds heavier. I can't award bluechip status to a back that cannot carry the ball 20 times a game. Let's face it. At this size, he will be a stellar return man, and an excellent receiver. Look at a guy like Tyson Thompson who has 20 pounds on the guy and Parcells laughed when someone suggested that he might be the starter for the Cowboys because he's too small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildman 0 Posted April 17, 2006 If he was 15 pounds heavier. I can't award bluechip status to a back that cannot carry the ball 20 times a game. Let's face it. At this size, he will be a stellar return man, and an excellent receiver. Look at a guy like Tyson Thompson who has 20 pounds on the guy and Parcells laughed when someone suggested that he might be the starter for the Cowboys because he's too small. I'd like to see the link/video/source where Parcells laughed because Thompson was too small. Parcells started 5-7 Joe Morris as his feature back many years ago. Morris probably weight a bit more than Bush, but not much. Thompson has other issues that would make a head coach laugh at the thought of starting him, but not size. He's certainly laughing about the prospect of starting Julius Jones 5-10 and 211 (at most).... I think you should reconsider your reason for not listing Bush among the elite prospects. There is a huge difference between saying a player cannot and did not carry the ball 20 times a game. Bush did not carry it that much for the same reasons Ronnie Brown didn't at Auburn or Eric Dickerson didn't at SMU--they have NFL quality RBs playing alongside them. I don't think you have proof to say Reggie Bush cannot carry the ball 20 times per game. I think he'll have no problem getting 17-20 touches per game and handle it fine. At the same time to be fair, both your statement and mine are conjecture. Mine's more based on allowing the possibility of it to occur while yours elminates it without proof either way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,661 Posted April 18, 2006 I cannot find any other back in the league that has a lower height to weight ratio than Bush, and I've looked. He would be the smallest back in the league as far as I can tell. If your 6 foot you should weigh more than a guy who is 5'7" no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onejayhawk 3 Posted April 18, 2006 Thanks for the props. I agree, when you move the tweeners to 3-4 rushbackers, and count them as OLB, it makes a huge impact on how you grade both the LB and the DE. My rough out puts them at their college position, while I moved Huff and J Williams to safety. It would have been more consistent to move everyone. As a footnote, this class has an unusual number of tweeners and multiposition players. Its kind of like the Patriots roster in that regard. J Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildman 0 Posted April 18, 2006 I cannot find any other back in the league that has a lower height to weight ratio than Bush, and I've looked. He would be the smallest back in the league as far as I can tell. If your 6 foot you should weigh more than a guy who is 5'7" no? According to the combine Bush is listed as 5-10 7/8. So even if we give him an extra 8th of an inch and make him 5-11, 201-lbs you have a back with roughly the same measurements as Clinton Portis who was 5-11, 195 when he came into the league. Portis wasn't a big-legged back, either. Terrell Davis was 5-11, 190 as a rookie. Though I'm not absolutely certain, Marshall Faulk was 5-10 and less than 200 pounds as a rookie... I'll look a little harder for more, but off the top of my head those are two (maybe three if I'm right about Faulk) pretty good runners that were of similar dimensions. Neither were guys with great lower body strength/makeup... Look, I'm no huge fan of the Pac-10. I agree that the defenses there aren't as heralded as the SEC/Big Ten/or ACC, but he didn't fair too badly against Michigan, Va Tech, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or Texas. I know I probably won't change your mind, but that's my two cents... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
