Grading a Draft Class

[squire12]

Been thinking about this for a few days and wanted to throw it out for some discussion.  I will start by saying there are an infinite number of ways that anyone could go about "grading" a draft class.  Letters, numbers, qualitative descriptions, etc are all options.  Typically, 2-3 years into a draft classes NFL career are needed before any real final marks should be assigned. 

Below, I have what I would consider a basic 0-5 grading scale with associated descriptions for each “grade”.  After some discussion, I will revamp things based on feedback and suggestions and then we can move onto actually ranking the recent draft classes that would be appropriate (2012-2015).

Interested in feedback and suggestions on each level.  Certainly there are players that would fall between each and that could be noted as 2+ or 4- depending on their trajectory of being an ascending or descending player.  @incognito_man   @CWood21

 

Grading a draft

5 = Elite level player at position, All pro/Pro Bowl level player.  “Difference Maker”, makes other players around them better.   Player team wants to resign to 2^nd contract and potentially a 3^rd contract

4 = Good Player at a premium position (CB, Edge, QB, OT, DL-pass rusher) or Top tier player a non-premium position.  Player team wants to resign to 2^nd contract

3 = Good player at non-premium position or Solid starter at a position. 2^nd contract at team friendly deal

2 = Serviceable starter or Key Special team player (multiple units).  Unlikely to be resigned to 2^nd contract

1 = Fringe roster player, limited situations, special teams contributor. (40-53 types on the roster)  Someone that you are looking to upgrade from. 

0 = Camp cut (before year 3) or never makes it off the PS

[CWood21]

I'm not sure it's nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.  I think you have to weigh where the player was drafted along with what kind of player they turn out to be.  I mean, if you get a key special teams player or high quality backup in Round 5-7, I'd chalk that up to a win.  And then when you look at an overall class, it's weighted more towards the top and less towards the bottom.

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure it's nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.  I think you have to weigh where the player was drafted along with what kind of player they turn out to be.  I mean, if you get a key special teams player or high quality backup in Round 5-7, I'd chalk that up to a win.  And then when you look at an overall class, it's weighted more towards the top and less towards the bottom.

I sometimes play the game where I look at the five guys before and after the pick and try and see where the pick likes. Gives you some perspective 

[CWood21]

Just now, NormSizedMidget said:

I sometimes play the game where I look at the five guys before and after the pick and try and see where the pick likes. Gives you some perspective 

The only issue I have with this is that grades are incredibly subjective.  One team might have a 1st round grade while another team might only have a 3rd round grade on a player.  And that's probably more the case with the later the picks.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure it's nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.  I think you have to weigh where the player was drafted along with what kind of player they turn out to be.  I mean, if you get a key special teams player or high quality backup in Round 5-7, I'd chalk that up to a win.  And then when you look at an overall class, it's weighted more towards the top and less towards the bottom.

I can see that view.  Would you weight the grade based on the draft round?

 

I look at it as each draft nets you a rough total of 16 in total grade.  

1 -- graded 4 or 5 player

2 -- graded 3 players

4 -- graded as 1 or 2

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Would you weight the grade based on the draft round?

Absolutely.  I mean, if you're getting a decent starter in the 1st round and you get a decent starter in the 4th round, obviously the 4th round was a better use of your assets.

[squire12]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Absolutely.  I mean, if you're getting a decent starter in the 1st round and you get a decent starter in the 4th round, obviously the 4th round was a better use of your assets.

Agreed it was better use of assets.   But I see this as less about value per asset spent and more on the net total to keep a team well stocked with enough talent to remain competitive.

Regardless of where a player was drafted, coming into the 2nd contract decision, it is about position, and talent level.  Draft pedigree/position is irrelevant. 

[CWood21]

Just now, squire12 said:

Agreed it was better use of assets.   But I see this as less about value per asset spent and more on the net total to keep a team well stocked with enough talent to remain competitive.

Regardless of where a player was drafted, coming into the 2nd contract decision, it is about position, and talent level.  Draft pedigree/position is irrelevant. 

I think there was a former GM (or some talent evaluator) that said if you got 2-3 starters per draft, you'd consider it a pretty good draft.  You can go back and look at our drafts:

2015: Damarious Randall and Quentin Rollins have been in-and-out of the lineup, and neither has been overly reliable.  Ty Montgomery has gotten some burn at RB, but not enough to justify one way or the other.  And Jake Ryan has been in-and-out of the lineup as well.  Right now, this class looks bad.
2014: The Packers got three starters (HHCD, Davante Adams, and Corey Linsley), so you'd consider this a success.
2013: Packers got David Bakhtiari and Eddie Lacy, and JC Tretter when he was healthy was a starting caliber C, so I'd consider this a success
2012: Packers got 2.5 starter with Nick Perry and Mike Daniels as potential stars, and Casey Hayward wasn't bad so it's a good class.
2011: Packers got Randall Cobb and Davon House.  Whiffs on Derek Sherrod and Alex Green really hurt this class.  I'd probably call this one a push, could make an argument either way.
2010: Packers got two starters in Bryan Bulaga and Morgan Burnett, so this is a good class.

You could keep going on, but it's hard to argue that outside of 2015 Ted's had a reasonable amount of success.

[squire12]

That is what I feel is a good class as well, but you need some elite type talent to be true SB contenders.  Difference makers are pretty vital to playoff success.   

By definition, all 32 teams have the same number of starters, but those teams with better quality starters separate themselves from the parity of other teams.

[TransientTexan]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

That is what I feel is a good class as well, but you need some elite type talent to be true SB contenders.  Difference makers are pretty vital to playoff success.   

By definition, all 32 teams have the same number of starters, but those teams with better quality starters separate themselves from the parity of other teams.

the problem is, elite-type talent is extremely rare. I'm guessing there's only maybe 4-5 per draft class (I'm doing some studies on the 2014 class currently). And probably 60+% of those go in the top half of Round 1. 

[squire12]

52 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

the problem is, elite-type talent is extremely rare. I'm guessing there's only maybe 4-5 per draft class (I'm doing some studies on the 2014 class currently). And probably 60+% of those go in the top half of Round 1. 

Sure it's rare....hence the elite classification.  But you need them to have success in the playoffs.

Daniels, Bakhtiari both elite IMO.

Collins, Shields, Clay, Nelson, Lang, Sitton, Bulaga, Jennings all were really good players at their positions at points in their career.  None top 20 picks.  

[TransientTexan]

13 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Sure it's rare....hence the elite classification.  But you need them to have success in the playoffs.

Daniels, Bakhtiari both elite IMO.

Collins, Shields, Clay, Nelson, Lang, Sitton, Bulaga, Jennings all were really good players at their positions at points in their career.  None top 20 picks.  

Of course and that is over 9 draft classes and almost 90 draft picks. I was thinking more on the Julio Jones/JJ Watt/Aaron Donald type level, but yea, if you want to broaden the elite cutoff, the odds go up. nobody said it is impossible to find elite or great guys after the mid-1st. just improbable, (consider counting how many misses it takes for each 'hit'). I'd also add that Green Bay is atypical in their success. Generally speaking, the NFL 'hit' rate is lower.