Archived Thread

FO: NFL 2021 Draft Grades / Ranking (20 Rater Averages)

Trainmaster : 5/4/2021 4:00 pm

Quote:

"Keep in mind that while these grades are a lot of fun, Benjamin Robinson found last year that they are largely meaningless. That said, they are a lot of fun."

Some of the raters have grades that range from a high of A+ to a low of C, while others grade from A+ to F. That biases these grades to the higher end. I'm not sure the ranges need to be A+ to F, but I think they should go down to a D at least for particularly bad drafts (based on "instant analysis".

Quote:

" ...cast of characters, adding up to a total of 20 sets of grades:

Mel Kiper (ESPN+)
Mark Maske (Washington Post)
Nate Davis (USA Today)
Vinnie Iyer (Sporting News)
Eric Edholm (Yahoo! Sports)
Chad Reuter (NFL.com)
Brad Gagnon (Bleacher Report)
Charles McDonald and Steven Ruiz (For the Win)
Pro Football Focus Staff (PFF)
Connor Orr (Sports Illustrated)
Pete Prisco (CBS Sports)
Luke Easterling (DraftWire)
Thor Nystrom NBCSports Edge (AFC) (NFC)
Ryan Dunleavy (New York Post)
Sheil Kapadia (The Athletic)
Mike Tagliere (Fantasy Pros)
Ryan Fowler (The Draft Network)
Danny Kelly (The Ringer)
Ben Rolfe (Pro Football Network)
Doug Farrar and Mark Schofield (Touchdown Wire)

Sorry for poor formatting; it's clear in the article at the link below.

Quote:

2021 NFL Draft Grades
Team High Low GPA Rk SD Rk
1 CHI A+ (4 total) B+ (3 total) 3.91 1 0.36 32
2 CLE A+ (3 total) B (Kiper, Kapadia) 3.84 2 0.39 30
3 LAC A+ (PFF) B (Nystrom) 3.65 3 0.37 31
4 BAL A+ (Dunleavy) C+ (Davis, Edholm) 3.51 4 0.61 16
5 MIA A+ (Dunleavy) C+ (Nystrom) 3.50 5 0.59 19
6 NYJ A+ (Rolfe, TD Wire) D (Nystrom) 3.45 6 0.80 6
7 NE A+ (PFF) C+ (For the Win) 3.38 7 0.50 26
8 DET A+ (Kelly) C+ (Tagliere) 3.37 8 0.54 22
9 MIN A (7 total) C- (Edholm) 3.30 9 0.71 11
10 NYG A (4 total) C (Nystrom, For the Win) 3.29 10 0.61 17
11 KC A (4 total) C+ (For the Win) 3.28 11 0.53 24
12 ATL A+ (Reuter) C (Tagliere) 3.27 12 0.57 20
13 CAR A+ (Fowler) C (Orr) 3.26 13 0.65 14
14 JAX A+ (Davis, Kelly) C- (Gagnon) 3.25 14 0.72 10
15 DEN A+ (Nystrom) D+ (Gagnon) 3.18 15 0.74 9
16 PHI A (Davis, Reuter) C+ (Prisco) 3.05 16 0.81 5
17 WAS A+ (TD Wire) D (Nystrom) 3.05 17 0.49 27
18 TEN A (PFF) C- (Tagliere) 2.98 18 0.53 25
19 SF A (Kelly) D (Gagnon) 2.95 19 0.71 12
20 BUF B+ (Iyer, Reuter) C- (For the Win) 2.94 20 0.47 29
21 CIN A- (Kelly) C- (Maske, For the Win) 2.85 21 0.55 21
22 TB A- (Iyer, Reuter) D (Nystrom) 2.77 22 0.65 15
23 ARI B+ (Reuter) C- (Easterling) 2.61 23 0.49 28
24 GB A (Reuter) F (Nystrom) 2.49 24 0.91 1
25 DAL A (Reuter) D (Fowler, For the Win) 2.39 25 0.85 4
26 PIT A (Reuter) F (For the Win) 2.30 26 0.78 7
27 IND B+ (Reuter) D (Gagnon, Easterling) 2.29 27 0.68 13
28 NO B (Nate Davis) D- (Nystrom) 2.13 28 0.54 23
29 LAR A (Reuter) D- (Rolfe) 2.10 29 0.88 2
30 LV A- (Rolfe) F (Nystrom) 1.90 30 0.87 3
31 SEA B (Reuter) D (For the Win) 1.80 31 0.60 18
32 HOU B- (4 total) F (For the Win) 1.63 32 0.77 8

So the Giants are in the top ~ 1/3 at 10th overall. I think the Giants draft was better than 10th. Maybe only having 6 picks hurt them in the eyes of some raters.

The write up for the Bears, at 1st overall, states, "While the Chicago Bears clearly won the weekend with quality over quantity ...".

I thought the Giants first 3 picks represented high quality for when they were picked. Also, I'm not sure how graders took into account the haul of 2022 picks in the rating for the Giants. Instead of getting, say a 2022 1st, 3rd and 4th , the Giants might have ended up with additional 2021 2nd, 4th and 5th. That would have given the Giants a "great haul" in 2021, but most feel the 2022 picks have more value.

My guess is most raters either didn't include the Giants 2022 haul or "discounted" it. IMHO, it's hard to give the Bears an A+ when they had to give up a lot to draft Fields versus say the Patriots that were able to stand "Pat" :-) and still get their guy.

As stated above, this is more "fun / curiosity" than a serious assessment a few days after the draft.

2021 NFL Draft Report Card Report - ( New Window )

Sorry, FO

Trainmaster : 5/4/2021 4:01 pm : link

is the Football Outsiders site: www.footballoutsiders.com

I think that a lot of raters go by "what they would have picked"

Bill L : 5/4/2021 4:19 pm : link

rather than quality of player and that colors their grade.
I also think that a *lot* of people, especially those employed by Disney, fellated and then inflated Justin Fields beyond all reason; hence, the high CHI grade. And, if Chicago won the trade like crazy, then someone had to lose that same trade.

But, I think the main reasons is that the raters didn't look at value, or best player, or anything about who got picked when; they just said 'uh oh, no offensive linemen were drafted' and downgraded us accordingly.

Again, it's not who we picked that they graded, it's who we didn't pick.

Do they take into account

Chip : 5/4/2021 4:21 pm : link

acquiring 3 picks for next season?

agree with Bill L and when teams can have a range

Del Shofner : 5/4/2021 4:23 pm : link

from "A" to "F" for a draft, I mean get an "A" over here and and "F" over there for the same drafted players, it kinda makes you doubt the process.

Draft grades are about the only thing more useless than

jlukes : 5/4/2021 4:28 pm : link

Mock drafts

If there is anyone who issues

pjcas18 : 5/4/2021 4:29 pm : link

a draft rating of any type, but gave a team (like the Giants) less of a grade because they had two 6th round picks and no 5th or 7th round pick they deserve to be fired from their job and ridiculed daily.

5th round picks rarely significantly contribute. or even ever contribute. and 7th round picks are scratch off lottery tickets. So, you show me the guy who says "I would have rated the Giants differently if they had that 7th pick" and even if it was in round 5 or 7 and I will show you a draft "analyst" with the IQ of a salad bar.

RE: Sorry, FO

Victor in CT : 5/4/2021 4:39 pm : link

In comment 15253595 Trainmaster said:

Quote:

is the Football Outsiders site: www.footballoutsiders.com

Phew. I thought it was something else :-)

RE: If there is anyone who issues

Victor in CT : 5/4/2021 4:40 pm : link

In comment 15253638 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

And it looks like they completely ignored that we get the Bears #1 and #4 next year.

Looks like

George : 5/4/2021 4:50 pm : link

It doesn't take much to please Reuter
and
someone pissed in Nystrom's Cheerios

Consensus Ratings

Mike in NY : 5/4/2021 4:57 pm : link

This is why you need to drop the highest and lowest marks when you do this sort of calculation. That helps to protect against scale issues and also those that take different attitudes towards acquiring future picks.

Fortunately

Peter from NH (formerly CT) : 5/4/2021 4:59 pm : link

It doesn’t matter or mean anything.

RE: ... a lot of raters go by "what they would have picked"

Trainmaster : 5/4/2021 5:03 pm : link

I agree. Kiper especially seems to be more focused on need, even for the top of the 1st round.

The Lions being able to grab Sewell at #7 will likely be a big deal in future years.

Denver took a safe, top corner with Surtain, rather than a "sexy pick" in Fields. Some downgrade because of that.

Even if these arbitrary "grades" meant anything

PwndPapi : 5/4/2021 5:50 pm : link

I don't know how you compare averages when there are 4 data points for some teams and 2 data points for others.

RE: Even if these arbitrary

Mike in NY : 5/4/2021 5:54 pm : link

In comment 15253764 PwndPapi said:

Quote:

I don't know how you compare averages when there are 4 data points for some teams and 2 data points for others.

There are 20 for everyone. What was listed were the sites that gave highest and lowest marks

Grading in general

Reale01 : 5/4/2021 5:56 pm : link

If just who helped themselves most for 2121 then
The teams with more high picks should do the best.
Dolphins, Cowboys fit the mold. Giants top third of the pack.

Is it who made the best of what they had?
Giants did very well.

Is it who did the best value for where they picked?
Giants did very well.

Who set up for next year?
Giants at near top.

RE: RE: Even if these arbitrary

PwndPapi : 5/4/2021 6:00 pm : link

In comment 15253768 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 15253764 PwndPapi said:

Quote:

I don't know how you compare averages when there are 4 data points for some teams and 2 data points for others.

There are 20 for everyone. What was listed were the sites that gave highest and lowest marks

Ah. My bad.

I get that Train is trying to provide something of a comparative analysis, though I'm not certain what we are to glean from this.

Any data analysis is taking a set of facts (data) and gaining insight from those fact. This isn't really data since it's just the arbitrary opinions of the draft prognosticators independent a team's perceived value board or scheme fit.

As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

None of these grades incorporate

DonQuixote : 5/4/2021 7:37 pm : link

the first and fourth gained next year. How can you talk about value at 20 and 50 this year and ignore that those were obtained in addition to two picks in the top 64 as a qualifier?

In a few years if the Bears FINALLY find a QB (which I doubt but is not germane), it will be good for them, but it does not change at all what we received.

FYI - Kiper changed his grade for the Giants

The Original G Man : 5/5/2021 10:25 am : link

Originally gave us a B+, but on his "First Draft" podcast with McShay and Field Yates, he says he should have given us an "A." Says the Giants, Dolphins, and Chargers had the 3 best drafts.

(Fast forward to just after the 4 minute mark)
First Draft - 2021 NFL Draft Recap - ( New Window )