From Patriot Reign: how Pats grade players

[ctpatsfan77]

Since another poster shared categories used by national scouts, I figured I'd put up the criteria that Michael Holley says the Pats use. They have 8 categories (paraphrased here):

1. Starter: 9.00-9.99 A+, 8.00-8.99 A, 8.00-8.99 Q —someone who will start in the NFL in his first year
2. Circumstantial starter: 7.00-7.99 C —someone who should start in the NFL in his first year, but has issues (NCAA rules, family problems, etc.)
3. Make It+: 6.50-6.99 —won't start in year one, but will contribute; expected to become a starter
4. Dirty Starter: 6.00-6.49 —could start, but has issues (could be either a talented underachiever or an overachiever; could have limitations, such as speed)
5. Make It: 5.50-5.99 —will make the roster, but "won't win or lose a game for you"
6. Free Agent: 5.00-5.49 —not expected to make the team, but could after a year on the PS
7. Pats Reject: 4.90-4.99 —does not meet Patriots' criteria, but could end up on another team
8. Reject: 1.00 —doesn't belong in the NFL, period

A+/A = definite/potential HOF talent; C = circumstances; Q = height-deficient

 

[Why?PJ]

cool to know, but who on earth comes up with some of these terms. Height deficient? really? Is short really too hard a word to spell or something?

 

[jsull87]

I think you might have miss interpreted their letter scale. The numbers are for their potential the letters are for qualities they may or may not have e.g you can be a 8.5 with no letters next to your name or an 8.5 with height deficient family problems trouble with the law next your name.

I am not sure that the letters e.g height deficient have anything to do with their grade as a player.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

The assigned letter grading system obviously has been changed and signified for the most part other things, but this pretty close to what the Tuna talked about in his pre-draft show on ESPN a couple of weeks ago.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think you might have miss interpreted their letter scale. The numbers are for their potential the letters are for qualities they may or may not have e.g you can be a 8.5 with no letters next to your name or an 8.5 with height deficient family problems trouble with the law next your name.

I am not sure that the letters e.g height deficient have anything to do with their grade as a player.

I'm just quoting the book's criteria.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm just quoting the book's criteria.

I haven't read the book. But if true it's a very odd scale. For example, it does seem somewhat odd that the "Q" qualifier for "height deficient" would be applied only to prospects in the 8.00-8.99 range. Why not to all prospects? The "C" qualifier also seems odd - if it applies only to prospects in the 7.00-7.99 range, then why qualify it? Very strange. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, but most other systems using numerical ranges to grade a prospect and qualifiers to "qualify" the grade - injury issue, cirucmstances (character issues, red flags, etc.), and anything else that is considered important.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I haven't read the book. But if true it's a very odd scale. For example, it does seem somewhat odd that the "Q" qualifier for "height deficient" would be applied only to prospects in the 8.00-8.99 range. Why not to all prospects? The "C" qualifier also seems odd - if it applies only to prospects in the 7.00-7.99 range, then why qualify it? Very strange. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, but most other systems using numerical ranges to grade a prospect and qualifiers to "qualify" the grade - injury issue, cirucmstances (character issues, red flags, etc.), and anything else that is considered important.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

 

[jsull87]

I'm just quoting the book's criteria.

OK maybe i might have misinterpreted them then. As i thought you could have a player you rated as a 8.00 and also a player you rate at 8.00 but is height deficient and with a bad attitude... therefore you would pick the 1st player.

If you were just quoting it then i stand corrected