Welcome to PatsFans.com

Grade this year's draft class!!

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by PATSNUTme, Feb 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,273
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +183 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Certainly the addition of 56 underclassmen have mad this draft class deeper than what was originally thought.

    Based on what I know about this draft class today here is how I would rank it by position. "C" being average, so any higher is above average and any grade lower below average.
    QB -A-
    RB- B
    TE- D
    WR- C-
    OT- A
    OG -B+ ( with some OT's being NFL G's)
    C's- C

    DT -A
    DE- B-
    OLB (with DE conversion projects)- B
    ILB/MLB C-
    S- C
    CB- B-

    K/P/ST I have no idea yet

    Ok, I stuck out my neck so tell me if you agree/disagree and why.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2011
  2. WhiZa

    WhiZa Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,043
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    RB is closer to a C with only one player likely to go in the first round, bottom half at that. In fact, I'd say the WR class is better then the RB class this year. I can agree with everything else
  3. Dufflebagz

    Dufflebagz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    QB- B
    RB- C+
    TE- C/C-
    WR- B
    OT- A-
    OG -B+
    C's- C

    DT- A-
    DE- B
    OLB- B/B+
    ILB/MLB C-
    S- B-
    CB- B

    K/P/ST I have no idea yet-----Agreed
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2011
  4. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    When your top candidates are Gabbert (not elite) and Newton (major questions about transitioning), I'm not sure how this class can be above average. C- and I could realistically see it turning out a lot worse.

    One elite talent and one other with the potential to be elite. Then add in strong depth with something for everyone (big guys, speed guys, slot guys, etc.) and I would go with a solid B.

    Are you being sarcastic? No OT should be taken in the top 15 (that doesn't happen very often) and some guys at the top like Castonzo and Solder have been exposed by non-elite pass rushers. Lots of big, strong, athletic guys but simply not good in pass protection...which is kinda important in the NFL. This may be the worst OT class I've ever seen from top to bottom. F as in "Far away from Brady's blindside". Carimi is the only guy near the top I like and he will likely be way overdrafted.

    I would go higher because of quality and the depth is average or maybe better. B+ but could be convinced to go A- without much effort.
  5. Sciz

    Sciz PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,287
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +290 / 1 / -0

    QB and OT are C+ at best
  6. Criptonite

    Criptonite Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    QB- D
    RB- B-
    TE- D
    WR- B
    OT- D
    OG- B
    C's- F

    DT- B
    DE- A+
    OLB- A/D (A for 3-4 OLBs and D for 4-3 OLBs)
    ILB/MLB- F
    S- F
    CB- A

    K- F
    P- D
  7. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,273
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +183 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I would bring the QB class down to a B upon further review. There are 6 in the top 100, I thought there were 1 or 2 more.

    Are you being sarcastic? No OT should be taken in the top 15 (that doesn't happen very often) and some guys at the top like Castonzo and Solder have been exposed by non-elite pass rushers. Lots of big, strong, athletic guys but simply not good in pass protection..

    Now there are 10 OT's on the top 100 and more right after that, so I stand by my grade. I grading the overall class and not the "elites".
  8. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    42,271
    Likes Received:
    519
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 69 / -74

    Disable Jersey

    But don't you have to grade them against other classes, and not by breaking it internally?
  9. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,843
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +332 / 21 / -2

    OT is a curious position to rate overall. How much should weight should we allocate to the fact that NONE are worthy of the top 16?

    FOR THE PATRIOTS, this OT group is excellent indeed. We have an opportunity to get a starter with one of our first 3 picks. Belichick SHOULD be able to find an acceptable OT with 17, 28, 33 or somewhere in between. I would not be surprised to see 2 OT's drafted, one to play OT and one to play OG.
  10. CTHuskies

    CTHuskies Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    So far:
    QB - B
    RB - C
    TE – D-
    WR - C
    T- A-
    G – B-
    C – D+

    DE34 - B
    NT - B-
    OLB34 – C+ (with DE conversion projects)
    ILB – D+
    CB – B
    S – C
    K – B
    P - B
    :bricks:
  11. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Who do you have as your 10th rated OT? And would you really want to draft that player before day 3? There are so many teams with shaky OT situations that I don't doubt a number of OTs will be drafted high. The question is should they.

    Even taking your criteria (10 OTs in the top 100) as a given, why does that result in an A? What does that make 2010 (11 in top 100, 3 top 15)? 2008 had 11 in the top 100, 8 in the 1st round and 4 in the top 15. 2009 had 9 in the top 100 with 3 in the top 10. Even the wasteland known as the 2007 draft class had 8 OTs in the top 100 with 2 in the top 5.

    I'm not saying this is the best way to rate a position. In fact, it doesn't make much sense to me. I just don't know how you can look at Solder, Smith, Castonzo, Sherrod, Love, Franklin, etc. and have an A grade be the result. The next tier (Pinkston, Brewer, Ziemba, etc.) isn't much better. The following tier is non-existent.
  12. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,273
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +183 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'm not grading in comparison to other draft classes. I grade them on potential to be quality NFL players. Some people may want to grade players against players drafted in previous years, that's OK. I'm just not concerned about that.
  13. MaineMan

    MaineMan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    QB = D+... Don't see a "franchise" QB here. Maybe 2-3 (someday) okay starters and another 2-4 reasonable backups

    RB = C+... Ingram might be a feature back. Many of the rest have varying degrees of value in an RBBC situation - probably 15-20 who appear likely to make some contributions for at least a couple of years.

    TE = C+... No real stars here and Rudolph is almost certain to be overdrafted. But there are a few who can catch some and several who appear to be able to block pretty well and end up with 10-yr careers as unheralded-but-indispensable #3 guys.

    WR = C+... Two potential stars (Green, Jones). Bunch of guys who may get overdrafted (Baldwin, Young, Torrey Smith, DeAndre Brown). And a few who may turn out to be good possession/slot guys.

    OT = D... I'm not sure I see any elite LTs here at all (though maybe a couple guys who'll turn out above average), but several who may get overdrafted as "potential" elite LTs. Several of these guys could be good at RT and a couple could be good at OG. But maybe 10 guys total who'll be more than reserves.

    OG = B... Maybe 8-10 guys who could become decent starters and a few more decent reserves.

    OC = B... Might be a half-dozen guys who could end up doing fairly well. When has there ever been much more than that in any class?

    --------

    3-4 NT = Un-gradeable... Probably only one who looks really good for it - Taylor.

    4-3 DT = B+... A couple potential stars and several (currently underrated) who may become very solid guys for years.

    4-3 DE = A-... I count maybe 15-20 guys who could/should have good impact, plus a couple potential ProBowlers.

    3-4 DE = A-... I count maybe 5-8 guys who could be very good in most 3-4 systems, 3 or 4 of whom might be right for the Pats. Relatively speaking, that's a buttload for any one draft class .

    3-4 OLB = B... I see around 15 or so guys (including DE conversions) who have the chance to be pretty decent in some 3-4 system, maybe half of whom might actually have a better chance at long-term (if undramatic) success in BB's 3-4 than in an attacking system. Only 3 or 4 potential "stars", though.

    4-3 OLB = D-...Aside from maybe Von Miller, I only see a couple guys who look (at this point) like potential long term starters unless 4-3 teams are actually looking for heavier, slower guys now.

    MLB = C-... Don't see any sure stars, but a few potentially decent starters.

    3-4 ILB = D-...Might be some sleepers in there, but nobody has really emerged for me.

    Safety, coverage = D... Maybe 2-3 guys who could turn out decent (not including potential CB conversions). The rest appear to be very shaky.

    Safety, run-support = C+... Looks like several guys who can bring the wood and not be total liabilities in limited coverage duties.

    CB = B+... Potentially a couple elite guys, but also several who might be decent to pretty good on the edges, plus a bunch of good slot/nickel players.

    P/K = F... Haven't seen much. But, from what I have seen, a team would have to be pretty damn desperate to spend a pick on any of them.
  14. jsull87

    jsull87 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +56 / 0 / -0

    so everyone seems to rate this class pretty highly.

    I'd say TE and ILB both have to be d or F with none in the 1st round.

    The strength seems to be in the DT and CB class
  15. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    You mentioned the metric of 10 OTs in the top 100. I only mentioned other classes because this metric happens every year. The only difference being that just about every other class has multiple tackles in the top 15 while this class may not have any.

    I can see a handful of OTs becoming solid starters...more at RT than LT. None of them becoming elite, franchise players. You obvious have a different view of these guys. No problem with that but I would expect you are going to see your OT rating being very different from most (given our ability to rate players, that is probably a positive for you).

    Agree to a point, but don't you need a basis for defining expectations? If historically each draft produces 2-3 elite tackles, 5-6 starters and 10-12 bench guys (just making up numbers)...wouldn't that be considered a C draft class? If your high-end expectations are 0 elite players, limited starters and a bunch of roster cling-ons, wouldn't every class be an A...with most classes being A++ or A++++?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>