Very, very tough. It really is.
I love the different theories & methods though. Always been interested in how people grade. Pure #'s, tape, mix, gut? Always fascinated in how people get to X grade.
A while ago I started grading what I value from a position standpoint & coming out w a #. Then I graded on my gut (broken into a few sections) & testing #'s. Nothing else. Again broken into a few sections (I value certain #'s for certain positions). Come up w a #. Add, divide & thats my final grade.
I'd always tinker but have stuck w that for a while now.
Do we works for you & have fun w it.
Numbers help keep you honest. Sometimes I notice that I like the way a guy plays so much that I start thinking of him as a higher pick than his production and athleticism honestly deserve. If I were to stick to a strict grading scale, that would probably help. I'm not a pure go-with-my-gut guy, though, even though I don't have a specific number that I give out as a grade. I
do know who I prefer and I do usually try to put out a big board, but it's broken down by starter, potential starter, etc, and not rounds or numbers.
I tend to watch tape numerous times, picking apart different details -- I try to start big picture (basic personnel groupings, spacing, type of scheme, etc), and then work my way down to understanding assignments, and lastly looking at technique.
It's
really important for me not to just look at the result of the play and say it was good or bad; the way the player processes information, reacts to the field, and how he learns from the situation are way more important to me. That's not to say that I don't want to see production. After all, if you can't get it done at the college level, the chances are much lower that you'll succeed in the pros. But I do think it's a bit lazy to say, "Well, he got the sack on that play, so it was a good play and shows that he has potential." The extenuating factors are key.
My big takeaways are usually related to movement, however. My background is in parkour, dance, acrobatics, martial arts, and so on; I try to understand proprioception and body control to determine a player's athleticism and fluidity in way that goes beyond just testing numbers. I also like to watch interviews with the player, read bios, get a feel for him off field.
I tend to look for baseline traits that show me the player can be a starter. If I don't see a certain level of refinement or technical know-how, then I bump a player down. Sure, I love the athleticism of the raw but talented athletes, but that also plays into the projection part portion, rather than the grading portion. I try to be realistic about where a guy is
now, and also use some foresight to determine what he can turn into down the road.
I'm definitely an amateur. I'm far from perfect with grades and projections. I do really enjoy the process, though, and I think I'm at least above average.
