There are 87 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Draft Grade Criteria

We all know that a true grade on any draft will take 3 years at a minimum.

We all have opinions and some of us like MadDog get ripped for daring to express a non-consnsus opinion.

Here is a partial list of "Initial Draft Grade" criteria that may be useful. Please add - subtract and weigh-in. I've read some outstanding ideas and opinions over the years here in the Zone. I think it would be solid if we could evaluate selections on the same criteria.

All the clone experts give us is ther opinion without real analysis.

Her's what I've come up with so far - maybe after your input we could come up with a point value system of what = an "A", "B" etc.

1). The selection address an immediate need

2). Te selection addresses a future need

3). Selection fills a starting position

4). Selection fits our system

5). Selection has enough skill sets: Speed, Strength, Explosion, Agility, Quickness, Balance, Leverage

6). The selection had few if any major injuries in college

7). Selection has demonstrated durability and production

8). Selection has physical requisites: Height, Weight, Arm Span, Hands,

9).
player vs other players on the board that meet above mentioned criteria
Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
We all know that a true grade on any draft will take 3 years at a minimum.

We all have opinions and some of us like MadDog get ripped for daring to express a non-consnsus opinion.

Here is a partial list of "Initial Draft Grade" criteria that may be useful. Please add - subtract and weigh-in. I've read some outstanding ideas and opinions over the years here in the Zone. I think it would be solid if we could evaluate selections on the same criteria.

All the clone experts give us is ther opinion without real analysis.

Her's what I've come up with so far - maybe after your input we could come up with a point value system of what = an "A", "B" etc.

1). The selection address an immediate need

2). Te selection addresses a future need

3). Selection fills a starting position

4). Selection fits our system

5). Selection has enough skill sets: Speed, Strength, Explosion, Agility, Quickness, Balance, Leverage

6). The selection had few if any major injuries in college

7). Selection has demonstrated durability and production

8). Selection has physical requisites: Height, Weight, Arm Span, Hands,

9).
MadDog doesn't/didn't get ripped for expressing a "non-consensus opinion." Please.

Posters disagreed with his post because (a) it was factually incorrect, and (b) it lacked any basis in reality, was purely hypothetical.

He criticised the A.J. Jenkins selection not because of Jenkins, but because there was a hypothetical "golden opportunity" for a trade up that Baalke did not take advantage of. There is, however, no evidence of any kind that the aforementioned "golden opportunity" actually existed, that there was even the remotest possibility that anyone drafting before #24 (where the Steelers took DeCastro) was actually willing to trade for the #30 and #92. Specifically there's absolutely no evidence that the Browns ever called about trading back, but the Niners turned them down.

The Browns wanted a QB, and got Weedon at #22, and there is no evidence that they were willing to risk trading back while hoping that Weedon would still be there at #30. But that doesn't prevent MD from criticizing the Niners for taking Jenkins at #30, not because Jenkins is such a bad choice (at least a C+ per MD), but because Baalke didn't work some kind of magic and move up--so its an "F." This despite Baalke's brilliant draft maneuvering that turned the Niner's third round pick into THREE picks next year! MD's post is just slinging mud at Baalke in the hope that some of it sticks. No offense to MadDog, but I'm not buying it.

He gave the Flemming selection a "D" grade cause he doesn't think Flemming will be a very good ILB, when, in fact, Flemming was taken as an OLB, a pass rusher/special teamer. MD listed Flemming as the 168th player on his own big board, but excoriated the Niners for taking the guy at #165. WTF?

People disagree with MadDog cause he was WRONG, not cause he expressed an unpopular but arguably correct opinion (i.e., the emperor's new clothes).

No one got unfairly "ripped" about anything, and no one should. MadDog's entitled to his opinons about the draft; the rest of us are entitled to disagree with anyone's post that we find to be unsupported or otherwise incorrect.
Originally posted by oldninerdude:
MadDog doesn't/didn't get ripped for expressing a "non-consensus opinion." Please.

Posters disagreed with his post because (a) it was factually incorrect, and (b) it lacked any basis in reality, was purely hypothetical.

He criticised the A.J. Jenkins selection not because of Jenkins, but because there was a hypothetical "golden opportunity" for a trade up that Baalke did not take advantage of. There is, however, no evidence of any kind that the aforementioned "golden opportunity" actually existed, that there was even the remotest possibility that anyone drafting before #24 (where the Steelers took DeCastro) was actually willing to trade for the #30 and #92. Specifically there's absolutely no evidence that the Browns ever called about trading back, but the Niners turned them down.

The Browns wanted a QB, and got Weedon at #22, and there is no evidence that they were willing to risk trading back while hoping that Weedon would still be there at #30. But that doesn't prevent MD from criticizing the Niners for taking Jenkins at #30, not because Jenkins is such a bad choice (at least a C+ per MD), but because Baalke didn't work some kind of magic and move up--so its an "F." This despite Baalke's brilliant draft maneuvering that turned the Niner's third round pick into THREE picks next year! MD's post is just slinging mud at Baalke in the hope that some of it sticks. No offense to MadDog, but I'm not buying it.

He gave the Flemming selection a "D" grade cause he doesn't think Flemming will be a very good ILB, when, in fact, Flemming was taken as an OLB, a pass rusher/special teamer. MD listed Flemming as the 168th player on his own big board, but excoriated the Niners for taking the guy at #165. WTF?

People disagree with MadDog cause he was WRONG, not cause he expressed an unpopular but arguably correct opinion (i.e., the emperor's new clothes).

No one got unfairly "ripped" about anything, and no one should. MadDog's entitled to his opinons about the draft; the rest of us are entitled to disagree with anyone's post that we find to be unsupported or otherwise incorrect.

I know you are trying to instigate a fight. I won't take the bait. Anone can read my posts and see exactly what I said about Fleming, which you completely distorted. Nice try.
It usually ends up like this:

"I wanted this guy, the niners drafted that guy. the 9ers are wrong, I was right. Baalke is dumb."
Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:
It usually ends up like this:

"I wanted this guy, the niners drafted that guy. the 9ers are wrong, I was right. Baalke is dumb."

I encourage to read what I wrote. I don't think you will come out with the same sentiment.
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
I know you are trying to instigate a fight. I won't take the bait. Anone can read my posts and see exactly what I said about Fleming, which you completely distorted. Nice try.
Not trying to instigate anything. You're taking it the wrong way.

Your posts do, in fact, speak for themselves. You were incorrect in assuming or speculating that Fleming was being drafted as an ILB. If I read that post wrong, and incorrectly quoted it somewhere, please show me where and how, and I will certainly apologize.

You posted, and I quote: "Good football player that is athletic, quick and productive. Not sure how he fits with our team." So you think Baalke erred in drafting a good football player who is athletic, quick and productive??? And you can't see how he'd fit with the team??? Maybe as a STer, and an OLB?

Just how many fifth round guys with the qualities YOU describe."good football players who are athletic, quick, and productive," deserve "D" grades?

I take it by this response that you do not dispute what I said about your "golden opportunity" to move ujp scenario--that there is no real evidence to support it. You have no information from any source that the Browns called Baalke before the #22 pick and offered to trade, but Baalke said "no thanks."

If that had occurred, your criticism would at least have a basis in reality. As it stands, however, it appears to be just wishful thinking, and thats not a sufficient reason to so roundly criticize Baalke's draft picks and draft strategy, IMHO. Its not sufficient for the impartial and reasonable analysis to which you claim to aspire,

You made it clear last year that you do not like Baalke's management style. That's your perogative, and you are entitled to your opinion. But if you expect to convince the rest of us that he's so bad, you are going to have to find some better reasons and some real facts to support your opinions. That would include having something more than "people just hate it (me) when anyone criticizes the front office." That's not really true either, and is just a cop out.
[ Edited by oldninerdude on May 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM ]
  • fryet
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,899
Personally, I think there are 3 criteria for grading a draft before the players have produced on the field.

1. Did the draft selection help an area of need? This is especially true of early picks. Later round picks are more likely to build depth behind established starters.
2. Value Part 1: Could the team have selected the player later in the draft? A classic overreach was the Raiders selecting Darius Heyward-Bey. They could have easily traded down in the draft at least 15 picks in the first and still gotten the player.
3. Value Part 2: When compared to other analyst rankings, did the team select the player in the right round of the draft? Obviously other analysts can be wrong, but when grading immediately after the draft, I think it is the only way to attempt to be objective about whether the right player was chosen.

So to apply these criteria to the AJ Jenkins pick, it would look like the following:
1. Area of need? Yes, the 49ers need quality WR. Grade: A.
2. Value Part 1? The Rams would have taken the player 3 picks later. Grade: A.
3. Value Part 2? Most analysts had AJ Jenkins ranked much lower in the second round or worse. Grade: D.

Overall? I think it would be something like a B- for the Jenkins pick.
Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
We all know that a true grade on any draft will take 3 years at a minimum.

We all have opinions and some of us like MadDog get ripped for daring to express a non-consnsus opinion.

Here is a partial list of "Initial Draft Grade" criteria that may be useful. Please add - subtract and weigh-in. I've read some outstanding ideas and opinions over the years here in the Zone. I think it would be solid if we could evaluate selections on the same criteria.

All the clone experts give us is ther opinion without real analysis.

Her's what I've come up with so far - maybe after your input we could come up with a point value system of what = an "A", "B" etc.

1). The selection address an immediate need

2). Te selection addresses a future need

3). Selection fills a starting position

4). Selection fits our system

5). Selection has enough skill sets: Speed, Strength, Explosion, Agility, Quickness, Balance, Leverage

6). The selection had few if any major injuries in college

7). Selection has demonstrated durability and production

8). Selection has physical requisites: Height, Weight, Arm Span, Hands,

9).

I think 5 and 9 go together. Also, Gold Helmet is huge...character guys who have the will and desire and can be DEVELOPED. Does the player add competition raising the bar and legitimately push for a starting role this year or next no matter what round he was drafted? Will his presence on field project to help out the other 10 guys on the field. Where were we slotted to pick and how did we do given those circumstances?
Mad dog has alot of insight and strong opinions. I appriciate his insight, and while I don't always share his opinions I respect his conviction. I approach each draft guessing who they will take and try not to fall in love with any player. I didn't shed a tear when we passed on Fleener, Hill or anyone else. My reaction to Jenkins was to want more info and know why they liked him so much. I have not forgot Aldon Smith but Kentwan Balmer I remember too..... I hope Jenkins ends up a stud, in the least we'll have a WR under contract past 2013!!! I hope we are building around CK big arm, it sure feels that way to me
Originally posted by davidboutte:
Mad dog has alot of insight and strong opinions. I appriciate his insight, and while I don't always share his opinions I respect his conviction. I approach each draft guessing who they will take and try not to fall in love with any player. I didn't shed a tear when we passed on Fleener, Hill or anyone else. My reaction to Jenkins was to want more info and know why they liked him so much. I have not forgot Aldon Smith but Kentwan Balmer I remember too..... I hope Jenkins ends up a stud, in the least we'll have a WR under contract past 2013!!! I hope we are building around CK big arm, it sure feels that way to me

Balmer wasnt a Baalke pick
...