There are 86 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Grade the 49ers 2010 Draft [3 years later]

Originally posted by ClassicNiner:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by natrone06:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by Disp:
The point is those 3 players are so good that the rest of the draft doesn't matter. The players who don't make the team are completely irrelevant, and all that matters is how much better the draft makes us. In 2011 we could have just drafted Kaepernick, and right now it would be a great draft because of his value to the team. He's not an "A", he's a "AAA". Saying we had a worse draft just because some players didn't pan out is stupid when the net impact of the players who DID pan out is so dramatic.

Obviously the point of grading an entire class doesn't sink in with you. You can cherry pick every draft, find one good/great player and say, "see its a great draft and always an A." Unless this thread was made for rhetorical reasons so everybody can say we are the best every and every draft is an A, some intellectual analysis is in order.

The WHOLE draft matters from top to bottom. If we are going to evaluate it, it must be looked at in its entirety.

Its like saying the 09 draft was great because of Crabs and RJF....never-mind the 5 failures. Or the 08 draft was great because of Morgan and Grant but we need to not worry about Balmer and Chilo.

That's exactly how the draft works!!! I'm shocked on how unaware you are about draft classes. You aren't going to hit on every pick. I challenge you to find three better draft classes from 2010. Seattle and New England are the only ones close.
I'm not unaware of anything. You never hit on every pick its impossible. But every team hits on players at least once in the draft....should every team get an A in your opinion? Every fan is going to give their team an A because they look at the situation subjectively. Case in point, every person in here giving the team an A, and most likely would do the same with the 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014 etc etc draft class.

What I dont get is that any person who does not give the team an automatic A is hassled by everybody. Am I not allowed to have an opinion? If this was a thread made to just say A+++++ over and over again it was be pointless.

I ask you all to grade every pick, run the numbers, and post what you come up with. So far I seem to be the only person capable of doing this.

What really matters isn't the grade you give, but how that grade compares to the grades of the other 31 teams. OK, give the 9ers a B if you wish, but if no one else has higher than C using your criteria, the 9ers still win. I would say the 9ers had one of the top 3-4 drafts that year, and for that reason, without much grade inflation, that get an A or even an A+ comparatively.

That is a perfectly logical approach. The mathematics of doing this isn't hard, I dont get why people cant figure this out. If you come out with a 3.06 and its the highest grade than you did the best. Saying you got an A doesn't explain how you got to an A. Running through every pick, grading every pick, and coming up with a cumulative number is a logical way to answer this question. If this was done chances are we never see an A given out, only B+ and B would receive the highest mark because an A is borderline impossible. Could a B be the best in a land of C's.....very possible.
So according to your logic can and A draft be attainable? If so, show me.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Assign letter grades to each, run the numbers and what you get is what you get.

That's a silly way to grade a draft. So if we drafted Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and Ronnie Lott in a draft we also drafted 7 guys that amounted to nothing (F-grades), you would "run the numbers" and average out 3 As and 7 Fs? (15 + 7 = 22 / 10 = 2.2) So if we went about it that way it would net us about a D average. Would you "run the numbers" and give that draft a D?

The thing you seem to be missing, is that you don't assign grades to each pick and then run the numbers. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, a team that drafted only one player and he was an 'A' player, then they would get an 'A' for that draft? Again, you are diluting a fairly easy process. How many contributors and to what degree they contribute is the most accurate and non-complicated way to grade a draft.
Originally posted by natrone06:
Nope can't hide behind the " we're all homers" card. By all objective measures this was a very good draft class. You are viewing this class as a singular thing without the context of the rest of the league. The only way you can grade a draft class meaningfully is on a curve. That's fine b- it is. I hope all 49ers drafts are graded as a b- from here on out.

As aforementioned, a B- could be the best or top 5 in the league in a given year. A B- isn't bad if the avg for the whole league was a C for instance. Giving a numerical value and a letter grade is not unreasonable to grading an entire class.

An additional example. If we hit on 3 players in year X and it receives a grade of A...but the next year we hit on 4 players and give it an A, it white washes the difference. Saying in one year we score a 3.04 and the next year its a 3.27.....we can clearly see the better of the two drafts.
Originally posted by miked1978:
So according to your logic can and A draft be attainable? If so, show me.

No, its impossible. You would have to take the highest grade for the league and curve it to make an A.
Originally posted by jreff22:
No, its impossible. You would have to take the highest grade for the league and curve it to make an A.

Thats what i thought. So the grading system is unfair.

This is why we cant have nice things.
It must be hard for you to grade drafts, jreff. Gotta grade every player on every team, average each team's gpa then translate each GPA to a curved grading scale. Would be much easier just to eyeball how many impact players were chosen, but to each his own.
Originally posted by jreff22:
That is a perfectly logical approach. The mathematics of doing this isn't hard, I dont get why people cant figure this out. If you come out with a 3.06 and its the highest grade than you did the best. Saying you got an A doesn't explain how you got to an A. Running through every pick, grading every pick, and coming up with a cumulative number is a logical way to answer this question. If this was done chances are we never see an A given out, only B+ and B would receive the highest mark because an A is borderline impossible. Could a B be the best in a land of C's.....very possible.

Here's why I have a problem with your methodology. Any team that has more upper round picks is going to have a worse draft by your metric 99% of the time, because 6'th and 7'th rd. picks are generally much worse players. You're basically saying if the Niners had stopped after the 3'rd round and not picked any more players then it would be a better draft than how it went down because they didn't average "A" grades in round 5,6,7 like they did in the first 3. In your mind drafting Davis/Iupati/Mays/Bowman is a better draft than Davis/Iupati/Mays/Bowman/Williams/Dixon because Williams and Dixon aren't A grades.

Your grading system is the problem, not your actual player grades. It makes no sense to do it like that.
[ Edited by Disp on Apr 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM ]
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Assign letter grades to each, run the numbers and what you get is what you get.

That's a silly way to grade a draft. So if we drafted Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and Ronnie Lott in a draft we also drafted 7 guys that amounted to nothing (F-grades), you would "run the numbers" and average out 3 As and 7 Fs? (15 + 7 = 22 / 10 = 2.2) So if we went about it that way it would net us about a D average. Would you "run the numbers" and give that draft a D?

The thing you seem to be missing, is that you don't assign grades to each pick and then run the numbers. That's ridiculous. If that were the case, a team that drafted only one player and he was an 'A' player, then they would get an 'A' for that draft? Again, you are diluting a fairly easy process. How many contributors and to what degree they contribute is the most accurate and non-complicated way to grade a draft.
If we are evaluating the ENTIRE class, yes you get the grade for the class.

I'm not sure what kind of GPA you used in college but your numbers are way off, it would be a 1.2. While you hit 3 all stars, the vast majority of the class was a failure.

If a team only drafted 1 player and they hit an all star with it what kind of grade would you give them? If its 1 guy and he's a superstar the grade is an A. You cant say its a D because they only had 1 pick.

You judge the contributions of each player and give them a grade for it. Its the only fair way to look at a class across the board in a given year and compare it to other years.

If you say well for 3 years it was an A, it doesnt explain the situation. Saying one year it was a 3.04, than 3.36, then 3.13...we can see out of 3 years which was the strongest in the sea of "A's".
Originally posted by miked1978:
Originally posted by jreff22:
No, its impossible. You would have to take the highest grade for the league and curve it to make an A.

Thats what i thought. So the grading system is unfair.

This is why we cant have nice things.
unfair is subjective, a 3.0 could be the highest grade = an A. If we have the draft media guys giving out 12 A's....to me it doesn't really show who had the best score.
Originally posted by AmpLee:
It must be hard for you to grade drafts, jreff. Gotta grade every player on every team, average each team's gpa then translate each GPA to a curved grading scale. Would be much easier just to eyeball how many impact players were chosen, but to each his own.

Yes it would be but I look at it like this to grade our classes.
Whatever grade you give it, 2010 was a blockbuster year. Outstanding. Way better than average. Perhaps the best of the 32 teams that year. So give it a B if you like, but it was the best damn B you'll ever see!
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,659
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
A+

Anytime you can come away from your draft with 2 Pro Bowl players and one solid starter is an A+ in my book. Lets not forget Kyle Williams is not that bad of a receiver either.

I think you mean 3 pro-bowlers (Bowman).

When you nail 3 pro-bowl players in the first 4 picks, and you have 2 key special teamers with 2 out of the last 4, you have to give that an A+. Not to mention, Adams has turned out to be a very solid player/top punt returner for the Raiders, so even that 7th round pick was a good one, just not for us though.

Sorry I was counting Iupati and Bowman, I forgot Davis was elected to the Pro Bowl too. But yes exactly!!!
Originally posted by Disp:
Originally posted by jreff22:
That is a perfectly logical approach. The mathematics of doing this isn't hard, I dont get why people cant figure this out. If you come out with a 3.06 and its the highest grade than you did the best. Saying you got an A doesn't explain how you got to an A. Running through every pick, grading every pick, and coming up with a cumulative number is a logical way to answer this question. If this was done chances are we never see an A given out, only B+ and B would receive the highest mark because an A is borderline impossible. Could a B be the best in a land of C's.....very possible.

Here's why I have a problem with your methodology. Any team that has more high round picks is going to have a worse draft by your metric 99% of the time, because 6'th and 7'th rd. picks are generally much worse players. You're basically saying if the Niners had stopped after the 3'rd round and not picked any more players then it would be a better draft than how it went down because they didn't average "A" grades in round 5,6,7 like they did in the first 3. In your mind drafting Davis/Iupati/Mays/Bowman is a better draft than Davis/Iupati/Mays/Bowman/Williams/Dixon because Williams and Dixon aren't A grades.

Your grading system is the problem, not your actual player grades. It makes no sense to do it like that.
A GM has to work with what he has. We have actually done well going back through the years in the late rounds. I wouldn't give many 6th and 7th rounders an F....but Bruce Miller was an A. Morgan gets high marks, as does K Williams and Grant for instance. I would say an F would take a major blown pick....like Mays.

Each draft is different. I ask you to run through the last 3-4 drafts using this system and see what you get for us.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Maybe this helps Amp...

1. Anthony Davis-A
1. Mike Iupati-A
2. Taylor Mays-F
3. Navorro Bowman-A
6. Anthony Dixon-C+
6. Nate Byham-C-
6. Kyle William-B
7. Phillip Adam-C-

Ted Ginn acquisition-B+

comes out to a 2.67........B-

That pretty much fits what I suspected.
...