Roster Analysis Part 4: Grading Draft Pick Contributions

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I think you are being awfully generous on a few of these, but overall solid post.

It may seem generous on some due to smaller sample sizes, I'm sure. I know not everyone will agree but this is the way I see things just at the moment where we are right now.

And like I said, I think it was a solid post. I just have a problem with some of your grades personally. Especially since you yourself are saying that draft position is part of the equation.

Lets take a look at Witherspoon, Thomas and Beathard in comparison to one another. You gave them a C+, C and C- respectively.

Witherspoon had a very good season as a whole as a rookie, and has been bad this year. He was a third round pick.

Beathard was thrust into a position he shouldnt have been in as a 3rd round pick, but at times played very good football. He had some standout games, and was solid at other times.

Thomas has objectively had one very good game in his entire career and was taken 3rd overall.

I just dont see how these 3 players grades actually reflect their impact relative to their draft position. C+, C and C- are all relatively close grades. How can you possibly give these three players similar grades where there is such a huge difference in actual production. The worst of the three in terms of on field production is the one you gave the middle grade, and he was drafted exponentially higher than the other 2. So how does that work?

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Many ripped into the coaches and FO early this season after many close, emotional losses, with statements voicing a total loss of faith in Lynch and/or shredding the barely over 1-year old Shanahan-Lynch regime for "terrible talent evaluation". As some tried to point out, this was wildly premature chatter. Not only were those statements not entirely accurate then, as time has gone on and players have gotten opportunities or recovered from injury, those prior negative statements appear to be even more false than they were initially. Let's just take a quick look at the 2017 and 2018 Classes.

Just to understand the logic here, it's entirely premature to criticize the picks but it's not premature to praise the picks. I'd say it much to early to grade anyone in 2018 given what we saw with regression in some of the 2017 picks.

But that's beside the point and what I'm not getting at here because it's a great post and you put a lot of thought into it - and that's what makes this board great, IMHO, the investment in time you all put in here.

I think it's okay to have an opinion that you like the picks, but I don't think anyone who's criticizing the 2017 draft think that everyone on the other side is "false." This is where I struggle with any pro v con argument here; I think you can still hold a rational persuasive opinion and present analysis as you've done based on your personal evaluation and come to one conclusion where others can do the same at this juncture and come to a different conclusion. And until there's evidence where both sides agree are an acceptable standard by which to make judgments on player talent and FO performance, you'll see more common ground/agreement in views. In the interim, I don't think just because me might disagree doesn't make you "wrong" or me "right."

GM, this is why the post includes a clear disclaimer that this is based heavily on the sample size we have.

We are not in disagreement that there stands very much the chance that we see more sophomore slumps and these grades change. No one should be too quick to jump to conclusions one way or the other.

Statements like "I've accepted Kittle is never going to more that average" after week one, fans calling Pettis a bust after his injury, "Julian Taylor needs to be starting" are just a few examples that I can't imagine you would argue "appear to be" true statements currently. I wasn't speaking in absolutes. I probably wasn't super clear, but my use of the word "appeared" in my initial post was to point to players that I think people jumped the gun on early, but we still needed time to see -- and now we've had a little more time, and certain players look like they're on the right track to disproving the detractors. Hence the "negative talk" seeming more inaccurate now in my opinion than previously when we had a smaller sample size. Again, it's opinion. Some things are still debatable. Others aren't. Like in Kittle's case

Kittle has proven his early detractors wrong by a mile. Pettis is on the right track, still time will tell. For the sake of the team, I hope Thomas and Witherspoon do the same.

Originally posted by Karma:

Originally posted by susweel:

The fact you gave Solomon, wisherspoon and cj a C shows me I can't take your evaluations seriously.

C means average.

If the grading scale goes from: A= All-Pro level contributions to F= Can't hack it in the league

Thomas, as a rotational member of the D Line who plays at a nominal level, is easily an average pick. Same with the other two.

But he is right, i. e. the grades are too high (on the contrary, I will still take OTC's evaluations seriously).
CJ is almost worthless, an undrafted FA was a huge upgrade! That is not a C, sorry.
Thomas hasn't showed anything so far. Some flashes here and there since he moved inside? Sorry, I do expect way more than that from a 3rd ovr.
Witherspoon... who cares.

Originally posted by illinois9er:

When you break down both drafts completely it shows it's not all doom and gloom like some think.

Nice post & totally agree

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Excellent post!

This !

Great post. I agree with all of these!

Except Solomon. I give that one an F. Trent Taylor I give a C.