Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: I know I shouldn't, but I must
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
My annual draft grade for the Eagles.

First for any new folk who don't know how it works:

A - Excellent
B - Good
C - Average
D - Below Average
F - Poor

Most people see C as bad. C is average on the NEPM scale.

Next, Me, you, the experts, the team have not much of an idea if these guys can play and let's agree ahead of time that the draft is the crap shoot that it is and time will tell how good or bad this draft is, regardless of how they are rated here.

The grades here are simply how much value did we get for or picks where we picked them mixed in a little with how much we needed to improve that spot. Since the earlier rounds have a greater percentage of those players making the team and starting, those picks are weighted heavier.

The compilation ranking uses eight sites: ESPN, NFL.com, CBS Draft Scout, Nat'l Football Post, Walter Football, CleScout, Draft101, and Draft Geek. Drafttek is not in the ranking as I ran out of time, but I will refer to it. I remove the high and low rankings from the sources and use the revised average and rank them. removing the outlers eliminates the effect that one bad grade can have.

Here goes:

1. M. Smith, OLB Round 1 Pick # 26

Compilation = 83rd
Worst = > 150 for Clescout
Best = 55 for NFL.com

Get's a boost for addressing a need. But it's a reach taking him at #26 when rated 83rd. Almost a two round reach.

As far as qualitative evaluations, NFL.com rates him as a prospect who has a chance to be a starter. ESPN rates him as a bottom of the third round prospect, while NFP rates him as an eventual starter after a period of adjustment.

All things considered = D

2. J. Matthews, WR, Round 2 42nd pick

Compilation = 41
Worst = 55th from NFP
Best = 37th from Clescout.

Addresses a need at appropriate value.
Rated as a chance to become a starter from NFL.com, a second round talent by ESPN and an eventual starter after a period of adjustment from NFP.

Real solid pick = B

3. J. Huff, WR, Round 3, 86th pick

Compilation = 115th
Worst = 169th from NFL.com
Best = 59th from Draft Geek

Addresses a depth need, not a starter need.

Rated as a low backup from NFL.com, a low middle round talent by ESPN and an eventual starter after a period of adjustment from NFP.

Iffy pick in this spot = C-

4. J. Watkins, CB, Round 4, 101st pick

Compilation = 120th
Worst = 142nd from NFL.com
Best = 40th from Draft Geek

Rated as a mid backup from NFL.com, a third round talent by ESPN and an starter after a long period of adjustment from NFP.

Area of need for sure. = C+

5. T. Hart, DE, Round 5, 141st pick

Compilation = 134th
Worst = 164th NFL.com
Best = 82nd from WalterFootball

Rated as a low backup from NFL.com, a mid round talent by ESPN and a starter after a long period of adjustment from NFP.

It is an Area of Backup Need = B

6. E. Reynolds FS, Round 5, 162nd pick

Compilation = 131st
Worst = 290th from NFL.com
Best = 63rd from Draft 101

Rated as someone with a better than 505 chance to make a roster by NFL.com, a late round or UDFA by ESPN and a starter after a long period of adjustment by NFP.

Good value, we got him a round later than his ranking at a position of need = A

7. B. Allen, DT, Round 7, 224th pick

Compilation = >233rd
Worst = 389th by CBS Draft Scout
Best = 151st by Drafttek

Rated as someone with a 50/50 chance to make roster by NFL.com, a late round pick or UDFA by ESPN and a good backup by NFP.

Adequate value in a position of need = C

Overall grade = C

Some reaches, some good value, the reach in round 1 weighs heavily. As usual, time will tell.

One positive think is Howie did a great job with draft day trades.

The Brown trade was a steal. The trade downs he got great value. Good job on that front.






Zero
I guess you're saying a C isn't bad. Just for curiosity, if we were to rate the rater how have you rated the Eagles past two or three drafts. If it takes three years to know about a player how do they stack up?

As a DKD, I'm fairly pleased with what they've done since 2012. Judging from what I read, I think this year was a good one too, particularly Matthews and Watkins. Jury's still out on Smith and Huff but both could be key contributors in a year. Hart and Reynolds sound like maybe good additions but who knows that late in the process.

The "question" of where Smith was taken lowers them to a B for me. If I were just to have read that Smith was the most complete OLB coming out and that Matthews should have been a first rounder I'd give them a solid DKD A not only on who they took but how they got to those selections. They didn't move around for moving sake, they moved and improved baybee! biggrin.gif
koolaidluke
To determine the value of a pick, times the players upside with his "bust quotient". The bust quotient is how likely he is to at least remotely achieve his ceiling, with 1.0 being a sure thing and 0 being a guaranteed flop.

Determining a players ceiling is actually extremely easy and you categorically do NOT need to be a professional to figure it out. The bust quotient, however, is more difficult, especially for amateurs who don't have access to the same info as NFL teams do.

Since we are dealing with percentages, there is a big element of luck in this, so it is possible, theoretically, to have an awful draft in terms of value where you get a bunch of guys who turn out to be studs and vice versa.

For determining upside, use this scale:
6- All-Pro
5- Top 10 at position
4- Above average
3- JAG
2- Backup
1- Replacement level

2014 Eagles draft:
1. Marcus Smith: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.65) = 3.25
2. Jordan Matthews: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.5) = 3
3. Josh Huff: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.25) = 1.25
4. Jaylen Watkins: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.25
5. Taylor Hart: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.25) = 1.0
6. Ed Reynolds: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.2
7. Beau Allen: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.2

and then there is the UDFA's, none of whom I know anything about. It seems like it is getting harder to get good UDFAs.

I can't grade the Eagles draft without going through all 31 other teams drafts to have something to compare it to. The Eagles did get a ton of upside with 4 picks who have the potential to be top 10 players. Watkins has to have been a pure Chip pick because Howie shies away from guys with high Bust Quotients (although he probably doesn't call it that) whereas Chip puts a big premium of measurable's, trusting the ability of he and his staff to coach players up.

The Taylor Hart pick seems to be great value for the 5th round. He gets a 1.0 and in the 5th the average value there probably around .5 at best. Watkins was a low value pick but he has great upside for a 4th rounder.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ May 12 2014, 09:44 AM) *
To determine the value of a pick, times the players upside with his "bust quotient". The bust quotient is how likely he is to at least remotely achieve his ceiling, with 1.0 being a sure thing and 0 being a guaranteed flop.

Determining a players ceiling is actually extremely easy and you categorically do NOT need to be a professional to figure it out. The bust quotient, however, is more difficult, especially for amateurs who don't have access to the same info as NFL teams do.

Since we are dealing with percentages, there is a big element of luck in this, so it is possible, theoretically, to have an awful draft in terms of value where you get a bunch of guys who turn out to be studs and vice versa.

For determining upside, use this scale:
6- All-Pro
5- Top 10 at position
4- Above average
3- JAG
2- Backup
1- Replacement level

2014 Eagles draft:
1. Marcus Smith: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.65) = 3.25
2. Jordan Matthews: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.5) = 3
3. Josh Huff: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.25) = 1.25
4. Jaylen Watkins: Upside(5) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.25
5. Taylor Hart: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.25) = 1.0
6. Ed Reynolds: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.2
7. Beau Allen: Upside(4) * BustQuotient(.05) = 0.2

and then there is the UDFA's, none of whom I know anything about. It seems like it is getting harder to get good UDFAs.

I can't grade the Eagles draft without going through all 31 other teams drafts to have something to compare it to. The Eagles did get a ton of upside with 4 picks who have the potential to be top 10 players. Watkins has to have been a pure Chip pick because Howie shies away from guys with high Bust Quotients (although he probably doesn't call it that) whereas Chip puts a big premium of measurable's, trusting the ability of he and his staff to coach players up.

The Taylor Hart pick seems to be great value for the 5th round. He gets a 1.0 and in the 5th the average value there probably around .5 at best. Watkins was a low value pick but he has great upside for a 4th rounder.



mcnabbulous
Matthews absolutely has all-pro potential.

From a pure measurables perspective, his comps are guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Josh Gordon, Demaryius Thomas, and Braylon Edwards (who was a stud had it not been for the bricks on the end of his arms.)

Combine that with his college production (all-time leading SEC receiver) and Chip's brilliance...and this guy can be all world.

http://mockdraftable.com/player/4349/
TGryn
I've heard opinions all over the place on Reynolds. He apparently had a really productive 2012 in terms of INTs, then wasn't nearly as good this year. Also that he's maxed out physically, or that he should have returned for his senior season to prove that 2013 was just a fluke. Putting it all together, sounds like he could be a somewhat more athletic version of Coleman.

Hart appears to be a fairly beefy DE, which would make him somewhat limited in a 4-3 (he's probably get moved inside in that scheme) but already has the size he'll need as a 3-4 DE.

Will say this: with two drafts under our belts, we're getting a better idea of what to expect from Roseman/Kelly in drafts. Chip really wasn't blowing hot air about the "big people beat up little people" line.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (TGryn @ May 12 2014, 11:47 AM) *
Will say this: with two drafts under our belts, we're getting a better idea of what to expect from Roseman/Kelly in drafts. Chip really wasn't blowing hot air about the "big people beat up little people" line.

Yep - He says they have specific position based size requirements for arm length, hand size, etc...

Matthews is in the 81 and 96 percentile for those two things respectively. His hands are 10⅜" which is pretty ridiculous.

FWIW - Dante Moncrief's hands are 9⅛" (31st percentile) which is actually smaller than Josh Huff (51st percentile) despite being 4 inches taller.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 12 2014, 11:52 AM) *
Yep - He says they have specific position based size requirements for arm length, hand size, etc...


Requirements or ideal minimums? Would they pass up on a player they otherwise liked if his arms were an inch below the required value for the position?
koolaidluke
Justin Smith and Darwin Walker both has arms that were short as balls
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ May 12 2014, 12:45 PM) *
Requirements or ideal minimums? Would they pass up on a player they otherwise liked if his arms were an inch below the required value for the position?

That's a fair question. I'm trying to find Chip's exact quote on the subject. I suspect they're guidelines, but there may be specific attributes (e.g. QB hand size) that they have requirements for.

Edit: Here you go...

Q. Is there a theme you could identify, a common thread at all? I know you just pick guys, but do you see something like that ‑‑

COACH KELLY: Well, I mean, there's obviously a lot of ‑‑ we always just talk, there's the tangibles and the intangibles. There's a certain kind of height, weight, speed requirements we have for each individual position. We really don't want to go below that, but we always will make an exception. It's kind of like a guideline more than a rule. It's not a hard and fast, there's absolutely no way. We want to be bigger at the receiver position, but you would be crazy if you looked at Brandin Cooks and said we're not going to take him because he's 5'9". You know what I mean? He's also a rocked‑up 190 some odd pounds and a physical player. But you want to have ‑‑ we have certain height and weight criteria that we're looking for and certain arm lengths we're looking for and hand size we're looking for when it comes to certain positions, and then obviously where is their football intelligence, and then what is that character kind of component in terms of what their work ethic is going to be, can you count on them every day, are they reliable, all those other things, so I don't know if there's ‑‑ there's a lot that kind of goes into it, and then you go, and then you hope that the ones you got you'll figure out a year or two from now if it was a good one or a bad one.


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles...UJgwEBq8ER1S.99

Edit #2: I would bet Moncrief didn't meet their minimum on hand size.
Flying Dutchman
Always an interesting read Mikey! For a couple of reasons however, I place far less faith in the encyclopedia
style evaluations this year.

1. Chip and Howie are a different breed of Coach/GM as opposed to their counterparts. I think, they THINK
differently, assess and calculate on a ?Moneyball? style of evaluation. They are using standards, not just hollow words.

2. To C&H, character shows up on and off the field, in the classroom and in the personal habits they are looking
at in their evals.

3. Intelligence is shown not in the classroom grades but in graduation under the demanding circumstances of being
the BMOC and yet buckling down to do well in class and obviously with Matthews and others flat out studying their
business ie football in all it's aspects.

4. Coachability shows in the progress these guys made and the glowing reports they earned from their coaches.

5. Leadership shows in their team captain, team leader reputations.

Not only do I doubt the weight these encyclopedia evals put on the above characteristics, I also doubt they bother to rate
players according to different systems they may play in. Several of these kids seem to fit well in Chips style of O and D
but maybe not as well in others such as 3 - 4 versus 4 - 3 etc.

So this old Iggles fan a bonafied DND from the days he and Goo thought they were immortals, sees a new breed of management
who places real value on words thrown around emptily so easily by others
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 12 2014, 05:40 AM) *
I guess you're saying a C isn't bad. Just for curiosity, if we were to rate the rater how have you rated the Eagles past two or three drafts. If it takes three years to know about a player how do they stack up?

As a DKD, I'm fairly pleased with what they've done since 2012. Judging from what I read, I think this year was a good one too, particularly Matthews and Watkins. Jury's still out on Smith and Huff but both could be key contributors in a year. Hart and Reynolds sound like maybe good additions but who knows that late in the process.

The "question" of where Smith was taken lowers them to a B for me. If I were just to have read that Smith was the most complete OLB coming out and that Matthews should have been a first rounder I'd give them a solid DKD A not only on who they took but how they got to those selections. They didn't move around for moving sake, they moved and improved baybee! biggrin.gif

when/if I get time, I will pull up some grades of years past.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.