Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Initial reactions
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Eyrie
I know it's far too early to know how anyone will work out, but based on the players taken, the scouting reports and positions addressed how do you grade us?

I'm calling it a B+.

A top DE, potentially a top CB (if Jones recovers), another solid CB, two WRs with STs ability and depth at LB and DT are all good.

Against that, #43 may have been too early for Jones, Pumphrey isn't the big back we needed and S wasn't addressed.
Zero
I gave them an "A" based on my sense that they stuck to BPA. I didn't love every pick and am scratching my head on a couple. Barnett added to the talent they already have on the DL should help the secondary quite a bit. I agree that they had to have done extensive research on Jones and only hope that the answers they got were reliable. Outside of those two, I'm not real familiar with any of the players and I'm reacting based on the concept of grading the players by how they fit this team and these schemes, not the ratings of professional pundits.
The Franchise
I gave them an A.

I've never been a draft junkie - frankly, I think putting together mock drafts and having draft parties is lame. I guess part of this is because I'm not really into college football, and past the usual star 1st-rounders, it's a crapshoot in many ways. I pay attention to the first round, and check in periodically in the later days for the hell of it. I want to see needs addressed, a smart 1st round pick (not Marcus Smith), and appropriate gambles along the way.

We addressed our biggest needs, took a good dice roll on a top-10 talent when healthy, got a guy who will immediately make an impact on the d-line, and got a couple WR's to learn under Jeffery and Smith, and most importantly to gun for Agholor's job. I'm happy with the draft and our current roster going into the summer.



JeeQ
Solid draft all the way around, we'll see it pans out but for now I rate them an A
nephillymike
I gave them a B-. A good solid draft overall.

A = outstanding
B = very good
C = average
D = below average
F = poor

Barnett - #10 ranked with the 14th pick at a PON = A. Going by BPA, Hooker (3rd) and Allen (7th) would have been rated as better players. However, Hooker's poor tackling makes him suspect in this system and Alle's arthritic shoulders drop him a bit.
A slid pick that will yield dividends IMO.

Jones - 51st best player picked 43rd. Reasonable value. However, that achilles is real tough. I estimate, based on published reports of others' recovery, that he has a 20-30% chance of making it back near his pre-injury level. I give this risky pick a D. CB Q. Wilson is my pick there.

R. Douglas - 84th best player picked 99th at a position of need. I give it an A.

M. Hollins - the 143rd best player drafted 118th, almost a round reach. It is a position of need. I give it a C-

D. Pumphrey - the 172nd player picked 132nd overall. A one round reach, but it is a PON. I give it a D.

S. Gibson - 167th best player selected at #166. Good value at PON. I give it a B

N, Gerry - selected 184th, was not in my top 250. Converting to a OLB supposedly. Jumped the gun. I give it a D

E. Qualls - got the 94th best player with the 214th pick. Almost four rounds of value. A+

Obviously, the higher picks have more weight.

Overall, B-
Reality Fan
I am surprised by concern for the King pick after the doctors , several of them actually, saying he is likely to recover 100% and he is well ahead of schedule already and his age is a huge plus. I was originally worried about it before the draft but there was an article on PFT that detailed that his doctors were saying he is doing very well.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/...turn-to-action/

As many have said here, the Eagles are building and he was projected to be on of the top if not THE top CB in the draft.

I can't argue with it. I like the draft overall, I guess. I am in the camp of having no idea what any of these guys will be but I am happy they didn't really reach at all. Jones likely would not have lasted to there 3rd pick.
Joegrane
I also gave them a B+

1 Derek Barnett DE. I think he'll be an okay DE. I don't expect him to ever have a year as good as B Graham had last year.

2 Sidney Jones CB. After what I'm hearing from Roseman on his health and prognosis, I'm okay with the gamble.

I don't expect him to ever regain his full pre-injury potential. I hope he'll be as productive as one of the low 1st round CBs.

I'm hoping he'll be able to contribute, probably with limited snaps, in the second half of the season. That's not terrible production from a 2nd round CB.

If I recall correctly, Lito Shephard and Sheldon Brown did not contribute much in their rookie seasons.

The lack of a Game 1 starting CB from this draft holds down the grade.


3 Rasul Douglas CB. Tall, fights for the ball. I could see J Mills being one of the starters, but Douglas being groomed to be the Red Zone CB.

It seems that a number of the players selected are tough, fighters. They were not drafting workout warriors.


4 Mack Hollins WR. Insane TD % and impressive Yd/catch for a guy without elite speed. Injury prone. We'll see what the sports science guys can do. This one could be a nice pick.

4 Donnel Pumphrey RB. Can't wait to see this guy play. Good that he gets to learn for a year under D Sproles.

5 Shelton Gibson WR. Seems to be a developmental guy who left college too early. Won't be surprised if he is not active on game day this year.

I assume they've given up on DGB. They won't keep 7 WRs.

Would have preferred a big RB for short yardage situations and STs.


5 Nathan Gerry S. Supposedly physical, a hitter. I think we are going to like this guy in Philly. Going to develop into nickel LB.


6 Elijah Qualls DT. I like this selection. A run-stuffer for short yardage situations. Needed due to the injury to B Allen


I'm surprised they did not draft a LB to eventually replace Kendricks.

They are going to be asking a lot of 30 yr old CB P Robinson who was often injured last year. This reminds me too much of McKelvin last year.

I'm surprised they did not address backup OT.

It will be interesting to pick the veterans who will loose their spots to these rookies.

QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 29 2017, 05:08 PM) *
I know it's far too early to know how anyone will work out, but based on the players taken, the scouting reports and positions addressed how do you grade us?

I'm calling it a B+.

A top DE, potentially a top CB (if Jones recovers), another solid CB, two WRs with STs ability and depth at LB and DT are all good.

Against that, #43 may have been too early for Jones, Pumphrey isn't the big back we needed and S wasn't addressed.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 29 2017, 10:51 PM) *
I am surprised by concern for the King pick after the doctors , several of them actually, saying he is likely to recover 100% and he is well ahead of schedule already and his age is a huge plus. I was originally worried about it before the draft but there was an article on PFT that detailed that his doctors were saying he is doing very well.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/...turn-to-action/

As many have said here, the Eagles are building and he was projected to be on of the top if not THE top CB in the draft.

I can't argue with it. I like the draft overall, I guess. I am in the camp of having no idea what any of these guys will be but I am happy they didn't really reach at all. Jones likely would not have lasted to there 3rd pick.


That's potentially good news.

If he is playing by October, it will lend validity to the report. If not, chalk it up to pre draft hype. Keeping fingers crossed.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 30 2017, 05:05 AM) *
That's potentially good news.

If he is playing by October, it will lend validity to the report. If not, chalk it up to pre draft hype. Keeping fingers crossed.

If the grades on players like Hollins, Pumphrey and Gerry turn out to have been off and they become significant contributors to the team, do you retrospectively change your grade?

The part of draft analysis that I have never clearly understood is how a pundit or a fan can accurately grade a player for a given team without access to the considerable information the teams have collected, or without consideration to how a team will use the player.

These grades are general descriptions of a given player's talents and abilities and they can differ from team to team. I understand that the grade is an indicator of where the player will be taken more than it is how he will play, but if a team wants a player and believes he won't be available with their next pick why is it "reaching" to select him earlier than the pundits have graded him?

I guess OptiMystic has a hard time understanding why there are so many fans who tend to focus on the potential problem rather than the possible advantage when both are equally unknown.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 30 2017, 04:58 AM) *
If the grades on players like Hollins, Pumphrey and Gerry turn out to have been off and they become significant contributors to the team, do you retrospectively change your grade?

The part of draft analysis that I have never clearly understood is how a pundit or a fan can accurately grade a player for a given team without access to the considerable information the teams have collected, or without consideration to how a team will use the player.

These grades are general descriptions of a given player's talents and abilities and they can differ from team to team. I understand that the grade is an indicator of where the player will be taken more than it is how he will play, but if a team wants a player and believes he won't be available with their next pick why is it "reaching" to select him earlier than the pundits have graded him?

I guess OptiMystic has a hard time understanding why there are so many fans who tend to focus on the potential problem rather than the possible advantage when both are equally unknown.


(Note that this is all in the context that the significant starter rate among drafted NFL players is 25.5%. Significant is defined as starting more than half the games of your career. Thought of another way, if that each year a team has 7 picks, one in each round, you will find 1.75 players per year who are good enough to start more than half of their games. If you think of a five year plan, a team gets, on average, 8.75 players good enough to start more than half the games. Round it to 9. That means the other 13 starters are either undrafted free agents who start over 50% of their career or guys who start, but are not of the caliber to start over 50% of their careers. I'll show the link in another thread.)

The grade is actually an indicator of predictions as to how well he will play.

The mocks are an indicator of where the "experts" think he will be drafted.

Absolutely you change the grade for a draft as you go along.

This is as of a point in time, which was yesterday.

Just as people were crowing over the Watkins draft when the picks were made, in hindsight that draft sucked.

Just as we were seemingly justifiably Optimystic about the Cox-Foles-Boykin-Curry draft, hindsight has deemed that draft pretty average at best.

Take Gerry for example. He may pan out, I hope he does. But unless another team had him on their radar to jump on him before our next pick, we could have drafted a more worthy pick at 184 and picked him up in the next round. If we miss out, then I think there are plenty of prospects rated as a 50/50 shot to make a roster that we could have picked up instead. Most sources had him out of the top 300 prospects.

I know you know this. I don't study film, never had, probably never will. I will only 20 or so college football games a year, which save me from divorce court. I will watch highlights around this time of the year in the last week to get a better feel for some guys who could be Eagles in the first two rounds. However, all five of the sources that I use to do those rankings do watch game film. That's what they do. they've been doing it for many years. Are they wrong some times? Absolutely. Just as the many scouting departments are wrong many times. Sometimes the sources identify the M. Smith and D. Watkins as the big reaches that they are. Sometimes the gold finds like W. Justice in the 2nd round turn into a bust. This draft, more than any other I can remember, there were relatively few outliers. The picks pretty much came within a 1/2 round to a round of where expected. Gerry's an exception. If he can play, it doesn't matter. If he can't, it was expected by most. I just don't think we needed to use a 5th round pick to get him.

If A is excellent, B is very good and C is average, I don't think a B- is too harsh. It is the popular choice if nothing else.

They didn't fuck it up. We should be at least OK.

There is hope.
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.