Good Draft Picks since 2005

[vince]

You can call whatever you want or provide any fan's general opinion of any player you want Noodle. Who the hell knows what that fan's judgement, knowledge, biases or subjectivity are when stating those general opinions... You don't.

The group I linked to here purports to provide an objective grade of every player and on every play on every play of the season based on the result achieved. Here's how and what they grade...

http://www.profootballfocus.com/about.php#grad3

Take it for whatever you will. It's not based on ability or skill. It's based on results. I certainly haven't done an in-depth study of every player of every play of every game this year. I'd venture to say none of us have. I'll put a bit of credence (certainly more than anyone of us) into an objective scoring system from a group that has over someone's opinion.

[Noodle]

Vince -- don't take my bullshit call as in any way crapping on you. One of the great things about this board is that people actually back up what they say with stats and rankings of the kind you posted. You and folks like you make this place far superior to the typical "he sucks" analysis you usually get.

All I'm saying, in a very subjective way, is that it's hard for me to accept the notion that Colledge might grade out better than Hutchinson. I've seen Colledge do good things (he is exceptionally good beyond the LOS when he blocks downfield), but I've also seem him just get rag dolled and destroyed at the POA.

But Vince's larger point is that Sitton is a stud, and with that I would not disagree.

[SkinBasket]

but I've also seem him just get rag dolled and destroyed at the POA.

The POA? Is that a new strip club?

[Noodle]

Sorry, Skin, Point of Attack on runs for the "destroyed" part, "rag dolled" in pass protection.

But if I can be sorry for writting obscurely, can't you apologize for freaking me out with your latest avatar? At least pick something with less friggin movement, fer cris' sakes.

[swede]

Sorry, Skin, Point of Attack on runs for the "destroyed" part, "rag dolled" in pass protection.

But if I can be sorry for writting obscurely, can't you apologize for freaking me out with your latest avatar? At least pick something with less friggin movement, fer cris' sakes.

Ny now, Noodle, you should know that the best thing about every one of Skin's avatars is that it will be less creepy than his next one.

[steve823]

Bold Josh Sitton, who's the top-rated pass-blocking guard in the NFL and #6 overall, according to Pro Football Focus.
http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_p...=25&numgames=1

HAHA. So i was checking out this system and I went to Special Teams. Scrolled all the way to the bottom and guess who number 830..our buddy jarret bush hahaha

[vince]

Vince -- don't take my bullshit call as in any way crapping on you. One of the great things about this board is that people actually back up what they say with stats and rankings of the kind you posted. You and folks like you make this place far superior to the typical "he sucks" analysis you usually get.

All I'm saying, in a very subjective way, is that it's hard for me to accept the notion that Colledge might grade out better than Hutchinson. I've seen Colledge do good things (he is exceptionally good beyond the LOS when he blocks downfield), but I've also seem him just get rag dolled and destroyed at the POA.

But Vince's larger point is that Sitton is a stud, and with that I would not disagree.

I hear what you're saying Noodle, and I didn't take it personally or intend to attack you. I just have a very hard time with putting more weight on reputation, press clippings, draft position, combine numbers, contract size, talking-head spew designed to get attention, popularity, fanaticism, personal bias, etc. than a system that is at the very least set up to provide objective analysis based on actual results on the football field - whether it is my own opinion or most anyone else's who is likely basing that opinion on a more random and incomplete set of criteria and biased perspective - not to mention people's egos involved, which makes us feel and communicate greater certainty in such opinions than is warranted.

There are a lot in these ratings that I would disagree with, but I'm hard pressed to do that because I haven't done the work they have, nor have I set up a system which is at least designed to eliminate all information other than actual results on the football field on Sundays. Because it is humans which are doing the play-by-play analysis for each individual player, there is definitely subjectivity involved, as there is with many statistics that define "success" or "failure" on the field, such as sacks, drops, etc.

I also would say that, based on the methodology of the rating process involved on that website, I'd put more weight on the top and bottom of these lists than the middle, as the rating system is based on the differentiating between actual results and how an "average" NFL player would be expected to perform. They explicitly state that most players on most plays receive a "0" rating, which is the norm. It is only the "successes" or "failures" (and the degree to which they are such) which define the differences.

Jarret Bush, who Steve identified as the lowest rated ST player, is a great case in point. He is likely doing an OK job on the overwhelming majority of his special teams snaps, but his negative impacts have been strong. His bad score is based almost wholly on penalties. Also, the fact that his "potential," off-season work, ass-kissing in practice, speed, attitude, team chemistry - whatever it may be - gets him out on the field on just about every special teams play. He's played a lot more plays than most everyone else on the list - without positive results to offset those negatives - which drags him down to the bottom of the list below that which those guys who go between active and inactive or even between practice squad and 53-man roster and get the occassional ST snaps are likely be go. It's like the MLB pitcher who leads the league in home runs allowed. He's probably a decent (or developing) pitcher who's having a down year or else they wouldn't keep sending him out to the mound every five days.

In any event, this website's ratings are at least set up to be based on more facts within a more relevant context - and less bullshit - than anything else I've seen anywhere.

Sorry for the long-winded, off-topic response.

[SkinBasket]

Sorry, Skin, Point of Attack on runs for the "destroyed" part, "rag dolled" in pass protection.

But if I can be sorry for writting obscurely, can't you apologize for freaking me out with your latest avatar? At least pick something with less friggin movement, fer cris' sakes.

To be honest, I knew what POA was, it's just hard for me to imagine Colledge and point of attack being used in the same sentence, even when the modifiers are destroyed and rag dolled. I agree completely with your thoughts that he's fine as a kind of roaming downfield guy, but at the line, he's still pretty inconsistent.

That and I like the idea of strippers beating up Colledge.

[MJZiggy]

Sorry, Skin, Point of Attack on runs for the "destroyed" part, "rag dolled" in pass protection.

But if I can be sorry for writting obscurely, can't you apologize for freaking me out with your latest avatar? At least pick something with less friggin movement, fer cris' sakes.

If you want the avatars to stop, hit the escape key and it stops all motion on the page.