paco wrote: ↑05 Mar 2021 11:03
I get your point YoHo. These are all largely pointless exercises. I'm sure it's his attempt to weed out players that are no likely to be on the Packers board and put this in some sort of preference order. He didn't go into detail on the reasoning for each placement.
As for Lance, he must like him and feel he's worth developing. He did not that it would seem insane to most to have him on the same roster as Love.
I would like to see media people start putting together tiered boards for teams, as its truer to what actually happens. No team has a 1-100 list of guys. Well, the Jets or Lions might.
I mean, actually, lots of teams do. Lots of teams put a grade on every player, put them into ordered tiers and have all but a few medical or character risks on their board. I believe the Packers do that. Trey Lance and Trevor Lawrence are, for sure, on the packers board because they grade everyone.
Other teams, famously Bill Belichick, do more what we do on message boards. Pick out the guys from the draft class that you WANT on your team, focus only on them, assign them a value, and manipulate your draft picks through trades such that your guys can be selected at your approximate value. Belichick has said he sometimes only has 25-30 guys on his list in a given draft class.
I'd like to see media members stack players within position groups based on the traits the team appears to value and need for the scheme... for instance, we might have Samuel, Jr. higher than Patrick Surtain (we also might not)... and also include approximate draft value.
But I don't need to see a list of like the top Cs in the league interspersed with the top CBs in the league based on team fit. It warps real world positional value (for instance, valuing iOL, RBs, TEs a bit less) into need-based positional value (for us, valuing C, RB, and CBs more).
It's not just that it's a pointless exercise (all mocks are in that way), it's that it is an exercise that cannot hope to shed any light or add any insight into a team's plans or needs or likely draft board.
If you want to do a team-specific big board, then you have to ditched numbered order and, like you mentioned, go more with tiers to show where you would take someone.
If Moulden is 48th, would we TAKE HIM at 48? No, because there are a number of highly-ranked players not on this list. So the number, 48, and his relative order among other guys we might take, becomes meaningless. It doesn't tell us his value. If WR Marshall is at 24, would we TAKE HIM at 24? No way, total reach.
So it's not just a pointless endeavor, it actively confuses, rather than clarifies, the situation. It's an actively bad exercise, rather than a neutral, pointless one. Sorry Ross.
so over drafted, I had Gary higher then Ferrell, and neither above the more traditional OLB's like Allen, Burns or Sweat, or even Bosa who went first, I havn't really followed Ferrell much, but reading this confirms my pre draft opinion, and granted some of this could be the result of how he is used.
