Grades can be done different ways.  Sometimes in addition to value, they also factor positional importance and need.  I'm looking at the grades that we were shown.  I think it is pretty obvious that these grades do not factor need or positional value.  If they did, the Jaguars would not have selected a 6.8 (Little) ahead of a 6.9 (Cisco).  I also think the grades are relative to the position.  Basically, I think the Jaguars believe Little compared to other offensive tackles is roughly equivalent of Cisco compared to other safeties.  However, they value offensive tackle much more than safety.  That's why Little was taken in second round and Cisco in the third.  Does anyone really believe that the Jaguars were having an internal debate about whether to take Lawrence or Waddle as both were graded 8.0?  No.  Basically, they thought Lawrence was an elite quarterback and Waddle was an elite wide receiver.  However, positional value and need made Lawrence an easy pick despite the same grade.  7.5 may seem very high for AVT, but if the Jaguars considered him a guard and are only comparing AVT to other guards, many would probably agree with 7.5.  I'm guessing the best kicker and punter probably had grades of between 7.0 and 8.0 too.  I think these grades are all relative to the position and can't really be used to compare players at different positions.  Some positions are more important than others.

---