(04-28-2024, 05:01 AM)Craigukjag Wrote: When comparing to a consensus big board can we just remember that the people puttting that board together are people who want a job in a front office but are deemed not good enough. And If there big board was proven right down the line they’d be getting jobs in a front office

I take big boards and media draft grades with a grain of salt. But I think my response to them is a little different than yours. Just to use three well known media members as examples: Mel Kiper, Daniel Jeremiah, and Bucky Brooks. Kiper is the quintessential superfan. He’s knowledgeable, for a fan, and he has watched lots of highlights. He gets a lot more right than he gets wrong. But at the end of the day, he has no real professional expertise. DJ has been a scout and was a college quarterback. He’s widely well regarded, with good reason. Same with Bucky. Both of them could still be working for teams if that is what they wanted. They make a better living and enjoy a better lifestyle than what scouts do, who are basically committed to a lot of grinding, long days, and travel.

If DJ, Bucky, or others like them (Lou Rididck, Brian Baldinger, etc.) evaluate a player or a team’s whole draft, I place a different value on that than a random online writer. Walter football is an an example of that. He’s at best a clickbait artist. More likely, he’s just a moron.

When we refer to consensus big board, we’re generally referring to the agreement of rankings from qualified media evaluators I certainly don’t refer to people who are no more qualified than me. If you take the consensus of good evaluations, they are (generally) as valid as those by any average team’s staff. So if a team makes an evaluation that significantly deviates from the consensus, they better be VERY sure they have a good reason. Most of the time, they prove over time that they did not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---