https://www.pff.com/news/draft-final-202...t-rankings

---

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-final-202...t-rankings

Thanks for posting.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I like my dudes Barmore, Moehrig, and Elijah Moore all rated higher than most think

---

I honest to God, don't understand these rankings. It's not because I don't agree with them, because I know everyone has different opinions, but the synopsis' of the players make no sense. For instance they rank Walker Little #26 overall when he hasn't played football in college for 2 years! How can you rank him that high when he has been out of the game that long? Then they have Alex Leatherwood ranked #40 overall, but explains that he has trouble with speed rushers and needs to improve his pass blocking. They say basically the same thing about Jackson Carman at #48. Liam Eichenberg is ranked #52, yet they say his grades improved greatly every year and he had a much better overall grade than both Leatherwood and Carman and he's started for Notre Dame at LT for the last 3 seasons, but he is ranked much lower than Little who hasn't played in 2 years? How does this make sense? It seems as though they contradict themselves a lot in these rankings.

Also, I know the QB's in this draft are gonna get way over-drafted due to it being a premium position, as well as a #1 need for most teams. With that said, there is absolutely no way you can look at this QB class and say 4 of them should be ranked in the top 10 overall players. That is ridiculous! Trey Lance has taken only like around 360 passing snaps in his entire college career against low level competition. The guy is an enigma and they have him ranked as the #10 overall player? These guys are either looking at "potential" way too much or they don't look at success at the college level the way they should. If you are a GM and you rely on drafting a player based upon what he has the potential to do, over what he has accomplished, you're gonna get fired sooner rather than later.

---

I honest to God, don't understand these rankings. It's not because I don't agree with them, because I know everyone has different opinions, but the synopsis' of the players make no sense. For instance they rank Walker Little #26 overall when he hasn't played football in college for 2 years! How can you rank him that high when he has been out of the game that long? Then they have Alex Leatherwood ranked #40 overall, but explains that he has trouble with speed rushers and needs to improve his pass blocking. They say basically the same thing about Jackson Carman at #48. Liam Eichenberg is ranked #52, yet they say his grades improved greatly every year and he had a much better overall grade than both Leatherwood and Carman and he's started for Notre Dame at LT for the last 3 seasons, but he is ranked much lower than Little who hasn't played in 2 years? How does this make sense? It seems as though they contradict themselves a lot in these rankings.

Also, I know the QB's in this draft are gonna get way over-drafted due to it being a premium position, as well as a #1 need for most teams. With that said, there is absolutely no way you can look at this QB class and say 4 of them should be ranked in the top 10 overall players. That is ridiculous! Trey Lance has taken only like around 360 passing snaps in his entire college career against low level competition. The guy is an enigma and they have him ranked as the #10 overall player? These guys are either looking at "potential" way too much or they don't look at success at the college level the way they should. If you are a GM and you rely on drafting a player based upon what he has the potential to do, over what he has accomplished, you're gonna get fired sooner rather than later.

PFF ladies and gentlemen!

Shaking my head in dismay.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I have never trusted their gradings, as Outlined by O-Line. But that’s not to say it’s not interesting reading their findings/gradings

---

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-final-202...t-rankings

I would like to know if they ranked these players without regard to the position they play, or if they took into account positional value.  

From the fact that they ranked so many QBs so high, it seems like they took into account positional value.  Because there's no way Zach Wilson or Justin Fields are better players than Kyle Pitts, unless they added to their value because they are QBs.  

Most "big boards" that I see do not take positional value into account.

---

I honest to God, don't understand these rankings. It's not because I don't agree with them, because I know everyone has different opinions, but the synopsis' of the players make no sense. For instance they rank Walker Little #26 overall when he hasn't played football in college for 2 years! How can you rank him that high when he has been out of the game that long? Then they have Alex Leatherwood ranked #40 overall, but explains that he has trouble with speed rushers and needs to improve his pass blocking. They say basically the same thing about Jackson Carman at #48. Liam Eichenberg is ranked #52, yet they say his grades improved greatly every year and he had a much better overall grade than both Leatherwood and Carman and he's started for Notre Dame at LT for the last 3 seasons, but he is ranked much lower than Little who hasn't played in 2 years? How does this make sense? It seems as though they contradict themselves a lot in these rankings.

Also, I know the QB's in this draft are gonna get way over-drafted due to it being a premium position, as well as a #1 need for most teams. With that said, there is absolutely no way you can look at this QB class and say 4 of them should be ranked in the top 10 overall players. That is ridiculous! Trey Lance has taken only like around 360 passing snaps in his entire college career against low level competition. The guy is an enigma and they have him ranked as the #10 overall player? These guys are either looking at "potential" way too much or they don't look at success at the college level the way they should. If you are a GM and you rely on drafting a player based upon what he has the potential to do, over what he has accomplished, you're gonna get fired sooner rather than later.

I would argue with the underlined sentence.  Players should be drafted based on what the GM expects them to do in the future.  That is all about potential.  Past performance is an indication of potential.  So are a lot of other things that have to be taken into account, such as height, weight, speed, and what they show on tape.  But drafting has to be based on potential and the likelihood of reaching that potential.  Potential = talent.

---

I have never trusted their gradings, as Outlined by O-Line. But that’s not to say it’s not interesting reading their findings/gradings

Exactly.

Additional perspectives-even if disjointed or illogical-can help calibrate your own analysis.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I honest to God, don't understand these rankings. It's not because I don't agree with them, because I know everyone has different opinions, but the synopsis' of the players make no sense. For instance they rank Walker Little #26 overall when he hasn't played football in college for 2 years! How can you rank him that high when he has been out of the game that long? Then they have Alex Leatherwood ranked #40 overall, but explains that he has trouble with speed rushers and needs to improve his pass blocking. They say basically the same thing about Jackson Carman at #48. Liam Eichenberg is ranked #52, yet they say his grades improved greatly every year and he had a much better overall grade than both Leatherwood and Carman and he's started for Notre Dame at LT for the last 3 seasons, but he is ranked much lower than Little who hasn't played in 2 years? How does this make sense? It seems as though they contradict themselves a lot in these rankings.

Also, I know the QB's in this draft are gonna get way over-drafted due to it being a premium position, as well as a #1 need for most teams. With that said, there is absolutely no way you can look at this QB class and say 4 of them should be ranked in the top 10 overall players. That is ridiculous! Trey Lance has taken only like around 360 passing snaps in his entire college career against low level competition. The guy is an enigma and they have him ranked as the #10 overall player? These guys are either looking at "potential" way too much or they don't look at success at the college level the way they should. If you are a GM and you rely on drafting a player based upon what he has the potential to do, over what he has accomplished, you're gonna get fired sooner rather than later.

I would argue with the underlined sentence.  Players should be drafted based on what the GM expects them to do in the future.  That is all about potential.  Past performance is an indication of potential.  So are a lot of other things that have to be taken into account, such as height, weight, speed, and what they show on tape.  But drafting has to be based on potential and the likelihood of reaching that potential.  Potential = talent.

Not always. Terrell Owens was a slow WR. He ran a 4.65 before getting drafted and he is now in the Hall of Fame. Tom Brady had a "dad bod" and his workout numbers didn't stand out at all. Again, he is the GOAT at his position. Jared Allen was one of the most consistent sack artist in college football, but his numbers didn't stand out. Teams thought he wasn't athletic enough. He now sits #12 on the all time sack list and will be a HOF some day. 

Mike Mamula was a "workout warrior" who came out of nowhere and blew scouts away with his athleticism at the 1995 draft. Because of this, he was projected way too high. Teams saw that and projected him to be an NFL star, based solely on his "potential" despite being considered a mid 2nd or early 3rd round pick before the Combine. He only played 5 years in the NFL and never achieved double digit sacks in a season. 

Darrius Heyward-Bey was a very average player at Maryland. He totaled less that 1500 receiving yards in 2 years and only 8 total receiving touchdowns, yet he ran a blazing 40 time at the Combine and the Raiders made him into something he wasn't, based on the workouts alone. He should've been a mid round pick, but the Raiders took him 7th overall in 2009 and he never became a 1000 yard receiver. He came close in 2011 with 975, but every other year he never even came close. His second highest total was 606 receiving yards. He never reached his supposed "potential."

Remember Matt Jones? He was chosen based on "potential." He was a college QB and never played receiver. He had tremendous workout numbers though, so for some reason beyond my comprehension, the Jags selected him with the #21 pick in the 2005 draft with the intention of changing his position and making him a WR. It was one of the biggest reaches in NFL history and we got burned. 

Give me consistent college production

---

I would argue with the underlined sentence.  Players should be drafted based on what the GM expects them to do in the future.  That is all about potential.  Past performance is an indication of potential.  So are a lot of other things that have to be taken into account, such as height, weight, speed, and what they show on tape.  But drafting has to be based on potential and the likelihood of reaching that potential.  Potential = talent.

Not always. Terrell Owens was a slow WR. He ran a 4.65 before getting drafted and he is now in the Hall of Fame. Tom Brady had a "dad bod" and his workout numbers didn't stand out at all. Again, he is the GOAT at his position. Jared Allen was one of the most consistent sack artist in college football, but his numbers didn't stand out. Teams thought he wasn't athletic enough. He now sits #12 on the all time sack list and will be a HOF some day. 

Mike Mamula was a "workout warrior" who came out of nowhere and blew scouts away with his athleticism at the 1995 draft. Because of this, he was projected way too high. Teams saw that and projected him to be an NFL star, based solely on his "potential" despite being considered a mid 2nd or early 3rd round pick before the Combine. He only played 5 years in the NFL and never achieved double digit sacks in a season. 

Darrius Heyward-Bey was a very average player at Maryland. He totaled less that 1500 receiving yards in 2 years and only 8 total receiving touchdowns, yet he ran a blazing 40 time at the Combine and the Raiders made him into something he wasn't, based on the workouts alone. He should've been a mid round pick, but the Raiders took him 7th overall in 2009 and he never became a 1000 yard receiver. He came close in 2011 with 975, but every other year he never even came close. His second highest total was 606 receiving yards. He never reached his supposed "potential."

Remember Matt Jones? He was chosen based on "potential." He was a college QB and never played receiver. He had tremendous workout numbers though, so for some reason beyond my comprehension, the Jags selected him with the #21 pick in the 2005 draft with the intention of changing his position and making him a WR. It was one of the biggest reaches in NFL history and we got burned. 

Give me consistent college production

Well, if you're a bad judge of potential, that's not helpful.  All you're citing above is when people incorrectly judged potential.  

Potential doesn't mean workout numbers.  Potential = having the necessary abilities or qualities to become successful in the future.  The future.  Not the past.  You're drafting a player for the FUTURE.  His potential (his future) is much more important than his past.  

Potential means projecting him into the NFL and what he can become.  

Tom Brady was all potential.  His past production in college in no way pointed to what he would become.

I object to your saying players should be picked based on what they have done in the past.  No.  They should be picked based on what they will do in the future.  They should be picked based on their potential.  And, of course, the likelihood of them reaching that potential.

---

PFF is awesome when they grade the guys I like high and the guys I don't like low, and they suck when they grade the guys I like low and the guys I don't like high.

I did that right, right?

---

PFF is awesome when they grade the guys I like high and the guys I don't like low, and they suck when they grade the guys I like low and the guys I don't like high.

I did that right, right?

That pretty much sums it up, lol.

---