I've been watching this guy for a while (5-6 years). I've always thought he did a really good job with his draft wrap-ups and NFL stuff in general. Maybe in this downtime you guys would want to watch something

https://youtu.be/Fhb2Mizx8d8

(06-25-2020, 12:17 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I've been watching this guy for a while (5-6 years). I've always thought he did a really good job with his draft wrap-ups and NFL stuff in general. Maybe in this downtime you guys would want to watch something

https://youtu.be/Fhb2Mizx8d8

Good watch thanks for posting

Yes, was a good watch indeed.

I agreed on every grade, save for Bailey; I would've given Bailey a 4, solely for the fact of talent vs. round.

If Bailey was picked in the 4th, for example, a 3 would make sense.

(06-29-2020, 04:49 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Yes, was a good watch indeed.

I agreed on every grade, save for Bailey; I would've given Bailey a 4, solely for the fact of talent vs. round.

If Bailey was picked in the 4th, for example, a 3 would make sense.

Yeah he does that with a lot of his grades. I don't think he weighs talent vs round as much with his grade. He's definitely someone I watch around draft time to see his breakdowns of players. He normally does a video on a ton of players before the draft. 

He also has game break downs for every game in the year. He's definitely my go to guy for football stuff on YouTube.

Good watch, thanks for posting sir.

I hate to be that guy, but can someone please summarize this? I don't have an hour to watch a Youtube video.

(06-30-2020, 09:48 AM)Earendil Wrote: I hate to be that guy, but can someone please summarize this? I don't have an hour to watch a Youtube video.

Draft Wrap-Up Series Grading Scale

A+ = 5.00 - 4.70
A =   4.69 - 4.30
A- =  4.29 - 4.00
B+ = 3.99 - 3.70
B =   3.69 - 3.30
B- =  3.29 - 3.00
C+ = 2.99 - 2.70
C =   2.69 - 2.30
C- =  2.29 - 2.00
D+ = 1.99 - 1.70
D =   1.69 - 1.30
D- =  1.29 - 1.00

Cincinnati Bengals RAW SCORE: 27 / 7 (Picks) = 3.86 (B+) 

• Burrow (5) - Stud, enough said
• Higgins (5) - Tall WR with insane catch radius.  A problem in the red zone.  Dominated weaker ACC.  Amazing hands.  Weakness is going to be separation.  Comparison is Alshon Jeffrey.
• Wilson (4) - 2nd/3rd grade.  Tall LB with good zone coverage.  Weakness is he can play passive and get caught at 2nd level by OL.  Not a "thumper".  Compares to Sean Lee.
• Davis-Gaither (4) - 3rd round grade.  Fluid movement in space.  Can get into the backfield and apply pressure.  High energy motor.  Weakness is he is a "tweener" for LB/S.  Technique needs work.  Needs to work on assignment discipline.   Comparison is Telvin Smith.   
• Kareem (3) - 5th/6th round grade.  Tough but always seemed injured.  Great size/strength for a 4-3 DE.  Eats up space but not a lot of speed.  Really good run defender.  Plays really smart.  Weakness is he not quick/explosive.  Doesn't have a lot of rush moves.  Comparison is Daeshon Hall.
• Adeniji (3) - 6th/7th round grade.  Decent out in space with long arms.   Weaknesses are hand placement and footwork.  Snowballs quickly when he gets off balance.  Can't play tackle due to lack of foot quickness.
• Bailey (3) - No draft grade.  3rd/4th if no injuries.  Tackling machine.  High football IQ.  Can shed blocking and make the play.  Weakness is that he is not the quickest or athletically gifted.  Obvious injury concerns.  Comparison is Mason Foster.
  

I didn't watch the video, and this is more of a complaint on the idea of grading drafts, and the actual grading system, rather than the person who made the vid.

For the life of me, I can never understand why all of these different draft grades pretend to use a traditional scale of A+ through F, while never utilizing the bottom end of the grading of the system. And I don't mean this as a complaint on these particular grades, but just in general.

Like if you go to ESPN or wherever, they'll use this system yet I'd say 90% of the grades are B+ and up. It's extremely rare to see a grade even hit the C level. A "D" or an "F" is almost unheard of. I'd guess that the number of C's and lower account for less than 1% of these grades on various sites. For the most part, if you go down the grades list it will look like: A, A-, B+, A, A+, A, B, A-, B, A, B-, C+, A, A-, etc.

It just seems so lazy, and honestly strikes me as a gigantic waste of time to read. Exactly how much work did the grader put in if there's minimal difference in the grades? What use is this grading system in this context, if half of the potential grades are basically unachievable?

As to these grades, I do kinda half to laugh at the 5.0's. So 4.7 - 5.0 is an A+, right? Ok, so Joe Burrow gets the highest of highest A+'s, 100 out of 100. I guess that's fair. But then he turns around and assigns a 5.0 to Higgins too? Even assigning him A+ is generous, but ok. But he couldn't even make him like a 4.75 A+?

Again, why claim to use this detailed scale when every grade is higher than a B-? Why use all round numbers if you claim that there are fractional ranges? It's made to look like a detailed scoring range, yet the grades couldn't be lazier.

Whatever, I'm rambling again. I just think draft grades are silly. Just talk about the picks and say what you like or don't like about them. Don't pretend to have actually graded these like a test. And the fact remains, all of this is meaningless until about year 3.

Sorry for the rant.

(06-30-2020, 12:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I didn't watch the video, and this is more of a complaint on the idea of grading drafts, and the actual grading system, rather than the person who made the vid.

For the life of me, I can never understand why all of these different draft grades pretend to use a traditional scale of A+ through F, while never utilizing the bottom end of the grading of the system.  And I don't mean this as a complaint on these particular grades, but just in general.

Like if you go to ESPN or wherever, they'll use this system yet I'd say 90% of the grades are B+ and up.  It's extremely rare to see a grade even hit the C level.  A "D" or an "F" is almost unheard of.  I'd guess that the number of C's and lower account for less than 1% of these grades on various sites.  For the most part, if you go down the grades list it will look like: A, A-, B+, A, A+, A, B, A-, B, A, B-, C+, A, A-, etc.

It just seems so lazy, and honestly strikes me as a gigantic waste of time to read.  Exactly how much work did the grader put in if there's minimal difference in the grades?  What use is this grading system in this context, if half of the potential grades are basically unachievable?

As to these grades, I do kinda half to laugh at the 5.0's.  So 4.7 - 5.0 is an A+, right?  Ok, so Joe Burrow gets the highest of highest A+'s, 100 out of 100.  I guess that's fair.  But then he turns around and assigns a 5.0 to Higgins too?  Even assigning him A+ is generous, but ok.  But he couldn't even make him like a 4.75 A+?

Again, why claim to use this detailed scale when every grade is higher than a B-?  Why use all round numbers if you claim that there are fractional ranges?  It's made to look like a detailed scoring range, yet the grades couldn't be lazier.

Whatever, I'm rambling again.  I just think draft grades are silly.  Just talk about the picks and say what you like or don't like about them.  Don't pretend to have actually graded these like a test.  And the fact remains, all of this is meaningless until about year 3.  

Sorry for the rant.

He rarely gives As and I've seen him give plenty of Ds 

(06-30-2020, 12:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I didn't watch the video, and this is more of a complaint on the idea of grading drafts, and the actual grading system, rather than the person who made the vid.

For the life of me, I can never understand why all of these different draft grades pretend to use a traditional scale of A+ through F, while never utilizing the bottom end of the grading of the system.  And I don't mean this as a complaint on these particular grades, but just in general.

Like if you go to ESPN or wherever, they'll use this system yet I'd say 90% of the grades are B+ and up.  It's extremely rare to see a grade even hit the C level.  A "D" or an "F" is almost unheard of.  I'd guess that the number of C's and lower account for less than 1% of these grades on various sites.  For the most part, if you go down the grades list it will look like: A, A-, B+, A, A+, A, B, A-, B, A, B-, C+, A, A-, etc.

It just seems so lazy, and honestly strikes me as a gigantic waste of time to read.  Exactly how much work did the grader put in if there's minimal difference in the grades?  What use is this grading system in this context, if half of the potential grades are basically unachievable?

As to these grades, I do kinda half to laugh at the 5.0's.  So 4.7 - 5.0 is an A+, right?  Ok, so Joe Burrow gets the highest of highest A+'s, 100 out of 100.  I guess that's fair.  But then he turns around and assigns a 5.0 to Higgins too?  Even assigning him A+ is generous, but ok.  But he couldn't even make him like a 4.75 A+?

Again, why claim to use this detailed scale when every grade is higher than a B-?  Why use all round numbers if you claim that there are fractional ranges?  It's made to look like a detailed scoring range, yet the grades couldn't be lazier.

Whatever, I'm rambling again.  I just think draft grades are silly.  Just talk about the picks and say what you like or don't like about them.  Don't pretend to have actually graded these like a test.  And the fact remains, all of this is meaningless until about year 3.  

Sorry for the rant.

Maybe someone shouldn't get on a soapbox and rant about nor laugh at something you didn't watch, because you aren't even correct.

He gives out integers not decimal numbers as grades. So no he couldn't make him a 4.75. The decimals are due to averaging to achieve the final score. But you just rant on about whatever makes you happy. And a 1-5 Likert scale is much easier to use than a 1-500 scale (i.e. 0.01-5.00) which would only make the grades more arbitrary. Also a Likert scale isn't very complex nor detailed... it is literally 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

And how could someone fail a draft? You are picking younger talent to replace holes in your existing team.  It is hard to fail when all you are doing is acquiring cheap talent. So you would expect most teams get positive grades (>C).  I mean, seriously, a D is failing and how can a team fail to get better by introducing new, younger players? They aren't drafting from a local Walmart employee's pool.

And how many students in classes that grade A-F actually fall below a C? Almost all college graduates have grades above a C+. A C-grade is failing in most majors for core courses. So even universities don't use the bottom half of the scale, since those few students fail out.

Why rain on the thread when you obviously don't care enough about it to read and participate?

(06-30-2020, 05:43 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: He gives out integers not decimal numbers as grades. So no he couldn't make him a 4.75. The decimals are due to averaging to achieve the final score. But you just rant on about whatever makes you happy. And a 1-5 Likert scale is much easier to use than a 1-500 scale (i.e. 0.01-5.00) which would only make the grades more arbitrary. Also a Likert scale isn't very complex nor detailed... it is literally 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

So, why does the scoring system include decimals??  Could it be perhaps that the person doing this particular review was just being lazy?  I mean, I'm as happy as the next Bengal fan for "validation" of what was widely perceived as a good draft, but c'mon..  If you're going to put out draft reviews, at least go to the effort of making it look like you know what you're doing.

(06-30-2020, 09:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, why does the scoring system include decimals??  Could it be perhaps that the person doing this particular review was just being lazy?  I mean, I'm as happy as the next Bengal fan for "validation" of what was widely perceived as a good draft, but c'mon..  If you're going to put out draft reviews, at least go to the effort of making it look like you know what you're doing.

Because when you take integers and average them you can get decimal numbers.

Example (4+4+3)= 11.... 11/3 = 3.667

And again he was using a 5-point system not a 500-point system. So players got either 1,2,3,4,5..... not 1.01 or 4.75. Using a smaller rating scale is easier, and used a lot more often.  People usually rate things between 1-10 not 1-10,000.  Why are so many people worried and all upset that the video didn't use decimals to rate players?

And he read the strengths and weaknesses of everyone in the draft. I think that was his intention and pretty much what the OP title states.

Who needs validation? This is a post about a guy going over our draft picks. No one said this completes me or now I can die in peace.  I think the man is annoying, but I am not going to nit pick the post or video.

I think "friends" are jumping on the this post is crap bandwagon to support each other. I have never seen so many upset over decimal places.

(06-30-2020, 10:14 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: Because when you take integers and average them you can get decimal numbers.

Example (4+4+3)= 11.... 11/3 = 3.667

And again he was using a 5-point system not a 500-point system. So players got either 1,2,3,4,5..... not 1.01 or 4.75. Using a smaller rating scale is easier, and used a lot more often.  People usually rate things between 1-10 not 1-10,000.  Why are so many people worried and all upset that the video didn't use decimals to rate players?

And he read the strengths and weaknesses of everyone in the draft. I think that was his intention and pretty much what the OP title states.

Who needs validation? This is a post about a guy going over our draft picks. No one said this completes me or now I can die in peace.  I think the man is annoying, but I am not going to nit pick the post or video.

I think "friends" are jumping on the this post is crap bandwagon to support each other. I have never seen so many upset over decimal places.

Whatever you say, my friend.  However, simply assigning integer is just lazy.  If that were accurate, the NFL would use that system in grading players.  The truth is, it's not accurate, so they don't.  If this guy does it because "it's easier", then maybe he's in the wrong business?

(06-30-2020, 10:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Whatever you say, my friend.  However, simply assigning integer is just lazy.  If that were accurate, the NFL would use that system in grading players.  The truth is, it's not accurate, so they don't.  If this guy does it because "it's easier", then maybe he's in the wrong business?

Rating anything is subjective my friend. You are allowed to use whatever scale you like. And Likert scales are used all over science and published in peer reviewed reasearch journals. so truth is...

(06-30-2020, 10:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Whatever you say, my friend.  However, simply assigning integer is just lazy.  If that were accurate, the NFL would use that system in grading players.  The truth is, it's not accurate, so they don't.  If this guy does it because "it's easier", then maybe he's in the wrong business?

He does YouTube videos for fun. He does every team and he reviews every player that was drafted it's not just the Bengals and it's not for some network. I don't see the problem at all with the way he does it. It is very much nitpicking something someone does in their free time. I would agree with you if it was from a network, but even still the decimals wouldn't even make that big of a difference at all.

I think that the fact that he does every team and every single player shows that he's not lazy 

(06-30-2020, 12:47 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I didn't watch the video, and this is more of a complaint on the idea of grading drafts, and the actual grading system, rather than the person who made the vid.

For the life of me, I can never understand why all of these different draft grades pretend to use a traditional scale of A+ through F, while never utilizing the bottom end of the grading of the system.  And I don't mean this as a complaint on these particular grades, but just in general.

Like if you go to ESPN or wherever, they'll use this system yet I'd say 90% of the grades are B+ and up.  It's extremely rare to see a grade even hit the C level.  A "D" or an "F" is almost unheard of.  I'd guess that the number of C's and lower account for less than 1% of these grades on various sites.  For the most part, if you go down the grades list it will look like: A, A-, B+, A, A+, A, B, A-, B, A, B-, C+, A, A-, etc.

It just seems so lazy, and honestly strikes me as a gigantic waste of time to read.  Exactly how much work did the grader put in if there's minimal difference in the grades?  What use is this grading system in this context, if half of the potential grades are basically unachievable?

As to these grades, I do kinda half to laugh at the 5.0's.  So 4.7 - 5.0 is an A+, right?  Ok, so Joe Burrow gets the highest of highest A+'s, 100 out of 100.  I guess that's fair.  But then he turns around and assigns a 5.0 to Higgins too?  Even assigning him A+ is generous, but ok.  But he couldn't even make him like a 4.75 A+?

Again, why claim to use this detailed scale when every grade is higher than a B-?  Why use all round numbers if you claim that there are fractional ranges?  It's made to look like a detailed scoring range, yet the grades couldn't be lazier.

Whatever, I'm rambling again.  I just think draft grades are silly.  Just talk about the picks and say what you like or don't like about them.  Don't pretend to have actually graded these like a test.  And the fact remains, all of this is meaningless until about year 3.  

Sorry for the rant.

Damn straight!

Use a more realistic scale.

Personally I give our '20 draft class two-and-a-half boners.