Bengals draft review

[PAjwPhilly]

(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?