PDA

View Full Version : 4 NFL Scouts Rate The Players


Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 10:22 AM
http://spartannation.com/?p=6083

Four of my friends who are NFL scouts (or personnel people) agreed to give me their top twenty players at this point of the off-season process leading up to the draft. They represent four different teams.

I will keep each of their identities confidential as you can imagine that their respective teams wouldn’t appreciate their participation in this endeavor. All I asked from them was that they give me their personal top twenty and why they like them. I weighed all four lists and put them in the appropriate order.

This list is not the order that I think they will be drafted, it is simply four men who get paid to do this for a living and who they think are the best twenty. I will also post early in the week something that we have never had before. We will have a list of the top three players at all positions other than the special teams.

I will also have them all give me a mock first round draft for each team, as the draft gets closer. Obviously they know other teams better than any of us, so I have asked each for their mock draft and why they think each team does what. As with this list, I will weigh each of their picks and see if there is consensus on what they think. I will (as similar to this list) post at least one of their comments about each pick.

One scout had an interesting take last year that I want to share with all of you about the draft process. He said, “The way we draft is what do we need and who on the board at the time we pick fits a need the best. For example, Calvin Johnson was the best player in the draft on our board last year but had we been Detroit we wouldn’t have taken him. With the huge needs at offensive tackle and middle backer, we would have taken Joe Thomas or Patrick Willis. Both had Pro Bowl seasons. Now some pundits would have said those guys would have been too high of picks for the money (and we would have tried trading down) but would the Lions have been better off with either those two than Calvin? I sure think so. We draft (and have been successful) at picking guys that meet needs with priority given to lineman if we have a need there. I based my list on who best fits needs.”

Here are some interesting stats about the list. All four scouts say that they place a high importance on a pure franchise QB (of which none listed any QB as a top notch franchise pick such as Peyton Manning) and on offensive and defensive lines. Cornerback was also a position of high value. Something I learned was that offensive tackles, defensive tackles, defensive ends and cornerbacks all had a higher point of value (other than a sure fire franchise QB) to all four of our contributors.

Although I may not agree with this list, but over the years we have posted them, they have been extremely accurate and correct. I thank each of the men in advance.

Here is how the top twenty broke down as far as position.


Defensive Line 7
Offensive Line 4
Defensive Back 1
Running Back 1
Line Backer 3
Quarterback 0
Wide Receiver 3
Tight End 1

Click the link to see the top 20 players.

DTLB58
04-13-2009, 10:34 AM
A TE at #6?

And ahead of Crabtree, Interesting.

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 11:04 AM
Lots of guys from the 15-20 range with off-field concerns/risks.

kcbubb
04-13-2009, 11:12 AM
how do 4 different guys have one list?

philfree
04-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Thanks Chiefnj, that's the kind of stuff I come to Chiefs Planet for. Makes me wonder if we're are misjudging Orakpo because he plays at Texas. Although it was mentioned I think he just moved up my draft board so to speak.


PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
04-13-2009, 11:21 AM
Imagine an NFL scout saying that Curry can play all the LB possition in a 4-3 or a 3-4 defense. I know, I know people on the chiefs planet who live in there parents basements know better.


PhilFree:arrow:

dirk digler
04-13-2009, 11:26 AM
Interesting information thanks.

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2009, 11:26 AM
how do 4 different guys have one list?

It's a secret.

CoMoChief
04-13-2009, 11:28 AM
Hmm, wonder why no Qb's were scouted by this goup? Maybe because it's a down year for Qb's?

philfree
04-13-2009, 11:39 AM
Hmm, wonder why no Qb's were scouted by this goup? Maybe because it's a down year for Qb's?

I think they scouted them they just don't see them as top 20 prspects.

Most people will notice that there are no QB’s in the top twenty according to these four gentlemen. Last year they only had one listed and he did well: Matt Ryan. I asked them to let me know why none of the QB’s made there top twenty, specifically Stafford and Sanchez and I selected one each for them.



Matt Stafford QB Georgia Scouts Take: “Stafford sure looks the part, but when you watch him he took steps back against better competition. With Ryan last year you saw that the guys around him struggled against better teams, but he didn’t. Stafford takes a step back and although he looks the part, so did Joey Harrington.”



Mark Sanchez QB USC Scouts Take: “We like Sanchez better than Stafford. He has all the tools and although we still don’t see him as a first round guy, we think he has much more upside over Stafford. At SC he was always on the field with superior talent. Can he make the reads and plays when he is on the field with essentially equal talent? Won’t be able to force throws against better competition.”



PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 11:44 AM
It's a secret.

Or he averaged together the lists:

"I weighed all four lists and put them in the appropriate order."

Duck Dog
04-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Hmm, wonder why no Qb's were scouted by this goup? Maybe because it's a down year for Qb's?

They were scouted they just didn't make the top 20.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Imagine an NFL scout saying that Curry can play all the LB possition in a 4-3 or a 3-4 defense. I know, I know people on the chiefs planet who live in there parents basements know better.


PhilFree:arrow:

You're a dick

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 11:52 AM
How can this be possible?

No Clay Mathews, Jr. on the list.

ROFL

CupidStunt
04-13-2009, 11:56 AM
Imagine an NFL scout saying that Curry can play all the LB possition in a 4-3 or a 3-4 defense. I know, I know people on the chiefs planet who live in there parents basements know better.


PhilFree:arrow:

:LOL:

Mr. Krab
04-13-2009, 11:58 AM
You're a dick
That's pretty rich coming from the King of Assholeland.

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 11:58 AM
Why do the drafturbators act like insecure women? They are all catty and defensive all the time.

Reaper16
04-13-2009, 11:59 AM
One scout had an interesting take last year that I want to share with all of you about the draft process. He said, “The way we draft is what do we need and who on the board at the time we pick fits a need the best. For example, Calvin Johnson was the best player in the draft on our board last year but had we been Detroit we wouldn’t have taken him. With the huge needs at offensive tackle and middle backer, we would have taken Joe Thomas or Patrick Willis. Both had Pro Bowl seasons. Now some pundits would have said those guys would have been too high of picks for the money (and we would have tried trading down) but would the Lions have been better off with either those two than Calvin? I sure think so. We draft (and have been successful) at picking guys that meet needs with priority given to lineman if we have a need there. I based my list on who best fits needs.”

Well, we can completely discount the rankings from one of the scouts. I guarantee this guy works for one of this shitty franchises in the NFL. This is not a Colts or Steelers employee, no way.

ChiefsCountry
04-13-2009, 12:00 PM
Why do the drafturbators act like insecure women? They are all catty and defensive all the time.

Thats funny considering you are using a term from one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet.

Reaper16
04-13-2009, 12:00 PM
I think they scouted them they just don't see them as top 20 prspects.



PhilFree:arrow:
That report on Sanchez is so dumb. "Equal talent" my ass.

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 12:01 PM
Imagine an NFL scout saying that Curry can play all the LB possition in a 4-3 or a 3-4 defense. I know, I know people on the chiefs planet who live in there parents basements know better.


PhilFree:arrow:

I don't doubt that they'll say it. But it's not their money that the Chiefs would be gambling with, now is it?

How many of the people that are against drafting Curry have said ANYTHING definitive about him? The answer is nobody. He COULD play any of the LB positions. And he COULD cure AIDS tomorrow. Without any historical evidence to support it, other than his workouts, it's not a gamble some of us are willing to take.

That doesn't say anything about what we think he can or can't do in the future. It's about getting value out of the #3 overall pick.

philfree
04-13-2009, 12:02 PM
I don't doubt that they'll say it. But it's not their money that the Chiefs would be gambling with, now is it?

How many of the people that are against drafting Curry have said ANYTHING definitive about him? The answer is nobody. He COULD play any of the LB positions. And he COULD cure AIDS tomorrow. Without any historical evidence to support it, other than his workouts, it's not a gamble some of us are willing to take.

That doesn't say anything about what we think he can or can't do in the future. It's about getting value out of the #3 overall pick.


Who's the better value again in the 2009 draft?


PhilFree:arrow:

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't doubt that they'll say it. But it's not their money that the Chiefs would be gambling with, now is it?

How many of the people that are against drafting Curry have said ANYTHING definitive about him? The answer is nobody. He COULD play any of the LB positions. And he COULD cure AIDS tomorrow. Without any historical evidence to support it, other than his workouts, it's not a gamble some of us are willing to take.

That doesn't say anything about what we think he can or can't do in the future. It's about getting value out of the #3 overall pick.

But FOUR unnamed scouts out of hundreds said it.

That MUST carry some weight, right?

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 12:09 PM
But FOUR unnamed scouts out of hundreds said it.

That MUST carry some weight, right?

translated:

hisss, someone prettier walked into the room.

melbar
04-13-2009, 12:11 PM
Thanks Chiefnj, that's the kind of stuff I come to Chiefs Planet for. Makes me wonder if we're are misjudging Orakpo because he plays at Texas. Although it was mentioned I think he just moved up my draft board so to speak.


PhilFree:arrow:

Same here. MY concern with Orakpo is injury. He seems to always have some little nicks etc as is the case useually with the "gym rats". I Dont get that he's a Gholston though.

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 12:14 PM
Who's the better value again in the 2009 draft?


PhilFree:arrow:

I want to trade down, but since I know you're going to introduce the "we can't trade down" hypothetical like always, I'll play.

Sanchez and Stafford for sure.

I've also moved Raji out and replace him with Crabtree. So there's 3 I'd take before Curry.

Reaper16
04-13-2009, 12:16 PM
Same here. MY concern with Orakpo is injury. He seems to always have some little nicks etc as is the case useually with the "gym rats". I Dont get that he's a Gholston though.
Nobody knows what Gholston is in the first place. He was grossly misused last year, much like Glenn Dorsey was.

DaneMcCloud
04-13-2009, 12:20 PM
That's pretty rich coming from the King of Assholeland.

Fuck you, n00b.

Everyone knows I'm an asshole.

I only found out recently that Phil was a dick.

melbar
04-13-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't doubt that they'll say it. But it's not their money that the Chiefs would be gambling with, now is it?

How many of the people that are against drafting Curry have said ANYTHING definitive about him? The answer is nobody. He COULD play any of the LB positions. And he COULD cure AIDS tomorrow. Without any historical evidence to support it, other than his workouts, it's not a gamble some of us are willing to take.

That doesn't say anything about what we think he can or can't do in the future. It's about getting value out of the #3 overall pick.

I think the point most of us have made is that the value has to be measured against the other players in THIS draft. I get the concern about rushing, but again if you watch the tape most of the time he was double teamed and they ran away from him. We need a rusher, but the questions with the few 1st round rushers are more numerous where as Curry is pretty solid in every aspect and you're just not sure about 1 phase.

melbar
04-13-2009, 12:24 PM
Nobody knows what Gholston is in the first place. He was grossly misused last year, much like Glenn Dorsey was.

I'm not gonna disagree. I hope he does well and improves. Thats not to say that he doesnt share a lot of that blame. Ryan said that he still has motivational issues. I still dont think he was a better pick than Ryan, Long, Long, or Dorsey last year. You just dont take a player who has lazy lapses on the field that high. He certainly has the talent though.

Reaper16
04-13-2009, 12:26 PM
I'm not gonna disagree. I hope he does well and improves. Thats not to say that he doesnt share a lot of that blame. Ryan said that he still has motivational issues. I still dont think he was a better pick than Ryan, Long, Long, or Dorsey last year. You just dont take a player who has lazy lapses on the field that high. He certainly has the talent though.
I can't disagree.

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 12:38 PM
I think the point most of us have made is that the value has to be measured against the other players in THIS draft. I get the concern about rushing, but again if you watch the tape most of the time he was double teamed and they ran away from him. We need a rusher, but the questions with the few 1st round rushers are more numerous where as Curry is pretty solid in every aspect and you're just not sure about 1 phase.

If you value your pick against the other players in THIS draft, then you've already diminished the value of YOUR player.

"Well, he's not great, but he's better than the rest of this heap."

Better than "bad" does not equal "good".

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 12:50 PM
This was the compilation of the 4 scouts last year:

1. Jake Long OT UM Drafted 1st.
2. Chris Long DE Virginia drafted 2nd
3. Glen Dorsey DT LSU Drafted 5th
4. Darren McFadden RB ARK Drafted 4th
5. Vernon Gholston DE OSU Drafted 6th
6. Aqib Talib CB Kansas Drafted 20th
7. Sedrick Ellis DT USC Drafted 7th
8. Branden Albert OL Virginia Drafted 15th
9. Derrick Harvey DE Florida Drafted 8th
10. Ryan Clady OT Boise State Drafted 12th.
11. Chris Williams OT Vanderbilt Drafted 14th
12. Rashard Mendenhall RB ILL Drafted 23rd
13. Leodis McKelvin DB Troy Drafted 11th
14. Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie CB Tennessee State Drafted 16th
15. Phillip Merling DE Clemson Drafted 32nd
16. Devin Thomas WR Michigan State Drafted 34th
17. Jerod Mayo LB Tennessee Drafted 10th
18. Jeff Otah OT Pittsburgh Drafted 19th
19. Mike Jenkins CB South Florida Drafted 25th
20. Matt Ryan QB BC Taken 3rd.

16 were taken in the top 20.
2 between 20 and 25.
2 came in at 32nd, 34th.

CoMoChief
04-13-2009, 01:01 PM
They were scouted they just didn't make the top 20.

And why's that? BECAUSE SANCHEZ SUCKS!!!!!!

FD
04-13-2009, 01:01 PM
Apparently Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe are football players. Interesting analysis.

philfree
04-13-2009, 01:17 PM
I want to trade down, but since I know you're going to introduce the "we can't trade down" hypothetical like always, I'll play.

Sanchez and Stafford for sure.

I've also moved Raji out and replace him with Crabtree. So there's 3 I'd take before Curry.

I've posted I'd like to trade down too but if that don't work out then we'll be picking at #3. The bolded part is a fair answer. It scares me paying that much guaranteed money to a guy who just had a screw put in his foot. I like Crabtree though. Of course you know how I feel about Sanchex and since we have Cassel I don't see us taking Stafford. Those guys are good trade bait though. No Raji at #3 either. To me if we can't trade down it's Curry. And I'd really like to trade down. But if we can't I think Curry will be a very good player and he has the upside of being great. I'm also really intrigued with Andre Smith as a RT prospect even though he'd be high dollar for that position. And then there's Orakpo. Who ever we pick I'l try and be open minded about it.

PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
04-13-2009, 01:23 PM
If you value your pick against the other players in THIS draft, then you've already diminished the value of YOUR player.

"Well, he's not great, but he's better than the rest of this heap."

Better than "bad" does not equal "good".


I'd like a more in depth explanation of that. I want to be sure I understand what you are saying and what the value of the players in the 2009 draft are measured to.


PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 01:55 PM
I've posted I'd like to trade down too but if that don't work out then we'll be picking at #3. The bolded part is a fair answer. It scares me paying that much guaranteed money to a guy who just had a screw put in his foot. I like Crabtree though. Of course you know how I feel about Sanchex and since we have Cassel I don't see us taking Stafford. Those guys are good trade bait though. No Raji at #3 either. To me if we can't trade down it's Curry. And I'd really like to trade down. But if we can't I think Curry will be a very good player and he has the upside of being great. I'm also really intrigued with Andre Smith as a RT prospect even though he'd be high dollar for that position. And then there's Orakpo.

I guess I'd rather have Curry over Orakpo (he's got bust written all over him) or another LT (I don't want to move Albert for any reason). But that's about it. I'd be inclined to take SIGNIFCANTLY less than draft chart value to trade down at this point, that's how much the top of this draft means to me.

Who ever we pick I'l try and be open minded about it.

Now this I can agree with.

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 01:56 PM
I'd like a more in depth explanation of that. I want to be sure I understand what you are saying and what the value of the players in the 2009 draft are measured to.


PhilFree:arrow:

They HAVE to be measured to all of the drafts that preceeded them, or at least the most recent drafts that reflect the latest historical trends.

philfree
04-13-2009, 02:21 PM
They HAVE to be measured to all of the drafts that preceeded them, or at least the most recent drafts that reflect the latest historical trends.


I don't think one can just ignore the actual players in the draft to make their selection. We'll find out soon enough but there's a good chance that Curry is picked in the top five of this draft. You don't think there is a chance that Curry will go in the top five? There's a pretty good chance that what happens in the top of this draft won't immulate history to a "T".


PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
04-13-2009, 02:34 PM
I don't think one can just ignore the actual players in the draft to make their selection.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm only saying that you have to evaluate them compared to not only this draft, but previous drafts as well. If the most physically talented player in this draft were a TE or FB, would you take them in the Top 5? Because that's precisely what is being talked about here.

We'll find out soon enough but there's a good chance that Curry is picked in the top five of this draft. You don't think there is a chance that Curry will go in the top five? There's a pretty good chance that what happens in the top of this draft won't immulate history to a "T".

I absolutely think some team will be taking him Top 5. And 4 years from now, the fans will be bitching about it, just like DJ.

Mecca
04-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Apparently Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe are football players. Interesting analysis.

I'd hope so, I mean I'd hope I wasn't drafting a chimney sweep.

And that Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Pat Willis thing is mind numbing. If that guy really thinks that he's a dolt.

Chiefnj2
04-13-2009, 04:56 PM
I'd hope so, I mean I'd hope I wasn't drafting a chimney sweep.

And that Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Pat Willis thing is mind numbing. If that guy really thinks that he's a dolt.

A LOT isn't more valuable than a WR?

Mecca
04-13-2009, 04:57 PM
Depends on the WR...Calvin Johnson no, Calvin Johnson is a once in 20 years type of prospect.

If you haven't noticed the LT position is seeing alot of top prospects every year now.

JohnnyV13
04-14-2009, 01:04 PM
I agree with Mecca on this one. Calvin Johnson is the sort of WR i've never seen. I mean 239 AND runs under 4.4? That's sick.

He's also got rare agility for a guy his size. To put this in perspective, CJ is 239 and Shannon Sharpe went 228.

Saccopoo
04-14-2009, 01:27 PM
I agree with Mecca on this one. Calvin Johnson is the sort of WR i've never seen. I mean 239 AND runs under 4.4? That's sick.

He's also got rare agility for a guy his size. To put this in perspective, CJ is 239 and Shannon Sharpe went 228.

Add to that, considering that drafting Calvin Johnson essentially allowed Detroit to trade Roy Williams for a 1st, 3rd and 5th round pick, and Calvin Johnson is already the best "drafted" wide receiver of recent history.

He's also the reason why Detroit takes Stafford. You don't piss away talent like that by not having a decent quarterback throwing to him. That is, unless people in Detroit think Drew Stanton can be that guy, and if that's the case, the Chiefs just got a bit more leverage with their #3 pick in a potential trade situation.

Although, as a side note, Detroit drafting Mike Williams was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a team do in the draft.

Chiefnj2
04-14-2009, 01:35 PM
I agree with Mecca on this one. Calvin Johnson is the sort of WR i've never seen. I mean 239 AND runs under 4.4? That's sick.

He's also got rare agility for a guy his size. To put this in perspective, CJ is 239 and Shannon Sharpe went 228.

I was surprised to see Mecca say you take Johnson over Thomas because he has been a big proponent of various "positional value" arguments. Obviously a LOT is worth more than a WR to 99% of people.

Buehler445
04-14-2009, 02:18 PM
I was surprised to see Mecca say you take Johnson over Thomas because he has been a big proponent of various "positional value" arguments. Obviously a LOT is worth more than a WR to 99% of people.

Johnson was an amazing prospect. Go back and look at his numbers. And those were with REGGIE FUCKING BALL throwing to him
I saw him run a 5 and out and Ball thew a terrible ball low and WAYYY behind him. He was able to stop, change his momentum, dive the OTHER way (back inside) and get the ball off of the ground. That was amazing. I've never seen anything like that.
Posted via Mobile Device

B_Ambuehl
04-14-2009, 03:19 PM
You guys are missing the scout's point. Shitty teams build their team from the outside in. Good teams build their club from the inside out. He acknowledged Calvin Johnson was the best player in the draft, but for a team like detroit he was a luxury pick....especially when you already had a pro bowl level receiver in Roy Williams. That team had far too many holes...A WR can't do anythign for you unless you have an O-line and QB. As it is he's been there for 2 years and hasn't helped them win any games. If he were that good shouldn't they be able to win 1 freaking game? With Joe Thomas the running game immediately gets better, the QB gets better and the receivers get better. With Pat Willis the defense as a whole would be a lot better. In fact, the front office and coach that drafted him (Johnson) have now been run out of town, proving his point exactly. By the time that ball club gets to a level where CJ can actually help them his contract will be up.