The team with the best draft by value in 2012 is the....

[jAZ]

... Pittsburgh Steelers. With KC coming in at #9 according to my calculations and the NFL.com player rating.



I ordered the players by the NFL.com player rating and subtracted their rating position from their draft position. The different between the two is a + number if they were drafted lower than their rating. It's a - number if they were drafted higher than their rating. The 3rd column is the sum total of + and - scores for each player drafted by each team.

Column #1 and #2 are the sum total and average of all player ratings by each team. So if a team drafted 8 players each with a 100 score, they would have 800 for column #1 and 100 for #2. If another team drafted 8 players each with a 50 score, then they would have 400 for #1 and 50 for #2.

[Bump]

that means absolutely nothing

[OnTheWarpath15]

You wasted a ton of time.

Probably should stick to DC.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You wasted a ton of time.

Probably should stick to DC.

Every post on this forum falls into this category. Thx.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Bump

that means absolutely nothing

So does every other form of analysis of the draft. It's all wild speculation. It's only interesting if you think its fun to think about these things. Don't take any of it seriously.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Bump

that means absolutely nothing

Welcome to statistics 101

[jAZ]

The results actually seemed somewhat intuitively reasonable. It's not saying that the Steelers had the best draft, that goes to the Colts because the team with Andrew Luck wins. This just says who did what with their position assuming that the NFL.com player ratings mean anything.

[Deberg_1990]

A Polar Bear fell on me....
Posted via Mobile Device

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

A Polar Bear fell on me....
Posted via Mobile Device

Oh shit. Are you OK?

[whoman69]

So if I understand your chart correctly, then only their relative rating is important for your ranking. I guess that would equalize for where they pick in the draft.

I knew the Pats would come up bad on any grading chart. They had a few players that were ranked very low in their draft position and a few that NFL didn't even have height and weight on. That makes me think they did a better job of scouting lesser known players, but they could have also gotten those players later in the draft then.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by whoman69

So if I understand your chart correctly, then only their relative rating is important for your ranking. I guess that would equalize for where they pick in the draft.

I knew the Pats would come up bad on any grading chart. They had a few players that were ranked very low in their draft position and a few that NFL didn't even have height and weight on. That makes me think they did a better job of scouting lesser known players, but they could have also gotten those players later in the draft then.

Yep. Column #3 is the interesting part. And if the Pats (or any team) reached on players (based on the grading by NFL.com) they would end up lower on the list.

[L.A. Chieffan]

I think a lot of teams pick some random guy in the later rounds that nobody has ever heard of so they can validate themselves. Long was Piolis guy

[patteeu]

Good job, jAZ.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You wasted a ton of time.

Probably should stick to DC.

Really? You're calling someone out for doing an interesting and transparent analysis instead of the typical baseless opinions we get from people pretending to be NFL talent gurus?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Good job, jAZ.



Really? You're calling someone out for doing an interesting and transparent analysis instead of the typical baseless opinions we get from people pretending to be NFL talent gurus?

You're right.

I shouldn't be calling him out.

I should be asking him to do the same thing with Mike Mayock's rankings.

And then Todd McShay's.

And then Mel Kiper's.

And then Russ Lande's.

And then Scott Wright's.

And then, see what we learn.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You're right.

I shouldn't be calling him out.

I should be asking him to do the same thing with Mike Mayock's rankings.

And then Todd McShay's.

And then Mel Kiper's.

And then Russ Lande's.

And then Scott Wright's.

And then, see what we learn.

Or you could do that.