4 NFL Scouts Rate The Players

[Chiefnj2]

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.

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're a dick

That's pretty rich coming from the King of Assholeland.

[Chiefnj2]

Why do the drafturbators act like insecure women? They are all catty and defensive all the time.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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]

Originally Posted by philfree

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



PhilFree

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

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by philfree

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

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]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

But FOUR unnamed scouts out of hundreds said it.

That MUST carry some weight, right?

translated:

hisss, someone prettier walked into the room.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by philfree

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

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]

Originally Posted by philfree

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


PhilFree

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]

Originally Posted by melbar

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

That's pretty rich coming from the King of Assholeland.

**** you, n00b.

Everyone knows I'm an asshole.

I only found out recently that Phil was a dick.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.