Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2008 Draft Grades for the Broncos-*updated*-Updated at 45th pick. Current Grade: D+

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What I find hilarious is if the Broncos drafted Orakpo at 12 and then Brace/Gilbert/Moala everyone would be signing their praises. But because they drafted based on talent, and not just need, they are blasted by the talking heads. It is a joke. I do think some of the trades are suspect and not every stone was unturned during the draft. Still I can't fault the FO too much because I believe we got the best talent for the team over the long term.
    http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...uff/hillis.gif

    Comment


    • amateur kibitz hour

      It's not impossible to draw some preliminary conclusions at this point but the instant draft analysis being done by the myriad draftnik sites goes beyond absurd.

      These sites don't have the resources to conduct thorough player evaluations so they're merely poseurs pretending to grasp a subject they're not well placed to understand.

      Evaluating draft position for an entire draft is a fool's game; it's partly an intractable problem. It's like second guessing the decision of every buyer in a given market. It presumes to know more about every buyer's decision than they do, and without the massive resources that they devote to their decisions.

      Draft decisions don't occur under a consistent set of criteria. There are different goals involved in different decisions, and no single grading system reflects the heterogeneity of these criteria. The creation of a single number line with A, B, C, etc., is a mathematical nicety. And whiz kids will get this point but many of you will struggle with it. This is more an apples and oranges type of situation; the best apple is a poor orange, and vice versa.

      Evaluating at this point is merely a repetition of previous pre-draft opinions. Wouldn't you want to wait and ACTUALLY see what the results were before issuing a grade. There's a subtle psychological game going on here. Pre-draft opinions (which can be utterly erroneous) are immediately followed by post-draft grades (which can still be utterly erroneous) pronouncing the failure or success of the team's draft, but the problem is that the grading scale itself has never been proved to have any validity whatsoever.

      There's a specific problem that occurs within this article that tells me that the author doesn't understand the draft. Specifically, there is a draft fallacy that says that 'addressing a need is the same as meeting a need.' Moreover, the pronouncement of "doesn't understand the assignment" ignores the Ayers pick and two 2nd round picks on defense. The expectation is that the only thing you have to do is 'address a need' in order to reach maximum utility, is a very poor understanding of the draft process. This was not a good year for NTs and DE34s so we weren't likely to find many of them, and drafting the the lesser talents at a too high position is akin to winning in a Keynesian Beauty Contest, which is actually the equivalent of losing.

      We didn't want to over-pay for 3-4 talent just because they fit our system, and taking someone just because they have a defensive player tag next to their name is foolish. The Broncos braintrust (McXanders) did a very good job of eliminating our needs (in part ) through free agency and our draft strategy was guided by an 'impact' criteria (i.e., can they play or contribute?). We didn't want to be put in a situation of 'forcing' decisions because the prospective draftee played in our area of needs. It's not that needs don't play into the draft decision, but if you're drafting weak talent because a player plays in an area of need then you're merely doubling the amount of weak talent in that area.
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. - Louis Armstrong
      sigpic

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Max Power View Post
        No they didn't, not to me at least. Jarvis Moss was widely seen as a project because of his size (or lack thereof). Crowder seemed like more of a sure thing in that he is big and can hold up against the run, and he did some good things his rookie season. I've written off Moss, but I still have hope for Crowder.
        Th worst part of drafting Moss is that Denver actually traded up to get him! So much for the idea that trading up is always a good idea.
        I still have faint hopes for Moss as an outside linebacked too!

        Comment


        • Thats amazing, an F when Vic Carucci at NFL.com has us drafting the number 1 impact rookie in Ayers and number 5 in Moreno. http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09...s&confirm=true
          I don't put a lot of faith in the "experts" they wanted us to jump up and take sanchez. I think the only way they would have been happy is if we traded our whole draft and both of next years 1's to get sanchez, raji and jackson. i think McD and Xand did a great job with the draft. i didn't like the trades except the one for smith but they did what they felt was needed to get the players they wanted. I would give us an A for the first round and B- for the whole draft.

          Comment


          • F stands for FANTASTIC right???

            sigpic

            I adopt andrewmlb.

            Comment


            • well... if we would have moved up by say trading the #12 and a 3rd rounder to jacksonville, and grabbed raji, i guess the draft grade would have been a lot higher

              Comment


              • Originally posted by colinski View Post
                It's not impossible to draw some preliminary conclusions at this point but the instant draft analysis being done by the myriad draftnik sites goes beyond absurd.

                These sites don't have the resources to conduct thorough player evaluations so they're merely poseurs pretending to grasp a subject they're not well placed to understand.

                Evaluating draft position for an entire draft is a fool's game; it's partly an intractable problem. It's like second guessing the decision of every buyer in a given market. It presumes to know more about every buyer's decision than they do, and without the massive resources that they devote to their decisions.

                Draft decisions don't occur under a consistent set of criteria. There are different goals involved in different decisions, and no single grading system reflects the heterogeneity of these criteria. The creation of a single number line with A, B, C, etc., is a mathematical nicety. And whiz kids will get this point but many of you will struggle with it. This is more an apples and oranges type of situation; the best apple is a poor orange, and vice versa.

                Evaluating at this point is merely a repetition of previous pre-draft opinions. Wouldn't you want to wait and ACTUALLY see what the results were before issuing a grade. There's a subtle psychological game going on here. Pre-draft opinions (which can be utterly erroneous) are immediately followed by post-draft grades (which can still be utterly erroneous) pronouncing the failure or success of the team's draft, but the problem is that the grading scale itself has never been proved to have any validity whatsoever.

                There's a specific problem that occurs within this article that tells me that the author doesn't understand the draft. Specifically, there is a draft fallacy that says that 'addressing a need is the same as meeting a need.' Moreover, the pronouncement of "doesn't understand the assignment" ignores the Ayers pick and two 2nd round picks on defense. The expectation is that the only thing you have to do is 'address a need' in order to reach maximum utility, is a very poor understanding of the draft process. This was not a good year for NTs and DE34s so we weren't likely to find many of them, and drafting the the lesser talents at a too high position is akin to winning in a Keynesian Beauty Contest, which is actually the equivalent of losing.

                We didn't want to over-pay for 3-4 talent just because they fit our system, and taking someone just because they have a defensive player tag next to their name is foolish. The Broncos braintrust (McXanders) did a very good job of eliminating our needs (in part ) through free agency and our draft strategy was guided by an 'impact' criteria (i.e., can they play or contribute?). We didn't want to be put in a situation of 'forcing' decisions because the prospective draftee played in our area of needs. It's not that needs don't play into the draft decision, but if you're drafting weak talent because a player plays in an area of need then you're merely doubling the amount of weak talent in that area.
                I must say that I'm not easily impressed (Especially on this site). However, I am very impressed with your argument and reasoning. Its appreciated :salute!:

                Comment

                Working...
                X