Worst.. Rankings... Ever.... Seriously

The National Football Post top 100 prospects rankings are insane. Their "grading scale" must be picking names out of a hat or something. Among the more hilarious rankings:

Maurkice Pouncey 4th overall
Aaron Hernandez 6th overall
Jahvid Best 9th overall (ahead of Spiller)
John Jerry 14th overall
Matt Tennant, Jonathon Dwyer, and J.D. Walton ranked in the 20's (ahead of Sam Bradford!)
Jason Pierre-Paul #44 overall (behind Tony Moeaki and Anthony Dixon)
Taylor Mays, Carlos Dunlap, Anthony Davis, and Bruce Campbell ranked in the 60's (behind Ciron Black, Mike Johnson, and Jason Fox)
Everson Griffin, Golden Tate, and Trent Williams ranked in the 70's (Williams is behind Chris Scott)
Ryan Matthews ranked in the 80's

Did they forget that it's still a week before April Fool's Day?

about 2 years ago Brendan Scolari 29 comments 4 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This isn't to rank the best players on the board

They graded each player out on how good they are for their position….so it doesn’t seem an actual order of players

Jahvid Best is not above CJ Spiller…“B” comes before “S”…they’re both ranked as a 7.

I think you interpreted the chart wrong…..

DWTDD

by FreeBradshaw on Mar 26, 2010 4:28 PM EDT reply actions

That doesn't really change things

They clearly don’t understand positional ranking at least (An offensive lineman plays guard because he’s not good enough to play tackle). There’s no way John Jerry or Matt Tennant should be ranked ahead of the 1st round tackles, no matter the scale. Same with rating Chris Scott as high as Trent Williams, Williams is a much better prospect at any position on the line.

So if they are rating someone like Aaron Hernandez as a 7.5 (the highest grade given to anyone), shouldn’t he be a top 10 pick like Vernon Davis was? I don’t see how anyone can agree with their logic when most people have him as a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Hernandez does not deserve a “perfect ranking” at all.

And then they’ve still got completely non-sensical rankings like Jason Worilds and Daryl Washington rated higher than Jason Pierre-Paul, Vladimir Ducasse and Jason Fox ahead of Trent Williams and Anthony Davis, Marcus Easley and Carlton Mitchell rated higher than Golden Tate, Joquie Bell over Ryan Matthews, and a bunch more.

I’m all for a difference of opinions, but no one can honestly believe these rankings can they?

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 26, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

They are not taking into account position value

Its just a measure on how good the prospect played his respective position. Im not sure you understand the concept.

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 26, 2010 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand it fine, but It's a flawed concept

Just like grading leftfielders and centerfielders defensive capabilities differently in baseball would be a flawed concept. If player A is an average defensive centerfielder and player B is an average defensive leftfielder, then player A’s defense should be graded higher, for the simple reason that both positions take similiar skills but center is much harder to play. So if you moved player A to left field he would grade out as significantly higher defensively, artificially inflating his value.

Similiarly, someone like Trent Williams should not have his grade bumped up based on an arbitrary position we assign him (unless we are talking about an individual team’s draft board, because they can only plug him into their scheme), he should be graded based on his abilities as a whole. Ranking clearly inferior players above the better players because the inferior players aren’t good enough to play the tougher positions does not make any sense.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 27, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions

Its not a "flawed concept". It makes perfect sense if you take off the blinders

Yes this method does assume the player will play the same position as he transitions to the pros, but thats not really a huge flaw.

Its not a ranking (artificial rank of a players projected potential, adjusted for positional value) of players if you keep calling it that, you might as well stop trying to hurt your brain. Its a grading system that is suppose to reflect a players past performance based on his respective position.

Think about it like a final grade in a class. If I got an A in algebra, and you received a B in chemistry you cant start comparing these things. Its apples and oranges.

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 27, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

See below

Insulting someone is a poor way to debate.

Comparing offensive lineman is not apples and oranges. Trent Wiliams is better than some random guard prospect, period. Algebra and chemistry are only distantly related at best.

Yes this method does assume the player will play the same position as he transitions to the pros, but thats not really a huge flaw.

No, it is actually a huge flaw. Ciron Black is an average guard prospect, meaning he’d be a horrible tackle. Trent Williams is a very good tackle prospect, meaning he’d probably be a fantastic guard (he’s certainly worlds more talented than Ciron Black). Any grading system that grades Black ahead of Williams is both extremely flawed and meaningless.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 27, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

The grade is based on past performance for the 3rd time. If the guy played OG then he receives his grade based on how well he played that position. Its really that simple.

You are so adamant about the system being flawed because of a few guys that project to switch positions. Its almost like your gripe that you wont let go of. Its a grade its not flawless, its actually much more scientific than ranking a players earning potential.
But you love the rankings because its more arbitrary, and you cant show a minor glitch to wine about. You just say to yourself “well this guy is rank 5th in some guy’s list so he must be good”.

And please stop using the word prospect because prospect is a word that is connected when potential. So for the 4th time I will say the grades are based on what has already happed (the past). Prospect(ive) (potential) is based the future and its speculative.

Is either system perfect no, but they are both helpful. If I interview you for a job, I would consider your past performance in your previous position. But I would also need to consider how well I think you will do working for me in the future.

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 27, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

re:

You are so adamant about the system being flawed because of a few guys that project to switch positions.

That is not true. Did you read my previous comments? If so, you would see that is not my only complaint.

And then they’ve still got completely non-sensical rankings like Jason Worilds and Daryl Washington rated higher than Jason Pierre-Paul, Vladimir Ducasse and Jason Fox ahead of Trent Williams and Anthony Davis, Marcus Easley and Carlton Mitchell rated higher than Golden Tate, Joquie Bell over Ryan Matthews, and a bunch more.

These are guys projected to the same positions, how do you explain the laughably bad rankings? It doesn’t matter if the rankings ar ebased on the past or the future, these don’t make sense. Having Joquie Bell rated higher than Ryan Matthews based on the past or the future means your system is flawed.

But you love the rankings because its more arbitrary, and you cant show a minor glitch to wine about. You just say to yourself "well this guy is rank 5th in some guy’s list so he must be good".

What a ridiculous assumption to make. You have absolutely no clue about what I do, don’t pretend like you do.

And please stop using the word prospect because prospect is a word that is connected when potential.

Wow, are you serious dude? The title of that article is “NFP’s Top 100 Prospects”! What should I call them?!? It’s clearly grading prospects for the draft, so future importance should be what matters. Did Jason White and Troy Smith get top grades according to this grading system? If so, then it is flawed, period. That would be a college football article, not a draft article, because neither of them were very good prospects.

So for the 4th time I will say the grades are based on what has already happed (the past). Prospect(ive) (potential) is based the future and its speculative.

Yes, all I (and really anyone cares about when reading about the draft) is how a player will perform in the future. Tim Tebow was one of the greatest college players of all time, but who could care less (when we’re talking about the draft) if he can’t succeed in the NFL? Jason Pierre-Paul didn’t do much of anything in college, but any prospect list should have him up there because of what he could potentially do in the NFL.

Is either system perfect no, but they are both helpful.

No, in most cases rating players on such a simple grading scale for their past performance would be completely unhelpful. Just look at their stats (as long as they aren’t offensive lineman, obviously), you’d get a far more comprehensive feel for the player than reading one arbitrary number grade. And for the third time anyone reading a draft article cares about a player’s future performance, not the past.

If I interview you for a job, I would consider your past performance in your previous position. But I would also need to consider how well I think you will do working for me in the future.

If you consider past performance anywhere beyond how it effects future performance, then you would be a flawed interviewer as well. LT won’t help the Jets because he ran for 10,000 yards earlier in his career, all that matters is his skills relative to his peers now. Paying for past performance is a mistake, you pay for what a player will do in the future, and you definitely draft a player based on what he do in the future, anything else is beyond assinine.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 27, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions

WOW

HAHA

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 27, 2010 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Are you laughing 'cause you just got told and don't have a very good rebuttal?

by DJ C-Raig on Mar 28, 2010 4:27 AM EDT up reply actions

A straw man isnt a rebuttal

If you wish to inject something into the discussion please do. But Im not going to argue the validity of a grading system, because that neglects the whole freakin point of assigning a grade. If a grade is given to a particular sub set of individuals (or items), and the method for grading is consistent; then the results have to be at least factual and hold useful info.

This goes for anything, but its too simple for a narrow mind person to understand. Like steaks for example you have tenderlion and NY strip ect… (warning I am not a butcher its just an example)

Then you give grades to all the “cuts” grades say A through F

The above poster who wishes to argue that the grading system is flawed because a NY strip graded at a C is better than a tenderloin graded at a A would be less than intelligent because the point isnt to compare them its to grade them (each cut) relative to each other.

eg The person eating the steak knows a A grade tenderloin sucks compared with a C graded NY strip. Just like anyone here with a half a brain knows a OT with a low grade could very well be a better OL then a high graded OG.

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 30, 2010 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions

You're not getting it.

It doesn’t work for what you want to see. You’re looking for a “big board” or a chart that takes into account how good the player WILL be at the position he’s projected to go at. This chart evaluates how good they WERE at the position they actually played.

It’s saying that Player X, on a scale of 1-8 played the position of Y at a grade of Z efficiency.

If that’s not what you’re looking for, then don’t look at it. But it’s not flawed, it’s just not the kind of chart you want it to be. This chart is just meant to grade how much better a player was at his position than his peers at that position and how close he was to being perfect at playing that position.

Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!

by Alex on Mar 28, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

P.S...

You can disagree with some of their rankings, I do too. I’m only saying the system itself seems fine.

Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!

by Alex on Mar 28, 2010 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions

They aren't being ranked to compare them.

I disagree with their grading..but they’re grading them out on an individual basis.

That’s not a “Top 100 Big Board”.

It’s probably wrong to compile a list like that and put it out there…judging by your outlook, and the comments on that page…many took it the wrong way too.

It proably seems that way cuz the top 3 players seem to be everyone’s top 3 players anyway.

DWTDD

by FreeBradshaw on Mar 27, 2010 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't know how you can grade players and not compare them

That’s the sole point of having grades.

If you’ve graded Joquie Bell higher than Ryan Matthews then you think he’s a better player than Matthews, period.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 27, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Obviously you never went to school

The point of a grade is to assign a value for you past performance. Not to rank your potential with respect to your peers.

Take my electrical engineering class for example. I received a B, and my friend received a A. He worked really hard and actually went to class and studied; he deserves that GRADE because he EARNED it.

I on the other hand didnt go to class, and didnt study really. His grade is better than mine, but if you ranked our earning potential; that’s different.

IMO

by Foilhat on Mar 27, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

If you want a serious response

You can try to start off without insulting me.

by Brendan Scolari on Mar 27, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Putting all the players together in this list was foolish.

Foilhat and FB are right in what they are saying, but isn’t the point of a Top 100 list to rank the best to worst? The NFP completely botched this article. Confusing and misleading.

by NorthLeft12 on Mar 26, 2010 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I think misleading is the best way to describe it

I knew what I was looking at, and many others here did, but many, too, apparently didn’t.

by alwaysforgiven821 on Mar 29, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand the ranking...

…it’s the compilation of these rankings into one big list that makes this list kind of pointless (unless you want to rank each player’s respective “worth” to their position).

Individually ranking the positions is fine, except every position is graded on a different scale so as someone said before, putting them together doesn’t make sense.

by Richard Hill on Mar 27, 2010 4:12 PM EDT reply actions

"Compilation"

is probably the best explainaition.

Its not a ranking, its a compilation.

Brendan, if you look at the way he’s grading them….he’s not even grading players of the same position against each other!!!!

DWTDD

by FreeBradshaw on Mar 27, 2010 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

You can question the ratings of individual players...

but the system appears fine. I think it might be the left hand column that is giving you grief. Maurkice Pouncey is not the 4th best player in the draft. He is simply the Center with the highest potential to contribute at his position. If you were viewing it as a spreadsheet you could sort it by Position then Rank, which might make it clearer. It is a bit confusing, but lists like this are how a team would determine BPA.

Also you mentioned in comments before that all tackles would make great guards, but not the other way around. I would suggest that since a slightly different skill set is necessary for each position that is not the case.

by AussieBill on Mar 28, 2010 6:48 AM EDT reply actions