@wargograw said:

NFL.com was using a different rating system starting in 2013. So how do you know he's not even better than the 2012 guys?

They haven't had anybody graded as a generational prospect since 2013, and it's kind of not even close. 2012 and 2013 were bad years for some guys that were supposed to be borderline generational players - Joeckel, Fisher, Richardson, etc.

After that, they changed their scales and haven't rated anyone above "Pro Bowler" (which could be argued as the 85-95 tier on their old scale).

EDIT: whoops, you were talking about Mitch.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Being that these grades are set on a standard score system for the past 4 years and that Trubisky (as it stands now) has the highest score among ALL QB's since Luck/RG3, I'm not sure how we can rationalize passing on him at #1....save for him measuring in at 6'0", running a 5.5 40 and piecing together two terrible throwing workouts.

@cainedesoulis said:

NFL.com was using a different rating system starting in 2013. So how do you know he's not even better than the 2012 guys?

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

I wish it weren't the case because I really want Garrett, but if Trubisky has even a meh combine showing, we probably have to take him.

Pretty sure if he tests positive for meth at the combine tha...

Oh... nevermind...

@texasag1969 said:

I'll give us a pass on Dak fot a couple reasons...

• the DUI... thanks to your boy we only go after choir boys now.
• lack of continuity... the way to have seen through the DUI and then be able to appreciate Dak the player, was to have watched him grow over a three-year period. It was his trajectory that took me from "like the player" to this guy has a real chance to be something. Out FO certainly was not in that position. Hue? With Andy as starter on AJ McC on deck, I doubt he was looking very hard.

As for Clowney...he's like a stock market relief rally. When the bad news slows and the market turns it often feels a lot better than it really is. Jadaveon had a good year, not a great one. If we go Garrett, you'd better hope he comes out of the gate than Clowney's third season.

I'd add a bold-faced, all-caps "we know where you live," but Z just addressed that in his quarterly dressing down of Ghoolie... Timing is everything

@wargograw said:

By less than a tenth of a point - Tunsil was a 7.61, Garrett is a 7.63. Nothing in that grade points to Garrett being a truly game-changing, can't miss, you're stupid if you don't take this guy prospect.

For reference, the grading tiers on NFL.com state the 7.5 - 7.99 tier as a "Future All-Pro". Impressive, absolutely. But they still have two higher tiers, 8-9 being a "Perennial All Pro" while 9-10 is "Once-In-A-Lifetime" player. Nobody has scratched those tiers under this new grading scale - meaning that Garrett isn't far removed as a prospect from Leonard Williams or Laremy Tunsil, according to NFL.com.

Given the choice, I'd still select Wentz over Tunsil or Winston over Williams.

Being that these grades are set on a standard score system for the past 4 years and that Trubisky (as it stands now) has the highest score among ALL QB's since Luck/RG3, I'm not sure how we can rationalize passing on him at #1....save for him measuring in at 6'0", running a 5.5 40 and piecing together two terrible throwing workouts.

I wish it weren't the case because I really want Garrett, but if Trubisky has even a meh combine showing, we probably have to take him.

And as for the QB ratings Prescott only got 5.4, but some of us here were saying early on before the draft that he had that one great intangible, a proven winner under pressure. How the Browns QB guru missed that and took a huge leap for Kessler is still totally baffling to me. It's why I have little faith in Hugh and the FO.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

I still think Garrett should have a higher grade or we need to stop throwing around the "generational" tag so willy nilly when it comes to him.

Isn't this the highest grade in years?

@cainedesoulis said:

Are you saying they are coming too frequently to be "generational"?

If so then I'd argue they are not the same player... some not the same position. Similarities pretty much start and end with Garrett and Clowney. Williams is a different breed of DE.

Winston 6.7 pick 1,1
​Mariota 6.2 pick 1,2

​2014
Bortles 6.2 pick 1,3
Teddy b. 6.1
​Carr 6.1
Manziel 6.1

And you can bet some actual grades will change when more information about character or injury becomes known. Not to mention how much the lesser known and small school types will change things. At first glance most of the players picked to play in the Senior and NFLPA bowls weren't graded yet, including a handful of guys who could go as high as the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

That said, even as a Bengal fan I've got to say that's an interesting grade on Trubisky. The Browns taking Garrett 1st overall seems almost written in stone. Change that and everything that follows gets a good hard shaking, including the Bengals pick at #9 and obviously the Browns pick at #12.

BTW if I were a Browns fan....(dizzy).....I'd be sweating bullets wondering if teams like Arizona, Buffalo, etc. would trade to get above #12. Carson Palmer's butter-soft vagina has taken a beating and he's talking about retirement again.

@umadogg1 said:

Point being, it's early and those grades and rankings will probably change dozens of times in the coming months.

Pretty sure the "grades" do not change once they are set, but it is something to watch.

As for your list of ungraded prospects... stay tuned. Last year over 500 prospects were graded, so far this year, 273.

Point being, it's early and those grades and rankings will probably change dozens of times in the coming months.

"Scouts are convinced he took plays off to protect his health this season."

Does he take plays off? I'd say so. But not for that reason.

@calfoxwc said:

I don't believe these grades take into account work ethic, love for the game,

character....

but here's a really high grade on.... Trent Richardson...

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/trent-richardson?id=2533032

But you do? NFL talks to people that know the kids as well as the kids themselves. And yourself?

@tour2ma said:

Yay, I guess?

@calfoxwc said:

Great question.... bad example...

googling my ass off and cannot find any links to NFL.com's grade methodology. Feel it has to be "a panel".... Probably has to have evaluation categories and criteria... and then involves some averaging process, but can't confirm anything.

TR's primary issue was field vision. At BAMA the holes were there a very percentage of the time and masked that. As he learned they were not where they were drawn up to be with us, he lost confidence to the point where he slowed down. Then even if a hole was there, he did not hit it hard enough.

Bottom line: I did not see lack of work ethic; I saw lack of a key attribute.

@gftchris said:

Just change the year in the URL

2016 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

2015 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

2014 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

Handy tip... here's a "Best Answer" for your troubles...

@ballpeen said:

+1 my man. This draft in terms of #1 pick through the eyes of essentially everyone who works this stuff is Garrett followed by everyone else. Garrett can easily be a game changing player, a strong position of need, and is ours for the taking.

Don't fuck this up, draft the best player and put him to work.

@ghoolie said:

Plus we always have room on the T-shirt.

@richiswhere said:

@tour2ma said:

Try googling the year you are interested in plus "draft tracker"...

I know 2016 draft tracker turned up the nfl.com link: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

There may be more years...

Just change the year in the URL

2016 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

2015 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade

2014 - http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-grade