The Chart of Picks By Team Is Complete

Now, you can view every pick your team made, along with our grade of the player, in one handy spreadsheet.

Don’t lose too much heart if we have a “N/A” grade next to your player. It simply means we didn’t have the chance to evaluate the player properly. Some of those players we’ve heard of; some of them we haven’t. Either way, we didn’t see enough of or hear enough from other experts about them to assign them a grade with any confidence.

Since we try to focus on top prospects first and work our way down, it’s rare we get to watch anyone we grade as “undraftable”, but it does happen. That didn’t happen this year; any “undraftable” drafted players would have been marked as such on the chart.

Some interesting tidbits about the chart and pick value:

  • The biggest gap between our ranking of a player we actually graded and his selection spot was St. Louis’ third-round selection of Sean Mannion, our no. 307 player taken with pick no. 89. (Of course, you could argue that Green Bay’s selection of a fifth-round safety at no. 30 represented worse real value, and you’d probably be right.)
  • The lowest-ranked player on our board who was still drafted was linebacker Edmond Robinson of Newberry, no. 324 out of 329 graded prospects. (He was taken by Minnesota with pick no. 232.) Runner-up: Deon Simon, The Jets’ new defensive tackle from Northwestern State, no. 320 (selected no. 223).
  • The highest-selected player we did not grade was Auburn DT Angelo Blackson, taken no. 100 by Tennessee.
  • Pittsburgh arguably had the deepest draft; all eight of their picks were graded in our top 150 prospects. (They did use their second-rounder on a prospect we had a fourth-round grade on, but every other selection represented equal or greater value than the pick itself.)
  • The only teams besides Pittsburgh whose draft classes consisted entirely of players we graded were Minnesota (ten selections), Miami (seven), Chicago (six), the New York Jets (six), and San Diego (five).
  • Some teams besides Pittsburgh who got consistently good value or got a lot of it late: Tennessee, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Miami.
  • Jacksonville had a curious draft: After getting poor value on their first two selections, they got tremendous value on their third-, fifth-, and sixth-round selections (and broke even on their fourth by our rankings).
  • Teams who had a similarly curious start to the draft, if not quite the finish Jacksonville did, include Baltimore, and the New York Giants. (Of the first three prospects these teams selected, the third was the one we graded highest.)
  • Carolina’s first three picks were all graded between no. 62 and no. 68 on our board.
  • St. Louis didn’t use a single selection on a player whose grade was in a tier equal to or better than where they made the selection. (Todd Gurley, the no. 10 selection, was rated no. 13, but he was in the “Mid 1st” tier, and not the “Top 10” tier, of which multiple players were available at the Rams’ selection.)
  • Of Oakland’s ten picks, five of them were of prospects we didn’t grade, and only one– tight end Clive Walford– was the best player available at his position when the Raiders selected him.
  • Two prospects were drafted at the exact place we had them ranked: Nelson Agholor at no. 20 (Eagles) and Jarvis Harrison at no. 152 (Jets).

Enjoy.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s