According to PFF, Ifedi's was worst pick of day 1

[Popeyejones]

Hmm..

Don't see how this can be worse than the Niners trading back into the 1st round, giving up 3 picks, for a player that probably would have been there when they picked in the 2nd.

If so you're not going to hear that from PFF b/c they had Garnett graded insanely highly.

Efedi also isn't going to do well in PFF's grading because he's more athelete than football player at this point.

Basically the Seahawks' drafting strategy and PFF's grading seem to be more or less antithetical to each other.

If you think of the Seahawks drafting as being SPARQ based, they're trying to find value by drafting athletes who they then try to coach into football players (i.e. measurables >>> performance).

PFF on the other hand, doesn't give a rat about measurables, and instead, the argument would go, finds value by only caring about performance and not caring at all about what a guy does in shorts or if he looks the part or not (i.e. performance >>>> measurables).

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching. That's likely the process that led them to taking Germain Ifedi with the 31st overall pick. Now it's on them to develop Ifedi into an upper echelon right tackle."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

PFF has no idea at this point, and aren't equipped to even come close to 'grading' what the Hawks are doing.

Ah, nice. Thanks for bringing that into the discussion. :th2thumbs:

As for your last sentence though ("PFF has no idea at this point, and aren't equipped to even come close to 'grading' what the Hawks are doing") I think I'd quibble with that a little bit.

I think much like the Seahawks, the folks at PFF are pretty smart. The issue isn't that they don't understand what the other one is doing, it's just that they're approaching "value" in the draft in totally incompatible ways.

Basically there's a big transition from college to the NFL, but it's still the same sport and people are still asked to do what are basically the same things.

PFF plants their flag in saying past performance (in college) is the best predictor of future performance (in the NFL)

The Hawks plant their flag in saying that overall athletic ability (as measured by a composite of combine scores) is the best predictor of future performance in the NFL.

As reasonable people I think we can all agree that there's some truth (but not total truth) to both of these statements. I think within the next five years or so (if it hasn't already happened behind office doors, and it probably has) we'll also see something like SPARQ and PFF-styles of grading being mathematically incorporated with each other, and actually weighted to create the strongest predictor out of both types of thought.

 

[Popeyejones]

Also, it's worth saying that PFF has only been doing college scoring for IIRC two years total now.

Anyone who at this point who is claiming that their scoring for college players is definitively "good" or "bad" at predicting NFL performance is totally full of it.

Assuming they don't adjust as they go (which they likely will), we won't start to have an answer to this question until five or six years from now at a minimum (3 years of NFL play to measure outcome (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer) + 5 years of draft classes (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer)).

 

[AgentDib]

Anyone who at this point who is claiming that their scoring for college players is definitively "good" or "bad" at predicting NFL performance is totally full of it.

Any scoring for college players that relies solely on college production and excludes potential development is definitely bad IMO. The truth sits somewhere in the middle of measurables, athleticism, and college production and any system that does not include all factors is a waste of time.

 

[Hawks46]

Well he was the last pick, so in theory, shouldn't he be the worst pick?

Nah. They're looking for the biggest spread between where they ranked people and where they were drafted.

They're not slamming the Seahawks for not drafing Goff instead.

Basically what they're saying is that they have about 175 players ranked above Ifedi who were available when the Hawks picked.

See my post right above though about how PFF and the Hawks might not jibe too well.

1. Seattle Seahawks: Germain Ifedi, OT, Texas A&M
To say we differed from the Seahawks’ assessment of Ifedi, their selection at No. 31 overall, is an understatement. Ifedi had a sixth-round grade on our big board and was our 12th overall tackle in the class. He simply did not grade well at all, finishing with a negative pass-blocking grade a season ago. Sure, he is strong, and has a fantastic frame for the position, but his technique is nowhere near an NFL level yet. It will take him a few years to even get to an NFL starter’s level, and then at that point the Seahawks will have to break out the checkbook for his second contract.

This is patently ridiculous. There isn't a GM out there that wouldn't draft Ifedi, regardless of need, later than the 3rd round.

Ifedi, Spriggs, that entire tier was slated to go anywhere from late 1st to early/mid 2nd. We would've seen more Tackles taken if there wasn't a run on DB's that got two drafted that initially never had 1st round grades.

Saying he's a 6th rounder is a joke that isn't even remotely funny.

 

[brimsalabim]

Hmm..

Don't see how this can be worse than the Niners trading back into the 1st round, giving up 3 picks, for a player that probably would have been there when they picked in the 2nd.

If so you're not going to hear that from PFF b/c they had Garnett graded insanely highly.

Efedi also isn't going to do well in PFF's grading because he's more athelete than football player at this point.

Basically the Seahawks' drafting strategy and PFF's grading seem to be more or less antithetical to each other.

If you think of the Seahawks drafting as being SPARQ based, they're trying to find value by drafting athletes who they then try to coach into football players (i.e. measurables >>> performance).

PFF on the other hand, doesn't give a rat about measurables, and instead, the argument would go, finds value by only caring about performance and not caring at all about what a guy does in shorts or if he looks the part or not (i.e. performance >>>> measurables).

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching. That's likely the process that led them to taking Germain Ifedi with the 31st overall pick. Now it's on them to develop Ifedi into an upper echelon right tackle."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

PFF has no idea at this point, and aren't equipped to even come close to 'grading' what the Hawks are doing.

. Which would be commendable had our staff showed an ability to help the prospect complete the process. It's not that he needs work that makes it a questionable pick. It's that while we need pass protection that is his particular weakness and our staff has shown little aptitude in teaching pass protection!

 

[Popeyejones]

The truth sits somewhere in the middle of measurables, athleticism, and college production and any system that does not include all factors is a waste of time.

I think this is why a guy like Efedi -- who ranks pretty high up toward the top in one kind of measurement and pretty far down toward the bottom in another -- is a really interesting pick.

If I had the time and the data I'd LOOOOOOOVE to pull out all of the Efedi's of the world (and reverse-Efedis of the world) and see where they ended up.

 

[brimsalabim]

David seven is doing a much better job of explaining what I've been attempting to get across here.

 

[hawknation2016]

Also, it's worth saying that PFF has only been doing college scoring for IIRC two years total now.

Anyone who at this point who is claiming that their scoring for college players is definitively "good" or "bad" at predicting NFL performance is totally full of it.

Assuming they don't adjust as they go (which they likely will), we won't start to have an answer to this question until five or six years from now at a minimum (3 years of NFL play to measure outcome (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer) + 5 years of draft classes (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer)).

But we can say definitively that their grading system has weaknesses based on what we do know about it. One of the biggest ones being their inability or unwillingness to account for strength of opponent when divvying out per play grades. That problem becomes so much more acute when evaluating college talent.

They attempt to remedy that specific problem by referring to the highest grades for players in "Power 5" conferences. But even within those conference, there is great disparity in opponent strength.

That's just one known blind spot in their grading. There are numerous others, including relying on TV angles, guessing on the actual play calls, disregarding schematic variations that play to an individual players' strengths and/or weaknesses, like Stanford running the ball 65% of the time last season and often with additional blockers.

 

[Largent80]

Isn't PFF the sound of a fart?....One of the really stinky variety?

 

[Popeyejones]

Also, it's worth saying that PFF has only been doing college scoring for IIRC two years total now.

Anyone who at this point who is claiming that their scoring for college players is definitively "good" or "bad" at predicting NFL performance is totally full of it.

Assuming they don't adjust as they go (which they likely will), we won't start to have an answer to this question until five or six years from now at a minimum (3 years of NFL play to measure outcome (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer) + 5 years of draft classes (about as low as you can go to start to get an answer)).

But we can say definitively that their grading system has weaknesses based on what we do know about it. One of the biggest ones being their inability or unwillingness to account for strength of opponent when divvying out per play grades. That problem becomes so much more acute when evaluating college talent.

They attempt to remedy that specific problem by referring to the highest grades for players in "Power 5" conferences. But even within those conference, there is great disparity in opponent strength.

That's just one known blind spot in their grading. There are numerous others, including relying on TV angles, guessing on the actual play calls, disregarding schematic variations that play to an individual players' strengths and/or weaknesses, like Stanford running the ball 65% of the time last season and often with additional blockers.

For sure.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

My point hasn't ever been to prop up or defend the validity of PFF. Far from it.

Rather, I've been most interested in how the case of Ifedi really pits what seems to be two very different ways to evaluate promise against each other. I think that's a neat case.

As a secondary point, I've suggested that it's hard to say anything definitively about these PFF grades, as we're still pretty far off from being able to informatively weigh in on if their useful in this scenario or entirely useless.

That their imperfect, and far from perfect predictors, is undeniable. You can say that about any predictve strategy though.
What remains to be seen is if their demonstrably better or worse than other ways to go about things, or about the same.

 

[12th_Bob]

LOL, I love PFF is always pooh-pooing Seattle!

 

[Overseasfan]

Remember when drafting Rusell Wilson was supposed to be a bad move? Or even more recently when nearly all experts where hating on both Frank Clark and Tyler Lockett because we apparently reached for them?

Assigning a grade before seeing a player in action in the NFL is worth absolutely nothing. The earliest you can grade a draft class is after one year and even then it's still premature in my opinion.

 

[sutz]

Just have to say that focusing on college performance has an inherent danger, and that danger is that maybe that was that player's peak. You can't really measure future upside, you can only make informed guesses about it.

 

[TheRealDTM]

He was likely the least talented player taken.

 

[Jazzhawk]

Well he was the last pick, so in theory, shouldn't he be the worst pick?

Nah. They're looking for the biggest spread between where they ranked people and where they were drafted.

They're not slamming the Seahawks for not drafing Goff instead.

Basically what they're saying is that they have about 175 players ranked above Ifedi who were available when the Hawks picked.

See my post right above though about how PFF and the Hawks might not jibe too well.

1. Seattle Seahawks: Germain Ifedi, OT, Texas A&M
To say we differed from the Seahawks’ assessment of Ifedi, their selection at No. 31 overall, is an understatement. Ifedi had a sixth-round grade on our big board and was our 12th overall tackle in the class. He simply did not grade well at all, finishing with a negative pass-blocking grade a season ago. Sure, he is strong, and has a fantastic frame for the position, but his technique is nowhere near an NFL level yet. It will take him a few years to even get to an NFL starter’s level, and then at that point the Seahawks will have to break out the checkbook for his second contract.

To me, the statement that they had Ifedi rated as a 6th rounder disqualifies them from having any credit whatsoever.

 

[KPA]

Ifedi should be the worst pick of the first round. He was the last pick.

 

[scutterhawk]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2016/04/29/draft-5-worst-picks-from-day-1-of-the-nfl-draft/

Personally, I have no idea, only time will tell ...

LOLOL, you're not alone, PFF has "No Idea" either.
So...I'm suppose to give kudos to PFF, and a thumbs down to JS, PC, & Tom Cable for picking Ifedi?....Yeah....I don't think so.

 

[scutterhawk]

He was likely the least talented player taken.

I'll take John Schneider, Pete Carroll, Tom Cable, and the Seahawks Scouts over yours, every single time...and it ain't even close.

 

[CANHawk]

PFF is pig poop. I love the fact they don't like our pick!

Sent from my E2306 using Tapatalk

 

[hawknation2016]

Seattle Seahawks, C
1 (31) (from Denver) Germain Ifedi, OT, Texas A&M
2 (49) (from Buffalo via Chicago) Jarran Reed, DT, Alabama
3 (90) C.J. Prosise, RB, Notre Dame
3 (94) (from Denver) Nick Vannett, TE, Ohio State
3 (97) Rees Odhiambo, G, Boise State
5 (147) Quinton Jefferson, DT, Maryland
5 (171) Alex Collins, RB, Arkansas
6 (215) Joey Hunt, C, TCU
7 (243) Kenny Lawler, WR, California
7 (247) Zac Brooks, RB, Clemson

Day 1: We saw Ifedi as more of a mid-round developmental option, even though he has the size, length and athleticism that coaches covet. He had some ugly plays in pass protection, finishing with the No. 67 grade in that area in the draft class. He was better in the running game, ranking No. 23 in the class, but he has a ways to go to live up to his first-round selection. The Seahawks really need to improve their line play, as Russell Wilson was under pressure at the second-highest rate of any NFL QB last season.

Day 2: Reed posted the No. 2 grade against the run last year, disrupting blockers and making plays. He’s technically sound and can see the field immediately on run downs. Prosise had an impressive performance at running back last year, earning the 10th-best grade in the class. Vannett offers value as a blocking “move” tight end, while Odhiambo’s movement skills fit in at guard in Seattle’s zone scheme – even though he did whiff on too many blocks in the run game (-2.2 run-block grade).

Day 3: Jefferson made plays against the run in 2015, finishing with a +17.8 grade that ranked 23rd in the class though he can get moved off the point by double teams. Collins graded at +16.1, good for ninth in the class and his 58 missed tackles forced ranked third. He does a nice job maximizing his blocking though he lacks breakaway speed. Hunt is an undersized center, but his good movement skills make him one of the better zone-blocking centers in the draft. His +26.5 overall grade ranked fourth in the class.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... -32-teams/