Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
twisted_steel2":wq2pord1 said:Popeyejones":wq2pord1 said:Hawk_Nation":wq2pord1 said: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.