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

2_0_6

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
0
Location
South Seattle
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.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,925
Reaction score
2,703
Location
Anchorage, AK
Hawk_Nation":1ea7i3ru 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.

I've noticed in my reading this morning that a lot of people are overlooking that and concentrating on the fact that the Niners got Buckner early. That was more of a no brainer though if you ask me.

They are also leaving out the fact that we filled a need and we added a third round pick. These things make our pick better than some are saying
 

McGruff

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
0
Location
Elma, WA
Hawk_Nation":2twqolha 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.

I love Garnett, and while I think it's a reach, he's a darn good player and its gonna suck facing him.

But PFF is notoriously bad on oline.
 

IBleedBlueAndGreen

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,136
Reaction score
0
Location
Poulsbo, WA
There was a game last season where the Hawks had six sacks and a number of other pressures. PFF graded our DL with a negative grade, and our opponents OL with a positive grade. NOBODY should EVER take PFFs grades seriously. They're total crap.
 

rideaducati

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
5,414
Reaction score
0
Awesome news. I remember the last time the Seahawks had the worst graded draft like it was yesterday.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,925
Reaction score
2,703
Location
Anchorage, AK
Another thing to take into account is that if you don't take into account what you give up or receive for trading picks, the players themselves it all comes down to opinions and they were graded close enough that some had one better while others had the other better. I wouldn't be surprised if they were both on the Hawks' radar and they knew they'd get one of them with the trade down and felt the extra 3rd rounder was worth the trade off. Personally, I agree, even if it ends up that the niners may have gotten a better player, but I'm not sold that is true. IMO their talent levels aren't that far apart. I think our guy may have a slightly higher ceiling, but that could just be my Seahawks blood talking there. Either way, our pick gained us another pick in the top 100 of a draft Scneider has called 200 players deep and took picks away from the Niners. In the long run, when people look back, I think we'll have done better there.
 

hawknation2016

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
932
Reaction score
0
A lot of times PFF's writers don't agree. For example, Ifedi was named as one of the Top 2 OTs in PFF's post-season grades due to his strong run blocking:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... wl-season/

But they also had some very negative scouting reports on him due to his inconsistent pass blocking technique, probably by this same writer because he uses similar hyperbole and black-and-white statements.

Objectively, they counted five sacks, three hits, and 18 hurries allowed by Ifedi on the season. Ifedi's 96.2 pass-blocking efficiency was 76th in the FBS. But his run blocking grade was much stronger. Unfortunately, that does not account for the fact that Ifedi played in the SEC and faced some of the better defensive lines in the nation.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Hawk_Nation":2n304i9z 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).

If you take this back to Garnett and Ifedi you can see the effects of the different approaches.

Garnett just destroys people while run blocking and is really technically sound, but is pretty fat and sloppy looking and will never jump out of the gym.

Ifedi looks the part in every way and he's testing off the charts, but really needs to develop his football skills.

Not claiming that one is better than the other, but it's definitely two ways to think about value.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Hass2Carlson":aozrklqn said:
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.
 

2_0_6

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
0
Location
South Seattle
Popeyejones":3nbvzmg5 said:
Hawk_Nation":3nbvzmg5 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).

If you take this back to Garnett and Ifedi you can see the effects of the different approaches.

Garnett just destroys people while run blocking and is really technically sound, but is pretty fat and sloppy looking and will never jump out of the gym.

Ifedi looks the part in every way and he's testing off the charts, but really needs to develop his football skills.

Not claiming that one is better than the other, but it's definitely two ways to think about value.


Well apparently the Niners didn't listed to Anthony Davis when he tweeted that they should choose an OT.

For a team with so many holes, it really doesn't make any sense to trade up for what 10 picks.
 

Ozzy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
3,816
PFF is getting mocked on Twitter for being continually wrong. I've tracked a few scouts that have a track record of being very good and they all liked the pick. I think time will tell but I'm starting to really like it and I love the added third rounder. Great first day for Seattle and I think they have a field day today.
 

hawknation2016

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
932
Reaction score
0
PFF's college grades need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Other than all the other criticisms rightfully levied against PFF for their mysterious grading system, in college the level of disparity in competition is often profound.

For example, the overall level of athleticism among defensive lines in the SEC is much stronger than their counterparts in the Pac-12. There are some good defensive linemen in the West, like DeForest Buckner and Kenny Clark, but they are fewer and farther between than the large number of big, strong, quick defensive linemen in the South. That is true primarily because the South has a much higher percentage of young black people due to their history and peculiar institution. Georgia alone has more black people than California.
 

brettb3

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Remember, PFF doesn't like Earl Thomas. Why anyone would take their grades seriously is beyond me.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Hawk_Nation":r9xn6trs said:
Well apparently the Niners didn't listed to Anthony Davis when he tweeted that they should choose an OT.

For a team with so many holes, it really doesn't make any sense to trade up for what 10 picks.

Ehh, I'm not particularly moved by it either way.

They had the most picks in the NFL going in and if they actually drafted at all of those slots there's zero chance they'd all be making the 53.

Put another way, the 9ers came into this draft having a talent problem, not a shortage of picks problem.

For them to not move up would just be burning off those day three picks they had accumulated.

This is far from a full throated defense obviously, but I understand the logic of it.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
2012 Seahawk Draft Class was graded at best C-, at worst F.

Bfv5OryCcAAjHh

These dummies have no idea what they're talking about. They have a horrible track record of picks, and most importantly grading players who they have NO idea how good they'll be in the NFL.

It's like being a weatherman, awesome gig to be a "draft expert" who has a 10% hit rate and is wrong five years later on over 50% of their grades.
 

hawknation2016

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
932
Reaction score
0
Popeyejones":2nxcopi2 said:
Hawk_Nation":2nxcopi2 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).

If you take this back to Garnett and Ifedi you can see the effects of the different approaches.

Garnett just destroys people while run blocking and is really technically sound, but is pretty fat and sloppy looking and will never jump out of the gym.

Ifedi looks the part in every way and he's testing off the charts, but really needs to develop his football skills.

Not claiming that one is better than the other, but it's definitely two ways to think about value.

As PFF correctly noted in their scouting report, Garnett was destroyed by the best defensive lineman he faced, DeForest Buckner. Playing in the Pac-12 over the last few years, he just did not face as many specular defensive line athletes as an offensive lineman in the SEC.

Yet, PFF's grading system in no way accounts this. If a lineman does well on a play, he gets a plus grade. If he does something bad, like allowing a pressure, he gets dinged. PFF fails to account for disparity in competition when assigning grades. That becomes more obvious as they move from the general parity of the NFL to the profound disparity of college competition.

It was not a bad pick by the Whiners, but we will have to wait and see how Garnett holds up in pass pro in the big leagues.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
hawknation2016":3pcme6up said:
Popeyejones":3pcme6up said:
Hawk_Nation":3pcme6up 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).

If you take this back to Garnett and Ifedi you can see the effects of the different approaches.

Garnett just destroys people while run blocking and is really technically sound, but is pretty fat and sloppy looking and will never jump out of the gym.

Ifedi looks the part in every way and he's testing off the charts, but really needs to develop his football skills.

Not claiming that one is better than the other, but it's definitely two ways to think about value.

As PFF correctly noted in their scouting report, Garnett was destroyed by the best defensive lineman he faced, DeForest Buckner. Playing in the Pac-12 over the last few years, he just did not face as many specular defensive line athletes as an offensive lineman in the SEC.

Yet, PFF's grading system in no way accounts this. If a lineman does well on a play, he gets a plus grade. If he does something bad, like allowing a pressure, he gets dinged. PFF fails to account for disparity in competition when assigning grades. That becomes more obvious as they move from the general parity of the NFL to the profound disparity of college competition.

It was not a bad pick by the Whiners, but we will have to wait and see how Garnett holds up in pass pro in the big leagues.




As you quoted my post I'm assuming you saw in that I'm neither jumping out of my chair over the Garnett pick, nor do I think PFF grading is anything close to an end-all-be-all when it comes to scouting talent.

You can see PFF's feelins on Buckner, as well as criticism of their approach in the comments section here: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... t-buckner/
 
Top