Short Post. Odds and Ends

Very short one today, just getting a few things out of the way.

First, here is a very good article from Bill Barnwell on Grantland about the NFL draft.  If you enjoy the work I’ve done here then Barnwell’s piece will make a lot of sense to you.

Second, I added a graph for the TE position:Screen Shot 2013-04-23 at 11.09.31 AM

Few true high-end talents here, and I don’t expect the Eagles to take one with their first two picks.  Travis Kelce has been mentioned a lot as a potential 3rd rounder for the Birds and I think that looks to be about right.  Given Kelly’s purported love of TEs though, this is definitely a potential source for a draft-day(s) surprise (something like Ertz or Escobar in the 2nd).

Lastly, I’ve reordered the top 20 prospect chart I presented on Friday.  Now it matches the format of the positional groups, so that prospect are sorted by “high” value rather than average rating.  Here is the updated chart:Screen Shot 2013-04-23 at 2.06.06 PM

Notice the scale on the left.  All of these prospects are graded very similarly.  Taking “risk” into account, it appears as though the “top tier” is 9 guys deep, ending with Mingo and before Ogletree.  With this in mind, the Cardinals at #7 and the Jets at #9 are the best potential trade down partners for the Eagles.  The team can pick up an extra pick (potentially a high 2nd rounder) and still select a “top tier” prospect, though Mingo is actually the only guy in that group I really DON’T want.

That’s all.  I told you it’d be short (and this time I meant it).


2 thoughts on “Short Post. Odds and Ends

  1. I’m not sure sorting by the high point is telling the whole story. The high points for Tavon Austin and Sheldon Richardson are just a hair outside of your top tier, and their low points are comparable to others in the top tier.

    I would make a case for them being close enough to be in the top tier, or at least ranked closer to the top tier than players like Ogletree/Eifert/etc with very large margins between their high/low rankings.

    • That’s a fair assessment and I can’t really argue with it, other than to say you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Including Austin and Richardson is completely valid.

      However, if it were ME making the picks, I’d be sorting by average rating (the original graph). I switched it up because I think it will more accurately represent where the players actually get picked, though the positional differences aren’t accounted for here.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s