The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't know a ton about college players, but I seem to be able to identify busts that the Dolphins choose, ahead of time.  I don't know, though, if it's just because I'm only remembering the times I'm right.  So, a friend of mine and I are going to hang out on draft day and pause the draft at each Dolphins pick.  We're then going to each make a pick instead.  Then, we're going to seal the picks and revisit them each year to see if we can pick better than the Fins.

It's not a perfect system, because there's some subjectivity in the rankings and players on other teams might do well because of system, but it's the best we can do.

Currently, we're tinkering on our rating system.  I'm under the impression that the smaller the scale, the easier it will be to remain objective.

We're thinking either a 1-3 scale or a 1-5 scale, that would be something like:

1. Bust
2. Serviceable
3. Hit

or

1. Bust
2. Disappointment
3. Serviceable
4. Hit
5. Elite

We also think that draft position should be disregarded, as much as possible.  But even then, talking over beers last night, we couldn't agree on how to rate current players.  In the 5 point system, I thought that Ted Ginn should be a 2.  My friend said that he thought he was a 3, because even though he sucks, he's our #1 receiver.

Also, Ronnie Brown was another one that we had trouble rating.  He's either a 4 or a 5, depending on your criteria.

So, I ask you:  What makes a successful draft pick?  How long do they need to contribute to be called a hit, and what separates an elite player from a good player.  Or a good player from a serviceable player?  Any suggestions?

I am afraid the more of us you hear from the more opinions you are going to get making it more difficult to gather a definition.

Phish is right...you're dealing with totally subjective material here.

I'd list Ginn as a 2 as well, because I think he's only serviceable because we don't have anyone who can service us properly at that position.

I think that a 3 point system makes the most sense.  In a 3 point system, Ginn is pretty clearly a 1 and Brown is pretty clearly a 3.

^^^3 point system is probably the easiset to use, but will probably give you the largest error rate.  For instance, if Ginn is a "bust" and turns it around to reach serviceable on a 3 point scale, you were flat out wrong on him.  If he's a "disappointment" and becomes serviceable, he just improved a bit.  I guess I'm saying you lose the gray area.

I like the five point system better because it is more precise.... plus it gives you a little margin for error.  There is a fine line between a very good player and a superstar, and there also is one between a bust and a serviceable player.

I think time is a factor as well.

For example, Henne was a second round pick. He sat on the bench almost all of last season. So he would get an "incomplete".  This season, he is the starter (due to injury) and has played fairly well. On your 5 point scale, you may  rate him as a "hit", since he's the starter and playing decent. However, lets say he totally regresses next year. Is he then a "disappointment" or a "bust"? But then what if in year 4, he makes the Pro-Bowl? Take a look at Drew Brees early career in San Diego for a good example of this.

Nice point, and to further illustrate this, you can rate them year on year, and graph the results comparatively adding each draft class and get an uber spreadsheet graph which shows patterns of draft pick disappointment and growth?!

We will update the choices, though.  It's not like we rank a player and then we're done.  We will go back and revisit after 5 years or however long.

I think it's easier to judge whether a guy is a bust or serviceable.  ...or whether a guy is serviceable or a hit.  Can you think of any players that ride that line?

Let me ask you about a few specific players:

- Vernon Carey. Where do you rate him? Some would say he is serviceable. Some would say he is a hit.

- Jason Allen. Where do you rate him? Some would say he is serviceable. Some would say he is a bust.



Modified to add: I think draft position obviously also plays into a players "rate"

I completely disagree.  The reason you call Ginn a bust is because he was drafted in the first round.  If you drafted a WR in the 7th round who had the exact same amount of production as Ginn he would be a steal. 

Maybe "bust" is the wrong word.  I don't care where he was drafted.  I care that he can't catch.  After a few years, draft position wears off and you're left with just a player.  Either you're a productive contributor, you're a stud player, or you are cut or useless.

Ginn is too early to tell right now, but if his career continues on this path, he will be a 1 -- someone we tried out for a few years, but was unable to help us.  In a couple more years, it will be much more clear on Ginn.

5 point scale without a doubt.  But you do have to have some sort of preset descriptions.  I had a couple extra minutes, so here is my opinion.

Elite = Game changer who performs at a potentially hall of fame level and who's talent level can't be found at his position in more than half of the league.  This is also typically a player who would never be traded and would only be released if the player was old or asked for such an insane amount of pay that it would cripple any chance at team success.

Hit = Makes plays with some degree of consistency but not often game changing plays.  Rarely misses play time and is obviously better than his back-up.  Other teams would be willing to give up a significant trade for him and you would consider if the price is right.

Serviceable = Rarely a liability, but nothing special.  May have durability issues and can be replaced with minimal noticablility.  Makes a play here and there and blows as many plays, but you rarely hear his name.  Often fills multiple rolls and is expendable if a more explosive player becomes available.

Disappointment = Looking to be replaced.  You are likely calling for his back-up to play instead.  Another team might have an interest in him but only because they are so naive as to think they can coach him up.  He has blown it big several times and when the success of a play is up to him you hold your breath and pray.  He may shock you with a decent play once and a while, but nothing in comparison to his foul-ups.  You would be just fine with replacing this player and surprised if you actually got compensation for it.  This player could be a player defined as injury prone but not to the point they rarely had a chance to play.  Play time could be hugely reduced by the coaching staff's evaluation of the player.

Bust = Likely to not play much.  Got payed way more than ever delivered on.  If they did get a chance to play in was bad most of the time.  You would understand if the coaches cutt him and didn't even replace him on the roster.  It is obvious this players is not NFL caliber.  This player could be a good player that was injured nearly the entire time they were on the team.

Great analogies on the ratings Doc.  I can think of several Dolphins players that come to mind in each category.  I'll think of one current player and one past player for each category:

Elite-  Dan Marino, Jason Taylor

Hit- Richmond Webb, Yeremiah Bell

Serviceable- Morlon Greenwood, Akin Ayodele

Dissapointment- Jamar Fletcher, Gibril Wilson

Bust- Yatil Green, Jason Allen
Hit-

Wilson? The Fins had absolutely nothing to do with drafting him.

Also, I'm curious what makes Fletcher "only" a disappointment, but Allen a bust.

Not including draft position makes no sense. The expectations for a first-round pick are completely unrelated to those of a late-rounder.

Sure, after 3-6 years, who cares... but since this is a DRAFTING exercise (your own words), clearly draft position should play a vital role.

I like the 5-point system of grading. I actually think you avoid a lot of discussions by having a bit more cushion. Think Ginn as per your example. With the 5-point system, the argument is over a 2 or a 3 (2/5ths of the grade scale), while with a 3-point system it would be a 1 or a 2 (2/3rds of the grade scale).

I would also call Fletcher a bust.  He was never a contributor to this team, and only managed to stay on the roster because we didn't have other options, and he was chosen with a high pick.

WHAAAAA????  Richmond Webb was elite, my friend!  Something like 9 straight Pro Bowls, right?  He shredded his triceps to crap and was never the same, but that man could play!

OK.  Didn't realize that this only applies to draft picks.  Free agent signings could easily fit into those categories as well. 

It applies to all players, since we'll have to end up grading players that the Dolphins don't pick, as well.

You seem to be changing your exercise. Your original goal was to see if you draft better than the Dolphins execs. Why would you need to rate any other players if that is your stated goal?

Maybe he wants to see if he can sign free agents better as well..... and that's a good thing to look at.

If you are going to grade players we didn't pick, than I have to make another suggestion.  You need to assign some sort of handicap to all the teams in the league and it probably needs to be dependant on the position they play.

For instance, lets say we picked a wide receiver at the same time the colts picked up the receiver you actually wanted.  The other receiver has the distinct advantage of playing with Payton Manning and a pass oriented team.  That same receiver may not have been as successful with us.

Or perhaps we pick a Linebacker, when the colts pick an o-lineman that you wanted.  I would say that is pretty much an even chance for success.  It will be an opinion, but you seem bright enough to figure it out.

I would suggest applying a draft grade and placing a +, -, or 0 next to it.  This indicator would express that the player is being assigned more credit, less credit, or even credit because of the way his position matches with the strengths of the team he is on.

Wish I had more time to think that out for you, but you can't be fair without considering this issue.

We will need to rate:
1) The players that the Dolphins actually draft, based on their play with our team.
AND
2) The players that we draft instead, based on their play with another team.

I think there's some inaccuracy when evaluating players drafted by another team.  I think the player's surroundings greatly affects their development into a pro-level performer or not. 

For example, had Ted Ginn been drafted by New England, perhaps he would be a pro-bowler by now.  The fact that he's had noodle-armed QB's for the first 2 1/2 seasons of his career may have stunted his growth as a player, where if he was running fly routes with Brady placing the ball gently in his arms since day 1, maybe he'd have the confidence now to make him a better player.

Just a thought.  Its hard to say that Carson Palmer would have been as successful in aqua and orange as he is in black and orange.

I don't buy into this much.  Ginn's problem is that he can't catch a football.  He drops balls that hit him in the hands.  The best QB in the world won't change that.  There are some cases where players (and only with QBs, really) suffer developmental growth and are unable to recover.  Truly talented players eventually find success, even if it's on another team.

^^ agree to disagree - I think Ginn's problem is confidence with a smattering of concentration problems.  Its all in his head.

But I guess another example could be Ryan Leaf.  He was a talented kid, on par with Peyton Manning.  He was drafted into a destructive atmosphere (suspect that's why Archie threw a fit about Eli Manning being drafted by San Diego) and eventually fell apart mentally.  Put Ryan Leaf on the Colts - is he still a laughing stock of the league?

I am starting to get the feeling my post was made invisible. 

Beside that, let me counter by saying that if Ginn were paired with a deep ball quarterback in a pass heavy offense and a coaching staff with no regime change it could easily be said that Ginn would have had more opportunities to show his unique abilities.  Instead, we have him in running outs and curls with the occasional deep ball by a QB that barely threw to him in training camp. 

I would say that you can't consider Ginn a bust because of the circumstances.  He may very well be a bust, but we can't be sure.  As of right now, given the circumstances, he is more likely to be considered a disappointment or even serviceable (by the cool-aid drinkers out there).

Somebody should bookmark/save this post for April.  I vote for a 3 point system because there's fewer choices and therefore fewer lines to blur.  A five point system kind of leaves too many choices to pick from. 

However might I suggest we use a 0 to 2 scale, so that a "bust" tally doesn't count a positive rating?