Don't worry, I stopped reading @ 29. More Joe anti Patriot propaganda. Everyone knows Bill wins the draft every year. DE16 will be a household brand by 2033.
right up there with the Browns... Anyone that puts the Browns in the bottom third is majorly biased. Having two picks in the top 4 and using them automatically puts them in the upper half, the fact they used the best QB in the draft at #1 puts them in the top ten of this draft, filling the four top needs on the team with picks in the first 35, puts them in the top 5. #1 Mayfield, top QB in this draft, easy #1 choice #4 Ward, top CB in this draft, fills the 2nd top need for the team and is comparable to any other candidate you would argue about #33 Corbett, first one that can actually be argued with any amount of ammunition, only because he isn't a certain LT, which was the biggest o-line need #35 Chubb, arguably the best available RB, which filled another need. I would lean towards Guice, but his off field issues might have taken him off Browns board, he seems a little flaky. add in SOLID Chad Thomas at #67 and this has the making of one of the best drafts in the Browns history. Obviously we won't know that answer for a few years, but your biased opinions on specific players won't be known either.. I liked the Giants draft based on the Giants needs..Otherwise, there are about 4 teams that are debatable to fill out the top 5, imho.
Kinda depends on what's being ranked / graded. When Team X has two of the top five picks followed by three picks in the second round, that team absolutely should come away with by far the best haul of any team. If they don't, the GM might be on track to become the next Matt Millen or Billy Devaney. That's not to say anything negative about the players taken at 1, 4, 33, 35 or 67 after the trade down. It's just that if the team's draft performance is viewed in relation to their draft firepower, then filling four needs with four of the top 35 picks is a rather low hurdle to clear and wouldn't automatically be a top 5 draft performance - even though it's one of the best collections of draft prospects in Browns history.
My internet is down so I'm using my hotspot or else I'd be working on this now. @rediiis one of those 2 teams is next and the other is quite a bit higher.
The point is, getting two of the top 4 players in the entire draft, how in God's name would you be ranked in the lower third of all teams drafting? If Team X managed to get 5 of the considered top 67 players, how could you then rank that's team's draft that low? The point of the post was agreeing with SPress that Joe has a bias against certain teams and it really didn't matter the players chosen, he was going to rank those teams lower based on that bias and I stand by that. The Browns had arguably one of the 3 best drafts, top 5 certainly...BEFORE any games are played. It's easy to come back 3 years from now and be able to ACTUALLY grade a draft based on professional performance. But, at this time, it's impossible to "Grade Players" and add that into the draft grade itself. Unless you are going to argue those players and have a point system set up weeks before the draft takes place that would be universally agreed upon, it's impossible. Without it, bias plays a major role. Who knows if Joe spent more time watching and grading OGs for instance instead of CBs...or LBers instead of QBs? See what I mean? The only way to grade a team's draft at this point is to see how that team managed their draft picks. The Browns managed to get 5 of the top 67 players, no other team can boast that...now, on a "biased opinion", I like the Giants filling their needs with some of the top players to help their team win in 2018, therefore, my biased opinion is that the Giants probably improved their 2018 chances to win more than many other teams did and that is why I have them rated ahead of my Brownies..that's a short term ranking though. Long term, I would place money that no other team improved more than the Browns in this draft...we wouldn't be able to collect on that bet for 4 years(normal length of a rookie contract), but I would make a bet with anyone on here, monetarily or just a year long av bet, doesn't matter which. I believe very strongly in what they did in this draft. Any takers? Joe? We have been on here a long time, no reason to believe we won't be on here 4 years from now..
Just to play Devil's advocate - The whole point of putting together draft grades is to express your personal opinion, an opinion that is formed by your personal projections of the players involved. If you don't have Baker Mayfield as your #1 QB and you have several other players ranked ahead of Denzel Ward, then the value appears less in comparison because of the players still available (potential return on investment).
I am dying how almost everyone thinks I have an anti-Browns bias. I call it how I see it and I really have yet to be proven wrong. I can continue to be right but because I hated your QBs before they busted it doesn't matter (even though I've openly said I hated them before they were drafted). I even said Baker was the right choice. I actually had to fight a bias to hope they do well to keep them from being higher. Spress' I'll let it slide. It was really hard to rank the Pats that low, especially since I knew I was gonna be called out for bias and while I swear I didn't let bias affect those rankings I'm not gonna sweat it. I told him why, he accepted my response and more or less agreed to disagree. I gave some decently detailed reasons in each ranking as for why I ranked them where I did and if you read them all you can more or less pick out the pattern of how I've ranked them. Like Torgo said earlier and Tim now it's about my personal projections of players, their scheme fits, projected use and potential return on investment. Baker alone could have moved them up a good amount of spots but picking #1 and taking who I think is the best QB shouldn't be a huge reward. The negatives far outweighed the positives for me. And I've snooped around. I know tons of Browns fans are as thrilled as I am about how they used their picks. That is also different than what teams improve by how much. Every team is in different positions. The Browns are definitely gonna be among the most improved teams thanks in no small part to this draft unless it's a complete shit show. Teams near the top won't improve as much because there is less to improve. Now there may be a bias on my team because I know my team's needs. I'm actually trying to see if I can drop them some (by finding legit reasons to raise a few other teams) from where I currently have them to combat some possible (and likely) bias. As for the 2nd bolded part... what's the point of personal opinions then?
THIS is where the bias comes in, Joe says the Browns have the 6th worst draft in the league...Yet in his first line of evaluation says they got the first overall pick correct?? What, they got the player you believe they should take, but have the 6th WORST draft in the league? Why is that you say? Because they took the BEST CB in the draft over the BEST DE. CB is a premium position, much like pass rusher. They are regularly taken in the top 5 picks. Yet, he mentions a guard as another reason not to take Ward, when guards are NOT premium picks and extremely rare to be taken in the top 10, let alone top 5. This is where more bias comes in, and frankly, ignorance on studying team needs when putting yourself in a position of "grading" the entire draft. If you aren't going to understand every roster, then you would have to expect criticism. The Browns have two guards on this team that are young and signed through 2020. Will Hernandez, while excelling at ONE position is without a doubt a guard in the NFL...He was not even a consideration for the Browns. Corbett, in the Browns opinion (and others after the fact apparently) was the best OT prospect available at the time. They felt he was more at risk than a RB even to be taken at #34, no one will ever know, but the Giants did take a OL, so I would say they GREAT management of resources if that was the OL they wanted, leaving their next best RB to take two picks later. I'm not sure why you are down on the Chubb pick. If not for Michel (or vice versa) taking carries away, he might have been the best RB in college. He might be the best power down hill runner in college anyway. If you can't get Saquon Barkley, who does everything, then you need multiple backs to make up the position. We already have Duke Johnson. Nick Chubb is the ultimate compliment back to Duke. You completely ignore their 5th pick who is a staunch run stopper on defense, only to skip to the WR who you called a 4th round talent with issues. Everyone else seems to believe he is a 1st round talent with issues, which is why he was available in the 4th...but again, that is personal evaluation and can certainly be argued. Finally you end with their 7th as someone you really like and would have been your personal pick... It just doesn't make any sense at all, but these are your personal rankings, which is why I didn't originally say anything.
Yes, but in his evaluation, he stated that Mayfield was the CORRECT pick... He didn't say several players ahead of Ward, he said two players, one of which was a undervalue position. I understand they are personal preferences, but this ranking is pretty dramatically off, in MY personal opinion. I've known Joe for years and the Browns bias is there...with good reason, they have been putrid for two decades, it's easy to let that futility creep into your mindset...but this draft, well, I do feel it is pretty ridiculous in the rankings for the Browns. If your going to post a ranking, you also need to accept criticism.
Personal evaluation bias is obviously the bias that should be there. Do you want the Best Punter at #4 instead? That's how I see it.
