Grading the 2010 NFL Draft – NFC West

They say you cannot really grade a draft until at least three years have gone by. Players that look great in shorts may not translate well onto an NFL roster. Players that are great in year one might fizzle out by year three. Likewise, players that don’t even see the field in the first season may turn out to be complete studs by year three. So here we are in 2013 and the draft class of 2010 has had three seasons to prove their mettle and therefore “they” say that we can now grade this draft class. But how do we do this? Do we simply use the eyeball test? I am a nerd at heart and I love numbers. So I have attempted to quantify things beyond just an eyeball test. This is a far from perfect system. It simply gives us a jumping off point in the discussion.

Please check out this link for an explanation on how I came about these numbers and what they mean.

Here is the AFC East breakdown.
Here is the AFC North breakdown.
Here is the AFC South breakdown.
Here is the AFC West breakdown.
Here is the NFC East breakdown.
Here is the NFC North breakdown.
Here is the NFC South breakdown.

This is part eight…

Arizona Cardinals

Player School Position Pick(Rd) Raw Score Weighted Score Draft Value
Dan Williams Tennessee DT 26(1) 13.58 14.48 -46.00
Daryl Washington TCU LB 47(2) 18.52 20.73 24.00
Andre Roberts The Citadel WR 88(3) 16.76 20.52 52.00
O’Brien Schofield Wisconsin DE 130(4) 9.86 13.13 15.00
John Skelton Fordham QB 155(5) 12.67 17.67 74.00
Jorrick Calvin Troy CB 201(6) 2.50 3.78 -3.00
Jim Dray Stanford TE 233(7) 8.89 14.18 107.00
  • Total Raw Score: 82.78 (10th)
  • Total Weighted Score: 104.50 (10th)
  • Average Raw Score: 11.83 (3rd)
  • Average Weighted Score: 14.93 (3rd)
  • Total Draft Value: +223 (4th)
  • Average Draft Value: +31.86 (2nd)

Analysis: If the goal in an NFL draft is to acquire contributors to your team, the Arizona Cardinals achieved that goal in 2010.  Dan Williams was supposed to be the cornerstone of the draft.   The large tackle was a rotational player in his rookie campaign.  In 2011 he would take the starting nose tackle role only to have his season cut short due to injury.  2012 was up and down as well.  Williams is penciled in as the starting nose tackle once again but this for a new regime and he’s probably nearing the end of his time to prove the investment worthy.  Daryl Washingston and Andre Roberts taken in the next two rounds have both lived up to their draft slot.  Washington took over as a starter part way into 2010 and has not looked back.  Roberts was starting by year 2.  Schofield and Dray have been situational players.  Schofield has been bitten by the injury bug and may be another one fighting for his job in view of a new regime.  John Skelton was a late round quarterback thrust into a starting role numerous times due to circumstance and not necessarily skill.  Regardless of the reason, a fifth round quarterback who starts 17 games in his first three seasons has earned his keep.  Overall the draft procured no real stars but value across the board.  It will be interesting to see how the class survives a new staff.

San Francisco 49ers

Player School Position Pick(Rd) Raw Score Weighted Score Draft Value
Anthony Davis Rutgers OT 11(1) 20.00 20.56 3.00
Mike Iupati Idaho G 17(1) 22.00 22.95 14.00
Taylor Mays USC S 49(2) 10.89 12.25 -52.00
Navorro Bowman Penn State LB 91(3) 19.88 24.49 82.00
Anthony Dixon Mississippi State RB 173(6) 10.00 14.41 59.00
Nate Byham Pittsburgh TE 182(6) 7.21 10.55 31.00
Kyle Williams Arizona State WR 206(6) 7.42 11.32 60.00
Phillip Adams South Carolina State CB 224(7) 8.52 13.39 95.00
  • Total Raw Score: 105.92 (2nd)
  • Total Weighted Score: 129.93 (3rd)
  • Average Raw Score: 13.24 (2nd)
  • Average Weighted Score: 16.24 (2nd)
  • Total Draft Value: +292 (2nd)
  • Average Draft Value: +36.50 (1st)

Analysis:  If Arizona’s draft was good, the 49ers’ draft was great.  What’s your idea of a good draft?  To procure starters?  Check.  To procure stars?  Check.  To provide depth?  Check.  If not for the wasted second round pick of Taylor Mays this draft would be almost perfect.   Anthony Davis took over the right tackle spot in game one of 2010 and has been a fixture ever since.  Mike Iupati did the same with the left guard position.  To solidify 40% of your offensive line in one draft is more than most teams can hope for.  But San Francisco wasn’t done there.  Navorro Bowman may not be as well known as Patrick Willis but has been just as devastating.  Bowman and Iupati aren’t just starters, they are stars.  Those three picks make this draft successful by any stretch of the imagination.  Anthony Dixon and Kyle Williams are the icing on the cake that is the 2010 draft for San Francisco.  Dixon has been a role player at running back and Williams is the team’s return man.  All in all the San Francisco 2010 draft is the bar in which most other drafts are measured.  And it’s easy to see how the team has been one of the class of the league since.

Seattle Seahawks

Player School Position Pick(Rd) Raw Score Weighted Score Draft Value
Russell Okung Oklahoma State OT 6(1) 18.71 18.99 -15.00
Earl Thomas Texas S 14(1) 22.79 23.61 12.00
Golden Tate Notre Dame WR 60(2) 13.51 15.58 -13.00
Walter Thurmond Oregon CB 111(4) 6.86 8.80 -44.00
E. J. Wilson North Carolina DE 127(4) 0.42 0.55 -105.00
Kam Chancellor Virginia Tech S 133(5) 16.17 21.66 90.00
Anthony McCoy USC TE 185(6) 11.20 16.49 91.00
Dexter Davis Arizona State LB 236(7) 3.33 5.34 45.00
Jameson Konz Kent State FB 245(7) 0.21 0.34 5.00
  • Total Raw Score: 93.20 (7th)
  • Total Weighted Score: 111.35 (8th)
  • Average Raw Score: 10.36 (8th)
  • Average Weighted Score: 12.37 (10th)
  • Total Draft Value: +66 (10th)
  • Average Draft Value: +7.33 (10th)

Analysis:  Keeping with the theme of the NFC West 2010 drafts, the Seahawks put forth quite a showing themselves.  Russell Okung has the talent to warrant the sixth overall pick.  The only question is his ability to stay on the field.  In three seasons Okung has yet to play an entire season.  Earl Thomas, however, has had no such issues and has become a star at one safety position.  Kam Chancellor, selected in the fifth round, fills the other safety position, tremendous value for such a late pick.  Golden Tate has started at wide receiver but will move to a more natural fit at slot with the acquisition of Percy Harvin.  Walter Thurmond and Anthony have provided depth.  E.J. Wilson has been the only real disappointment and that’s not so bad considering he was a fourth round selection.  The Seahwaks ascension into the upper echelon can be traced back to the foundation laid by this 2010 draft.

St. Louis Rams

Player School Position Pick(Rd) Raw Score Weighted Score Draft Value
Sam Bradford Oklahoma QB 1(1) 18.75 18.80 -19.00
Rodger Saffold Indiana OT 33(2) 17.29 18.75 0.00
Jerome Murphy South Florida CB 65(3) 3.13 3.64 -130.00
Mardy Gilyard Cincinnati WR 99(4) 4.25 5.32 -81.00
Michael Hoomanawanui Illinois TE 132(5) 11.92 15.93 46.00
Hall Davis Louisiana–Lafayette DE 149(5) 0.21 0.29 -86.00
Fendi Onobun Houston TE 170(6) 0.83 1.19 -54.00
Eugene Sims West Texas A&M DE 189(6) 8.44 12.51 56.00
Marquis Johnson Alabama CB 211(7) 0.83 1.28 -14.00
George Selvie South Florida DE 226(7) 7.50 11.82 82.00
Josh Hull Penn State LB 254(7) 6.19 10.20 93.00
  • Total Raw Score: 79.34 (13th)
  • Total Weighted Score: 99.73 (13th)
  • Average Raw Score: 7.21 (27th)
  • Average Weighted Score: 9.07 (26th)
  • Total Draft Value: -107 (27th)
  • Average Draft Value: -9.73 (20th)

Analysis:  Sam Bradford is the St. Louis Rams’ 2010 NFL draft, fair or not.  Bradford represents the last early quarterback taken before the rookie salary slotting took effect.  Therefore Bradford represents the last truly great risk.  As of now, that risk is very real.  Bradford showed signs early on of being the franchise signal caller that the Rams hoped for.  But there has been little improvement and an increase in whispers.  Roger Saffold has had difficulty staying on the field and unfortunately he represents another pick where the “jury is out”.  Only two of the last nine picks are with the team any longer.  Sims and Hull are role players.  So to recap the Rams used eleven picks.  Two represent players that are still question marks overall.  Two are backups.  There is absolutely nothing else to show for this draft.  Especially in light of what the Rams division rivals have done, this is incredibly disappointing.

Topics: 2010 Nfl Draft, Arizona Cardinals, NFC West, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams

Want more from With the First Pick?  
Subscribe to FanSided Daily for your morning fix. Enter your email and stay in the know.
  • SkeleTony X

    I don’t have time to do the research and I am sure there is some sort of reason for this but how does Golden Tate = negative draft value?! The guy COULD possibly drop off and become mediocre but I think at his current rate of progression he is heading closer to Hall of Fame status than he is to being of negative value.

    • http://twitter.com/DougKitts Doug Kitts

      The quick explanation is that the values were based on playing time and starting time with a little emphasis on end of the year accolades. The draft value was just a rudimentary look at where they “should” have been drafted. A -13 isn’t really a bad score, it just means that the value was thirteen spots lower. What you want to avoid is -30 or more saying you were drafted at least a round too early. Make sense? Thanks for reading. Check out the final wrap up today!

  • Beer O’Clock

    A little tough on Roger Saffold, no?

    He played all 16 games his rookie year and was very good. Many would say as good as Russell Okung.