Grading the Eagles draft grades

Here's a recap of how sports analysts broke down the Philadelphia Eagles' picks in this weekend's NFL, and how each of them performed.

** Mel Kiper, ESPN
His analysis: B-plus overall, A for value
Grade of his work: F
-- A multi-step grade is far too complicated. Can you fail in a chemistry test but get an A for effort? Sure, in a crappy charter school you can. But this is the big leagues, not New Jersey's suburbs.

** Eliot Harrison, NFL.com
His analysis: "overall winner"
Grade of his work: F
-- Again, this analysis misses the point of the grading system. Do we want a real perspective on which teams did well? Of course not. We want easy to digest grades. This isn't a pass/fail test. This is real fake grading.

** Evan Silva, Rotoworld
His analysis: C-minus
Grade of his work: F
-- His grading includes the phrase "All of Philly's rookies look like good values" and then he gives them the lowest grade in the NFC. Because that makes sense.

** Washington Post
Their analysis: B-plus
Grade of their work: F
-- Only one team got an A, and no team got worse than a C-. We want Ds and Fs. If everybody gets good grades, then clearly no one in the class has learned anything.

** Chris Burke, SI
His analysis: B
Grade of his work: B
-- Seems fair

** Rob Rang, CBS Sports
His analysis: A-minus
Grade of his work: F
-- Rang names only six of the Eagles eight draft picks in his 200-word analysis, omitting their fifth and final seventh round picks. Doesn't he know those marginal talents are the heart of draft grading? How can you decide if a team performed well without looking at the 239th player chosen?

Overall draft grading grade: D-minus

-- Too much repetition, too much effort making a simple, pointless letter into an actual grading exercise. I'd give the Eagles a B-plus for their draft. Wanna know why? None of your business, that's why. I'm the instructor, you can't question my authority. The end. Learn from my genius, folks.