Oddly enough, it was
68.5 - so obviously, NFL.com was using a different scale then, and i haven't found a key to interpret the numbers. By comparison, Luck was rated 97, RG3 was 95, Tannehill was 84, Weeden was 82 (oh, Cleveland!), Osweiler was 83.5 (all drafted ahead of Wilson). For what it's worth... which appears to be very little!
...dbs
For the NFL.com draft previews that use the 20-100 scale, move your mouse pointer over the 'Grade' designation on the header and it will open a window with an explanation of the rating scale.
You must be registered for see images attach
I mentioned RW in my OP and how the rating scales can miss.
RW was deducted in his rating because of his height.
Mayfield is getting similar scrutiny because of his height. At least he is getting consideration as a 1st round pick and that has a lot to do with both Brees and RW able to succeed at 'below 6 foot guys' Large guys in the D-box can block/intercept the ball from a shorter QB which results in their lowered scores---those stereotypes die hard. RW nullifys that by moving and throwing on the run while Brees will find windows in the D to throw through.
Teams do pay attention to these type of rating scales---note that the scale has RW as a 4th-7th round pick (he went in the 4th). And, like I said before, the rating scales are not 100% accurate. If they were, we wouldn't have all the hand-wringing on picking a player.
If you look at the QBs from that draft, RW was the outlier--but all the rest you cite appear to have the career in the order at which they were rated. Jury is still out on Luck and his return to health, ditto on RGIII if he can come back. Those other guys appear to have the career projected by the ranking.
You appear negative toward the ranking system. I'm curious how you go about grading out players (not just QBs). It would save the NFL plenty of money not having to pay scouts and consultants to come up with the ratings. How do you make decision among available players. . . for what it's worth.
