If Microsoft Copilot’s draft night were an NFL team, it would be the coach who hugs every rookie, hands out rave reviews at the presser, and then wonders where all the playoff wins went. The 2025 NFL Draft’s first round saw the AI smothering hopefuls in A's and A-'s, playing the role of the relentlessly cheerful grandparent—who also knows your stats, your injury history, and the precise ounces of Gatorade you’ll need for optimal hydration. This year’s experiment with AI-powered grading—courtesy of USA Today and Microsoft Copilot—offers a fascinating lens on football’s biggest talent pageant: one that is simultaneously analytic and, well, surprisingly gentle. But don’t be fooled by the friendly vibes: AI’s verdicts carry their own quirks, blind spots, and oddly human hesitations, raising timely questions for NFL execs, sports reporters, and the broader nerd contingent monitoring America’s game.
Let’s open with a real talk moment for GMs and armchair quarterbacks alike: The AI’s grading rubric was less vengeful than most sportswriters (and far less savage than the fans whose Twitter avatars are gym selfies). While seasoned reporters like Michael Middlehurst-Schwartz wore out the lower half of the alphabet, Copilot gifted all but six picks an ‘A’ or ‘A-’. Sure, that's kind—and maybe even diplomatically correct if your job’s on Microsoft’s cloud payroll—but it also paints a revealing portrait of what happens when you swap gut feel and hunches for probability distributions and datasets.
A- becomes the new C+ in this simulated utopia, and you can almost hear Roger Goodell sigh in relief. For IT professionals watching this play out, it’s like seeing a new code linter flag fewer bugs: Is the code that good, or just the rules? (Spoiler: The answer is always, “Depends how you tune the model.”)
The Tennessee Titans, sitting at No. 1, chose Cam Ward, their next franchise quarterback—or so Copilot assures us. Ward’s strong arm, football IQ, and athleticism supposedly spell long-term upside. Yet even as the algorithm gushed, it dropped a sly note of skepticism: Should the Titans have passed on Travis Hunter, universally hyped as a unicorn prospect? We can almost see the PowerPoint slide in the draft room: “Ward: High Upside, Moderate Risk (But Seriously, Was Hunter the Answer?)”
Here’s the AI’s unspoken lesson: Models are trained on past draft outcomes, and historically, QBs taken at the top can just as easily bust as become legends. But algorithms tend to underplay these existential gambles, focusing instead on tangible traits. You can’t train a neural network to feel dread every time a new QB dons a Titans jersey, but veteran fans sure can. If AI could sweat, this is where it would.
Later, New York Giants traded up for quarterback Jaxson Dart—generating more hand-wringing, as AI flagged anxiety about Dart’s pocket composure and readiness. It’s hard to teach a computer what it feels like for a city’s expectations to collapse, but Copilot did manage to sense the bad juju of trading up with no sure thing in return. Human draft analysts, for all their bluster, also know how to smell panic. Copilot? Sometimes it just calls it “cost-adjusted.”
One starts to wonder: If AI could predict front office buyer’s remorse, would it short the trade market? Or just drop a passive-aggressive link to a risk assessment chart?
But even Copilot couldn’t ignore the perils: Consistency issues, balance questions, and “modest college production” followed several top tackles and guards like unwanted pop-ups. For overcaffeinated IT professionals, this is the patch note readout—every prospect comes with known vulnerabilities, and no, you can’t hotfix a left tackle’s pad level in OTA’s.
Hidden between the lines: AI is conservative because the data is. Years of draft busts have taught it that NFL lines are won with depth and development, not just combine heroes. It’s an important reminder for both GMs and sysadmins: Sometimes, you take the boring A- student who never crashes the server.
Yet let’s admit the obvious: AI lacks a sense for momentum, locker room vibes, and good old-fashioned hubris. It’s one thing to factor in an injury-prone history or combine numbers, quite another to see a player mentally break after four losing seasons. Human analysts can go overboard with their narratives—see: “draft steal” bingo cards—but they also spot red flags hidden in body language or pre-draft interviews.
Real-world implication? This is where analytics meet the messy world of organizational culture. GMs who rely too heavily on Copilot’s risk-averse grades may miss game-changing personalities—or flame out on a model whose only hobby is calculating variance.
The Giants’ decision to trade up for Dart drew flagged caution from both AI and the human crowd. Why? Because nothing ruins a new system (or a new era) faster than forced upgrades before you’ve even installed the last set of security patches. The AI’s “mixed feelings” are a neat bit of digital understatement for what could become another East Coast tabloid feeding frenzy.
At the root is a genuine strength of AI evaluation: Pattern recognition. Copilot spots traits that historically correlate with top-15 fantasy weeks and Pro Bowl nods. But it can’t project what happens if a player goes from sun-soaked Arizona to rainy Carolina, or suddenly loses confidence after three drops on Monday Night Football.
There’s an IT parallel here: You can benchmark a new device all you want, but performance may tank after deployment in… let’s say, “less ideal operating environments.” Sometimes the answer isn’t in the data, but in the day-to-day grind. There’s only so much an algorithm can parse before a WR or a Windows device demonstrates a mind of its own.
But here, too, Copilot’s sunny disposition holds a warning. Football historians and IT old heads alike know: Even the best-looking schematic fits can struggle when systems meet chaos. Injuries, coaching changes, and off-field mishaps rarely show up in pre-draft flags, but they torpedo more “safe bets” than a blue screen at a legacy bank. You want reliability, but don’t blame the bot when your “value pick” can’t handle a new defensive scheme.
But NFL draft history is littered with can’t-miss prospects who missed, either due to injuries, coaching mayhem, or… well, being 22 and suddenly rich beyond comprehension. AI can adjust for historical clustering—lining up similar player types and “predicting” likely outcomes—but it can’t see the specter of a Vegas nightclub or an ill-advised tweet making the national news cycle.
For the IT crowd: AI makes you efficient, but you still have to patch the servers, write the documentation, and walk users through setup hell. Data can only get you to the 20-yard line.
This is classic risk balancing. AI dislikes the unknown and builds in fudge factors for uncertainty. Humans, by contrast, let narrative run riot—the gritty, chip-on-the-shoulder kid who “just wants it more” conveniently sparkles brighter on draft night. The truth is probably in between. Your future star DN may have all the “tools” and still whiff in the pros.
If you’re in IT—as an architect, sysadmin, or CTO—this dynamic is familiar. You automate grading, predict outages, and write scripts to catch outliers; and when the system flags nothing, you get nervous. Football, like technology, is still run by people. At the end of the draft day, it remains a marvelous mess—one that only some of us would trust a robot to explain, and fewer still to call the next play.
For NFL teams and tech departments, the truth is the same: Use the tools, embrace the models, but when the servers start smoking or your quarterback sees ghosts, it’s time to trust the humans who can do what AI can’t—worry, adapt, and yes, sometimes, panic.
Because sometimes the best grade is still “incomplete,” and the game continues—for all of us, algorithms included.
Source: USA Today NFL draft 2025: AI grades each first round pick, Travis Hunter and Jaxson Dart trades
Let’s open with a real talk moment for GMs and armchair quarterbacks alike: The AI’s grading rubric was less vengeful than most sportswriters (and far less savage than the fans whose Twitter avatars are gym selfies). While seasoned reporters like Michael Middlehurst-Schwartz wore out the lower half of the alphabet, Copilot gifted all but six picks an ‘A’ or ‘A-’. Sure, that's kind—and maybe even diplomatically correct if your job’s on Microsoft’s cloud payroll—but it also paints a revealing portrait of what happens when you swap gut feel and hunches for probability distributions and datasets.A- becomes the new C+ in this simulated utopia, and you can almost hear Roger Goodell sigh in relief. For IT professionals watching this play out, it’s like seeing a new code linter flag fewer bugs: Is the code that good, or just the rules? (Spoiler: The answer is always, “Depends how you tune the model.”)
Cam Ward, Titans, and the Specter of Travis Hunter
The Tennessee Titans, sitting at No. 1, chose Cam Ward, their next franchise quarterback—or so Copilot assures us. Ward’s strong arm, football IQ, and athleticism supposedly spell long-term upside. Yet even as the algorithm gushed, it dropped a sly note of skepticism: Should the Titans have passed on Travis Hunter, universally hyped as a unicorn prospect? We can almost see the PowerPoint slide in the draft room: “Ward: High Upside, Moderate Risk (But Seriously, Was Hunter the Answer?)”
Here’s the AI’s unspoken lesson: Models are trained on past draft outcomes, and historically, QBs taken at the top can just as easily bust as become legends. But algorithms tend to underplay these existential gambles, focusing instead on tangible traits. You can’t train a neural network to feel dread every time a new QB dons a Titans jersey, but veteran fans sure can. If AI could sweat, this is where it would.
Traders’ Remorse: Hunter to Jaguars, Dart to Giants
Travis Hunter, the dazzling CB/WR hybrid, slid to Jacksonville after a trade up that cost the Jags draft capital (and inevitably, a few chuckles from rival front offices). Copilot was measured—Hunter’s injury history prompted “some concerns,” which, in AI-speak, is practically a fire alarm. Risk-adjusted grades make a cameo, and suddenly the cost of trading up becomes a concrete input.Later, New York Giants traded up for quarterback Jaxson Dart—generating more hand-wringing, as AI flagged anxiety about Dart’s pocket composure and readiness. It’s hard to teach a computer what it feels like for a city’s expectations to collapse, but Copilot did manage to sense the bad juju of trading up with no sure thing in return. Human draft analysts, for all their bluster, also know how to smell panic. Copilot? Sometimes it just calls it “cost-adjusted.”
One starts to wonder: If AI could predict front office buyer’s remorse, would it short the trade market? Or just drop a passive-aggressive link to a risk assessment chart?
Gold Stars and Grit: Notable High Marks
Not every story is a Greek tragedy. Several franchises walked away with Copilot’s digital high-fives:- Cleveland picked up Mason Graham, a defensive tornado with a background in wrestling—think of him as the guy who can bull-rush the line and then pin your center in one motion. AI’s wrestling reference is amusingly specific; somewhere, an MIT grad is salivating over tackle leverage stats.
- Carolina nabbed Tetairoa McMillan, a multi-role receiver whose versatility reads like an NFL exec’s fever dream. AI swooned, carefully noting his “potential to become a No. 1 target.” Presumably, this is how algorithms flirt—by projecting YAC (yards after catch) in one’s future.
- San Francisco bolstered its pass rush with Mykel Williams, AI’s “formidable force” despite his recent injury. Unlike the more cautious humans, Copilot saw the bright side of pairing him with Nick Bosa—the only thing more terrifying to QBs than a healthy Williams is a healthy Williams with Bosa grinning next to him.
Offensive Line Parade: The Safe, the Solid, and the Suspect
From Will Campbell at the Patriots (#4) to Kelvin Banks Jr. with the Saints, and Armand Membou for the Jets, the first round saw a rush on big men up front. AI praised athleticism, arm length, and “positional versatility” (translation: can fill gaps when everyone else is concussed). If you notice a pattern, it’s because O-line picks are the fiscal responsibility buys of draft night—rarely thrilling, always prudent.But even Copilot couldn’t ignore the perils: Consistency issues, balance questions, and “modest college production” followed several top tackles and guards like unwanted pop-ups. For overcaffeinated IT professionals, this is the patch note readout—every prospect comes with known vulnerabilities, and no, you can’t hotfix a left tackle’s pad level in OTA’s.
Hidden between the lines: AI is conservative because the data is. Years of draft busts have taught it that NFL lines are won with depth and development, not just combine heroes. It’s an important reminder for both GMs and sysadmins: Sometimes, you take the boring A- student who never crashes the server.
Hidden Risks and Missed Human Touches
If Copilot’s grading system seems kinder than typical, there’s method to the corporate madness. AI generally doesn’t want to be wrong on either end—famous busts, or sleeper stars. Instead, it crowds around the mean, avoiding extremes. When the Cincinnati Bengals chose Shemar Stewart and Copilot gave out its lowest mark—a “B-”—you know something’s up. Stewart’s “modest college production” couldn’t be glossed over, even by the software’s internal cheerleader.Yet let’s admit the obvious: AI lacks a sense for momentum, locker room vibes, and good old-fashioned hubris. It’s one thing to factor in an injury-prone history or combine numbers, quite another to see a player mentally break after four losing seasons. Human analysts can go overboard with their narratives—see: “draft steal” bingo cards—but they also spot red flags hidden in body language or pre-draft interviews.
Real-world implication? This is where analytics meet the messy world of organizational culture. GMs who rely too heavily on Copilot’s risk-averse grades may miss game-changing personalities—or flame out on a model whose only hobby is calculating variance.
The Great Quarterback Mystery: Ward, Dart, and the Sands of Potential
Let’s circle back to what every NFL conversation usually lands on: quarterbacks. Cam Ward earning the top spot is the AI equivalent of betting on the latest app to disrupt ride-sharing: exciting, high-upside, but also “subject to market volatility.” Jaxson Dart’s selection, meanwhile, was flag poled as high-risk, possibly high-reward, with AI highlighting ball security and poise under duress—two things models often overrate because they look great on box scores.The Giants’ decision to trade up for Dart drew flagged caution from both AI and the human crowd. Why? Because nothing ruins a new system (or a new era) faster than forced upgrades before you’ve even installed the last set of security patches. The AI’s “mixed feelings” are a neat bit of digital understatement for what could become another East Coast tabloid feeding frenzy.
Wide Receivers: Separation, Yards, and AI’s Favorite Buzzwords
Wideouts got their time in the algorithmic sun, with AI loving nearly all picks—especially those who can “create separation” and “make contested catches.” Emeka Egbuka in Tampa, Matthew Golden for Green Bay, and McMillan in Carolina all fit this mold: versatile, quick, and able to juice an offense on day one.At the root is a genuine strength of AI evaluation: Pattern recognition. Copilot spots traits that historically correlate with top-15 fantasy weeks and Pro Bowl nods. But it can’t project what happens if a player goes from sun-soaked Arizona to rainy Carolina, or suddenly loses confidence after three drops on Monday Night Football.
There’s an IT parallel here: You can benchmark a new device all you want, but performance may tank after deployment in… let’s say, “less ideal operating environments.” Sometimes the answer isn’t in the data, but in the day-to-day grind. There’s only so much an algorithm can parse before a WR or a Windows device demonstrates a mind of its own.
Defensive Fronts and the Myth of Plug-and-Play
Defensive tackles and edge rushers made up the other backbone of AI’s top marks. Abdul Carter at the Giants was lauded for strengthening a “formidable pass-rushing trio.” Walter Nolen, Derrick Harmon, Kenneth Grant—each painted as foundational pieces in need of minor tweaks, not major overhauls.But here, too, Copilot’s sunny disposition holds a warning. Football historians and IT old heads alike know: Even the best-looking schematic fits can struggle when systems meet chaos. Injuries, coaching changes, and off-field mishaps rarely show up in pre-draft flags, but they torpedo more “safe bets” than a blue screen at a legacy bank. You want reliability, but don’t blame the bot when your “value pick” can’t handle a new defensive scheme.
The Adventurous Picks: Trades and Schemes
Trades bring out the best—and worst—in automated grading. Copilot’s risk assessment twinged when teams traded up (hello, Jaguars and Giants), but seemed more accepting when it came to schematic fits (see: James Pearce Jr. to the Falcons or Malaki Starks to the Ravens). In other words, AI tolerates gambling if the underlying narrative fits historic success rates.But NFL draft history is littered with can’t-miss prospects who missed, either due to injuries, coaching mayhem, or… well, being 22 and suddenly rich beyond comprehension. AI can adjust for historical clustering—lining up similar player types and “predicting” likely outcomes—but it can’t see the specter of a Vegas nightclub or an ill-advised tweet making the national news cycle.
For the IT crowd: AI makes you efficient, but you still have to patch the servers, write the documentation, and walk users through setup hell. Data can only get you to the 20-yard line.
The B Grades: Where Optimism Meets Caution
If your favorite prospect landed in the B/B- tier (a thin group, by Copilot’s standards), console yourself with this: You were just one “buzzword” away from an A-. Take Shemar Stewart (Bengals) or Tyleik Williams (Lions): Both were celebrated for their athletic upside and adaptability, docked only for “modest college production” or questions about fit.This is classic risk balancing. AI dislikes the unknown and builds in fudge factors for uncertainty. Humans, by contrast, let narrative run riot—the gritty, chip-on-the-shoulder kid who “just wants it more” conveniently sparkles brighter on draft night. The truth is probably in between. Your future star DN may have all the “tools” and still whiff in the pros.
Lessons for IT Pros and Draft Geeks: Embrace the Bias, Mind the Gap
So, what does this new Copilot grading exercise teach us beyond the gridiron?- AI is great at codifying aggregate wisdom, but tends to smooth away outliers, for better or worse. That means it can identify overlooked strengths (versatility, scheme fit, production rate), but may also struggle to adjust when the underlying playbook—or team culture—changes.
- Risk is a tricky thing. Trade-ups and injury histories got flagged, but AI lacks a true measure for morale drain, leadership vacuum, or generational talent lifting a crumbling franchise. These “intangibles,” still the domain of scouts and grizzled beat reporters, will continue to befuddle digital wizards.
- Dependence on AI—no matter how advanced—can breed institutional laziness. Teams (and companies) that treat it as the be-all-end-all risk missing out on needed contrarians. All models are wrong, goes the saying, but some are useful—especially if you’re willing to trust your gut when the situation warrants.
Final Whistle: Is the Algorithm Smarter (and Kinder) Than You?
The 2025 NFL Draft’s AI grades—proudly less mean-spirited than the average hot take—remind us that optimism has its place, and even a computer can see the fun in handing out A’s on a big night. But a survey of Copilot’s output shows clear strengths: distilling positional value, quantifying risk, and identifying hidden gems. It also underlines real limitations: the flattening of narrative, the smoothing of variance, and an enduring allergy to drama.If you’re in IT—as an architect, sysadmin, or CTO—this dynamic is familiar. You automate grading, predict outages, and write scripts to catch outliers; and when the system flags nothing, you get nervous. Football, like technology, is still run by people. At the end of the draft day, it remains a marvelous mess—one that only some of us would trust a robot to explain, and fewer still to call the next play.
For NFL teams and tech departments, the truth is the same: Use the tools, embrace the models, but when the servers start smoking or your quarterback sees ghosts, it’s time to trust the humans who can do what AI can’t—worry, adapt, and yes, sometimes, panic.
Because sometimes the best grade is still “incomplete,” and the game continues—for all of us, algorithms included.
Source: USA Today NFL draft 2025: AI grades each first round pick, Travis Hunter and Jaxson Dart trades
Last edited: