Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

... in his [URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html"]latest MMQB[/URL]. The Redskins grade out as a C-, and I think he may have been kind.

2001 brought us such luminaries as Rod "50/50" Gardner, Sage Rosenfelz, and Fred Smoot. The only player who was at all valuable was Fred, and he has never been a #1 CB after 5 years in the league.

Peter King and I agree on little. I don't care for Starbucks, and I like Art Monk. But I'm afraid he's right on this one.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

[QUOTE=SkinsLove24/7]It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.[/QUOTE]
You aren't bashing me - I didn't write a four page column about it.

I tend to agree with King assertion that drafts shouldn't be graded until the players actually perform - it's one of the reasons I think Eagles fans are [I]especially[/I] delusional this year ([I]Did you see who we got in the draft? We're [u]back[/u], baby![/I]). And, since I've been a fan of the Redskins for a little while now, I remember the days when we all hoped Rod Gardner would turn the corner, and I'm glad they're past.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

[QUOTE=SkinsLove24/7]It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, the best indicator of a draft in terms how those players actually performed in the NFL is about 3-5 years down the road.

By the same token, you can't rate the 2006 draft by those standards either, because none of the 2006 draftees have played in the NFL yet. You can rate them based on what their status is coming out of college. But to get an accurate gauge on how well this draft class will do, you'd have to wait at least until 2009 or later.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

that draft sucked for the redskins, plain and simple. gardener is out of the league and smooty isnt that far behind

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

peter king can suck my nuts...he is terrible like the rest

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

I agree with Cinnci and Carolina being the only A's given, but there were some grades that didn't make much sense. King is great at trashing a team and then turning around and saying that they are going to win it all.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

well even thought I also didn't agreed with some of his grades I totally agreed with the grade he gaved dallas I think it should had been lower that was one of the worst drafts ever didn't like it then sure don't like it now....

I also agree the best way to grade a draft it's 3-5 years later after the players perform because right now they're are just names and assumptions, right now NO looks like one of the teams that did the best draft by selecting Bush but if he turns in to a L.Phillips not so good draft after all.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

[quote=dmek25]that draft sucked for the redskins, plain and simple. gardener is out of the league and smooty isnt that far behind[/quote]Why would you think Smoot is going to be out of the league soon? He is a top 10 corner plays hard and will play hurt. Now I know there where issues when he left but you can't write off his tallent because you no longer like him. Maybe you have reason to believe he is not very good.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

[quote=BrudLee]... in his [URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html"]latest MMQB[/URL]. The Redskins grade out as a C-, and I think he may have been kind.

2001 brought us such luminaries as Rod "50/50" Gardner, Sage Rosenfelz, and Fred Smoot. The only player who was at all valuable was Fred, and he has never been a #1 CB after 5 years in the league.

Peter King and I agree on little. I don't care for Starbucks, and I like Art Monk. But I'm afraid he's right on this one.[/quote]

If you think about it ,he'll most likely upgrade you guys to a C ,look at what he gave the Jets and you guys have most of their good picks from 2001 .

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

[quote=firstdown]Why would you think Smoot is going to be out of the league soon? He is a top 10 corner plays hard and will play hurt. Now I know there where issues when he left but you can't write off his tallent because you no longer like him. Maybe you have reason to believe he is not very good.[/quote]

top 10? last year he ended up as the #3 on his own team.

Champ
McAlister
Clements
Winfield
Law
Surtain
Barber
Rolle
Harris
Sheppard
Bly
Madison
Springs
Vasher
Robinson
Lucas
Mathis
Hall
Baxter
Newman
Taylor

so that'd make him about 22. Even if you diagree with some of the names, tossing 12 to bump his name up would be pretty hard to do.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

Smoot has never been a top 10 corner. Top 20, maybe... but like Schneed said above he wasn't even a top 2 guy on the Vikes last year.

To be a top 10 corner, you have to be a #1 on your own team. Smoot has never been the #1 corner.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

smoot was a good, solid corner while here, but.... after getting torched by steve smith, getting hurt, and then only playing the nickel for the vikes, i think the writings on the wall.

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

and i am not a typical redskin fan. i hold no grudges just because someone left for more money. there isnt one person on this board that wouldnt do the same

Re: Peter King grades the 2001 draft...
 

i have a feeling that the vikings were the beginning of the end for him. if he would have stayed, i bet he would have been worlds better than he is now.