Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
Sounds like calling the winner of a race after a 1/4 mile when there's still another mile to go. More time allows for more results, and isn't that what we're judging?
|
No, you fool, we are judging the process. If the process is perfect - drafting talent in its expected place; finding "bargains" and making trades that appear to get more value than they give up - then you have had a successful draft. It doesn't matter who the players are.
<sigh>
Grading a draft is so subjective, even
when to grade is subjective. There are extremes like (obviously bad) NO trading it's entire draft to us in order to get Ricky Williams to say, Baltimore's (great) 1997 draft in which it turned it's two first round picks into two HOF'ers (Lewis and Ogden). In each case, it was pretty clear from the get go that the draft was good or bad.
Most, however, have to wait. A few years ago (2007) everyone raved about Cleveland's ability to trade into the first round to get Brady Quinn and how they were so astute to do so. Three years later, doesn't look too smart to trade up for BQ. Ultimately, in my opinion, barring obvious "fails", like not getting your card up in time or obvious FO dysfunction in the pick, it is just silly to judge a draft on anything other than player production.
Regardless how they got picked - good value, bad value, blah blah blah ... what did the rookies picked produce? Everybody starts every draft with the same base number of picks. Some are traded away, some are gained ... at the end of the day, who got the most productive (qualitatively and quantitatively) rookies out of a draft. That's who had the best draft.