Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

JoeRedskin · 04-28-2008, 08:39 AM

Best, at this point, would have to be KC - I think that's pretty undisputed (they may get 3 or 4 starters out of this draft class. That's pretty amazing).

I'll go with Miami as number two - they seemed to address some needs and didn't really reach for anybody big or mortgage the ranch to get anyone. Long solid first pick with Mehrling and Henne solid picks at real good value.

Not sure who else to put up here.

As for losers: Cinci: You don't need WR's, you need DEFENSE; Carolina: Otah will probably be good but not next year's first round good (didn't Carolina give up almost the same for a guy most likely suited to be RT that we gave up for a, hopefully, franchise QB? As I recall, we got some real bad reviews for our move).

As for the Skins, I think they had a good draft - but it's the kind of draft that will take some time to evaluate (unless Thomas or Kelly comes in and tears it up which I do not expect). It's the kind of draft that, if done consistently, can build a long term winner. Take a lot of shots in the lottery in hopes of picking one of the few winning tickets. Also liked that they consistently stuck to their board (Boswell can crucify them, but other than WR this was a team with need for depth not starters). Don't think they reached for anyone and managed to pick up move up, down and around without mortgaging the future.

BTW - I hate that term, "value pick". I recognize it as a necessary term in evaluating picks whether a FO made good use of getting a highly rated player lower than expected. With that said, if anyone had picked Tom Brady in the 2nd or 3rd round they would've been condemned for not getting "value" out of the pick. Same with, Marques Colston. The question of whether you got value for the pick, however, will be three years down the road and more tied to you scouting than to your drafting.

Just to be clear and, hopefully to avoid unneccessary criticism of this rant - I recognize the purpose of the term and agree it has some value (no pun intended) in evaluating the competence of a FO. I just suggest it has minimal or no value in evaluating a team's scouting abilities and, in fact, may be both dismissive of and conter-productive to that ability.

04-28-2008, 08:39 AM	#24
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 62 Posts: 10,401	Re: Teams with the Best and Worst Drafts Best, at this point, would have to be KC - I think that's pretty undisputed (they may get 3 or 4 starters out of this draft class. That's pretty amazing). I'll go with Miami as number two - they seemed to address some needs and didn't really reach for anybody big or mortgage the ranch to get anyone. Long solid first pick with Mehrling and Henne solid picks at real good value. Not sure who else to put up here. As for losers: Cinci: You don't need WR's, you need DEFENSE; Carolina: Otah will probably be good but not next year's first round good (didn't Carolina give up almost the same for a guy most likely suited to be RT that we gave up for a, hopefully, franchise QB? As I recall, we got some real bad reviews for our move). As for the Skins, I think they had a good draft - but it's the kind of draft that will take some time to evaluate (unless Thomas or Kelly comes in and tears it up which I do not expect). It's the kind of draft that, if done consistently, can build a long term winner. Take a lot of shots in the lottery in hopes of picking one of the few winning tickets. Also liked that they consistently stuck to their board (Boswell can crucify them, but other than WR this was a team with need for depth not starters). Don't think they reached for anyone and managed to pick up move up, down and around without mortgaging the future. BTW - I hate that term, "value pick". I recognize it as a necessary term in evaluating picks whether a FO made good use of getting a highly rated player lower than expected. With that said, if anyone had picked Tom Brady in the 2nd or 3rd round they would've been condemned for not getting "value" out of the pick. Same with, Marques Colston. The question of whether you got value for the pick, however, will be three years down the road and more tied to you scouting than to your drafting. Just to be clear and, hopefully to avoid unneccessary criticism of this rant - I recognize the purpose of the term and agree it has some value (no pun intended) in evaluating the competence of a FO. I just suggest it has minimal or no value in evaluating a team's scouting abilities and, in fact, may be both dismissive of and conter-productive to that ability. __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.