Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.
We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.
We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.
I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.
|
Well you have to factor them in somehow. A pick's value just doesn't magically disappear.
Scouts Inc. devised a formula that takes trades into account:
2010 NFL draft: Scouts Inc. offers up the results of its unique formula for evaluating each team's draft performance. - ESPN