Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
i saw this earlier this week. its a decent review but i think there's a fundamental flaw in kipers logic - he gives teams with a full slate of draft picks high scores for selecting players he thinks may be stars or even just solid contributors at the next level. Yet, he penalizes us for trading picks for players who are garaunteed to do more for the redskins in 2010 than any rookie selected in the draft at the same pick. It makes ZERO sense to me.
We traded a 2nd rounder for a QB who will be better in 2010 and 2011 (at minimum) than any rookie QB. We traded a third rounder to select a LB/DE in last years supplemental draft - who looked great last year before he was hurt. This should count toward this years draft score since it didnt count in last years. Then, we swapped late round picks for a starting defensive end who will likely contribute more to the redskins over his career than any player selected between the swapped picks in the 5th round.
All of those things should positively affect our score instead of hurting it. If we had traded the picks for 3 old players who had nothing left in the tank, or guys whose ability to play in the NFL was seriously questionable, i could see downgrading our score. Kiper graded Jimmy Clausen as the #1 overall prospect in the draft. Close to 30 teams had picks before Clausen was selected and they passed on him. That tells me everything I need to know about what Kiper really knows about evaluating talent. He's a great TV personality, but his rating means nothing to me.
|
I agree with the part about the selective way that teams drafts are graded. However, just because Clausen fell down the draft board does not mean that Mel was wrong in his assessment of him. Only time will tell that. If Clausen proves to be as good as Mel thinks he will be then he was right, if not he's wrong. Where he was drafted is not a factor.