Monday, April 30, 2007

NFL Draft Grades

Dr. Z grades both the Bears' and Redskins' drafts as a "D"

Yahoo! has the Bears at a "C" and the Redskins at a "D+".

CBS Sportsline has the Bears at a "C" and the Redskins at a "D."

Fox Sports has the Bears and Redskins both at "C".

NBC has the Bears at a "B" and the Redskins at a "C+."

Chicago Tribune had the Bears at an "A-" and the Redskins at a "D."

Here is the bottom line - we cannot judge how good draft class is until the guys get on the field for a couple of years. Most draft picks do not become Pro Bowlers, many are not starters, but many are solid contributors. The Bears simply had more picks than the Redskins and I am quite comfortable with their selections. I suspect that they will have a bunch of contributors out of this bunch. For the Redskins, outside of Landry (who I think is going to be very good), I don't see much.

14 comments:

deepie said...

Many are giving the 'Skins poor grades only because of the lack of picks. Few are arguing with choosing Landry.

As far as the 'Skins later picks are concerned, assessing their potential value is next to impossible until camp and pre-season start. Even then, we may not know much. I do think, however, that the two LBs drafted could be pleasant surprises.

Rob said...

I love Landry, but come on. Linebacker was not their problem and the guys they signed are special teamers at best.

The pick of Carson's brother was a waste for the 6th pick. It has to be for the publicity.

People (including myself) criticize the Redskins for not having many picks, but it is easy to also question their judgement. Landry was not really a need position, and then none of the other guys they drafted were either.

deepie said...

With Washington still unable to run and potentially being released as you seem to think, and McIntosh's apparent inability to understand the defensive playbook, how can you say LB wasn't a need position? The only sure thing this year is that Fletcher will be the MLB. Also, double G is convinced that last year's inability to stop the run was due to improper gap control by the linebackers. If so, I'd say LB was a huge need.

Don't get me wrong. I would have been happier had we taken a d-lineman, but I don't think any of the d-linemen available were worth the 6th pick...maybe Okoye, but as young as he is, he could be in over his head at the next level. Landry was the best defender available and will be a huge upgrade over whoever else was playing SS.

Rob said...

You know how I can say it? Because they went out and spent a ton to get Fletcher and they don't have any D-linemen.

Everything starts up front and the Redskins suck up front. Double GG and Gibbsy are fooling themselves into thinking that their line is OK.

Besides, the two guys they got are nothing special, so they are not really addressing their linebacking issues anyway.

deepie said...

One was the sack leader on a national powerhouse team. The other was a semifinalist for the Butkus award and recorded over 400 tackles in college. Both are known to be very smart kids who will be able to absorb the playbook.

I say not bad for 5th and 6th round picks. Of course they're projects, but not bad.

I continue to agree with you that DL issues should have been addressed, but maybe it was just a matter of taking the better players over whatever DL talent was left.

Rob said...

Big, slow doofus out of USC and a small, slow inside linebacker. Look up the numbers at NFL.com. They got picked when they should have gotten picked (i.e., the Redskins did not get steals).

Look, the Bears signed Chris Leak as an undrafted free agent. That won't make any difference at QB for them. Having good stats in college doesn't necessarily amount to much. I doubt either of the linebackers will amount to much at the pro level, but we'll see.

j, k, and s's d said...

RobsObs, you are TH-illy! Here you go again with your wishy, washiness. You have long complained about Arch Deluxe, Fox, Vincent, Prioleau and you even said that the 'Skins should take Landry. Now you seem to hedge a bit on the selection saying, "Landry was not really a need position."

It is a good pick as it addresses the hole at safety. By all accounts, Landry is a star ready to take off.

I too am disappointed that we didn't draft a D-lineman and assume we will pick some one off of the scrap heap to help. LB is a concern as well and if the guys are semi decent then great. Still, what do you expect to get in the 5th and 6th rounds. Most guys in the later rounds will amount to special teamers at best.

Still, I agree with Deepie in that the poor grade is due to a shear lack of picks. If we had gone out and selected Yaphet Kodo with the 6th overall pick than we could complain. We picked a need and the widely considered best defensive player in the draft.

As far as the Bears go, Leak is useless. The TE can catch but he can't block. The Bears already have Desmond so they didn't pick a need. They might as well have picked Yaphet Kodo.

I think I mentioned this before. It didn't matter who the Bears and 'Skins picked somehow I magically predicted that RobsObs was going to say the Bears did a great job and the Redskins blew it.

Gee, I wonder how I knew that?

Rob said...

I keep saying that Landry was a good pick. I am not sure what you are getting at.

My problem with the Redskins' draft was that they did not go D-line at all. They wasted the picks on the linebackers in my opinion, because it wasn't nearly the need position as O-line and D-line. The pick to take Palmer was just plain stupid, especially because they signed Hollenbach out of Maryland as an undrafted free agent QB. Then, the blocking tight end they picked in the 7th was a throwaway. I doubt he'll even make the team.

They don't have scouts or any skills in evaluating talent.

Rob said...

JKD - I'm curious, please let us know with your objective analysis, do you think the Bears or the Redskins had a better draft?

deepie said...

While we're waiting for RobOb's objective analysis, I will say that I have no problem with the players that the 'Skins picked. I think they should have added depth along the D-line, but if the talent wasn't there then they got what appears to be a pretty good crop of low round picks.

I've already said that I think the two LBs will be pleasant surprises based on their player bios. The TE was not a throwaway. Gibbs had been looking for a blocking TE to complement Cooley and from the looks of it, he got exactly what he wanted...a 6th o-lineman. The QB pick was a waste, but given his numbers and his size, he could be an effective back up.

I give the 'Skins a C+, but only because they didn't have the picks to address additional needs.

j, k, and s's d said...

It's hard to really judge since we just didn't have many picks. It's not really comparing apples to apples.

Still, for what it is, I would agree with most of the grades from the "experts." I think we got a better player at more of a need position and the Bears got a good player at a not so much needed position.

Rob said...

Olsen is as much of a needs as Landry. Look up how often Clark is injured.

So basically, you both agree the Bears had a better draft. That is what the consensus is based on the experts.

I already gave my analysis, now we can sit back and see whose draft is better. Once again, I am sure it will be the Bears. First they picked more players so they can afford a couple of busts, but second, and more important, the Bears actually have scouts with a proven record of finding talent. The Redskins just pretty much pick guys from big schools and have no way of finding the hidden gems.

j, k, and s's d said...

Wow, I forgot how difficult it is to get through to you.

Again, it is not an apples to apples comparison so it is hard to judge.

I will repeat myself as I so often have to do on RobsObs, the 'Skins got a great player at more of a need position. The Bears got a good player at a not so much need position. The Bears had more picks and thus (as you mentioned) can afford to have a few busts. Also, our remaining picks were in the later rounds where it is hard to find potential starters.

Again, not an apples to apples comparison. I pretty much agree with the "experts." Basically, we have the same grade; although, it reflects much more poorly on the Bears because they actually had picks but just blew it.

Whatever. You won't admit it. You will spin it to say that the Bears had an unbelievable draft and make like Bobby Czyz and say that they are the most unbelievable thing you have ever had the privilege to see. Of course, you will say that the 'Skins are horrible...blah...blah...blah.

Keep on with your "objectivity" pallie. I love it.

Rob said...

I forgot how uninformed you are JKD!

Safety was not a need position for the Redskins (Fox, Stoutmire, Prioleau, Doughty). Sure LaRon is better, but I don't know of anyone who said that safety was a need position except for you.

Look up Desmond Clark's stats last year and over the last 3 years and tell me how you think the Bears did not need an upgrade. There was consensus that the Bears needed an upgrade.

The fact that you don't read or follow the draft is not an excuse for your ignorance and insolence. Please do a bit of research before writing out your unsubstantiated guesses about what teams need.

The Bears traded the #37 pick to drop down to #60 and get 2 more picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds. That was good management of their draft.

It is foolish to say that you cannot compare the two drafts because the Redskins don't have enough picks. They never have picks. Next year they are already out of the 4th round (Denver got it because of the Redskins' foolish Duckett trade last year). What do you want to bet that they trade a couple of more picks before the season starts? Then you will say we cannot compare drafts again because the Redskins don't have enough picks.

Weak my friend, weak. It just points out how freakingly stupid the Redskin organization is. But, Danny Boy doesn't feel they need a GM. Prepare for a loooooong year and then you will be saying yet again, "Gee, they need a GM."