Reiss: Peter King 2001 draft grades
 

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal.../reiss_pieces/

How do you give a team a C- when they get the best DL guy in the NFL today
, a probowler, and a very good left Tackle whom go on to win 3 superbowls?

Ok rest of draft not so good but that alone should rate a B, Mr. King.

because rest of guys besides first 2 picks arent with us and werent really great or anything..draft doesnt consist of 2 players to make you a succesfull draft

It wasn't a strong draft overall but when you get a HoF DL and a solid starting LT in one draft, that's no worse than a B to me.

Football Outsider's has a thread on this, and most people, even non-Pats fans, are saying that Seymour essentially made the whole draft, with Matt Light being some icing on the cake.

Some punk from New Orleans cracked his usual 'Worshipping in Belichick's Cult' crap which he uses in every thread about the Pats.

To all the Peter King bashers, I say this is a great article for generating discussion. We all know it takes a few years to grade a draft, but how often do other sports writers write this type of article? And think of all the work needed to write this much about EACH team in the league! Thank you, Peter King.

Now I'd really like to read a similar article for the 2002 and 2003 drafts. Does anybody have one?

I'm not normally a Peter King fan, but this was one of his better articles. He laid out his criteria and stuck to them. The Bengals really did have a fantastic draft.

Making a great pick at 6 and then making one more good move really is C- quality drafting. Not even decent back-ups came out of this motley crew. It is one of the worst drafts of BB/SP era, but everyone gets a clunker.

I think King was mistaken by calling this a draft in BB/SP prime, they were still getting the hang of things. Despite the As always given out for the 2000 draft and stealing Tom Brady, the rest of the draft was a bit of a bust, only Pass is still with the team. The draft strategy was a work in progress.

I would say the Drafting didn't start to really get good until 2002 and has been getting progressively better.

How about this way of ranking a draft 5 years later: Rank every player from the 2001 draft from best to worst, as though redoing the draft by quality 5 years later. Then assign each player a point value according to their new "draft" position from the Draft Value Chart. Then add up the cumulative "new" points of the players each team drafted, and compare it with the cumulative "old" draft points each team had with their original picks. If the "new" points are more than the "old" ones, it was a productive draft. If less, it was not... Going by this theory, Seymour would probably be #2 behind Tomlinson, and Light, a proven Left Tackle, would be at least in the 20s. Those moves up the board would more than compensate for every other player in a draft being a bust, by a wide margin.

Well, according to King, he prefers to do his anaylis 5 years later after all the uncertainty has been taken out of the equation. So next year we can find out what he thought.

Maybe we can find his anylisis of the 2000 draft. He take right after it was Redmond was going to be an every down back by week 4 and rushing for 1200 yards. So there is a good reason by waiting for 5 years.

This makes good mathematical sense. It would be tough to rank all the players (e.g. deciding who's Player#88 vs. who's Player#89) but you could even group them into value groups of 5-10 players. Also, you'd need a way to assign points to the best players, probably different from just saying Player1=200 points, Player2=199, Player3=198, etc., since the best players are more than incrementally better than the rest. Instead, you'd want something sort of like the "books" for trading draft picks.