shakadave said:
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 think PonyExpress and Mike the Brit have good points about some weighting. But it's almost the inverse of the trade value chart. And I think you have to figure out some weighting where you add some points AND subtract some points. Especially in the 1st, but overall in other rounds also, if you are picking high in a round you should lose significantly more points and gain fewer points than teams drafting in the low part of the rounds.
For example, you should get at least a solid starter with a 1st round pick and that shouldn't get you any points. If you get a pro bowler and/or a All Pro, you get a FEW extra points. If you don't even get a starter, you should LOSE a
LOT of points.
With a second round pick, you get a few points if you get a solid starter. You probably neither get points or lose points if your 2nd rounder gets a lot reps as a 2nd man on the depth chart. You get MORE points to your credit if you get a ProBowler/All Pro with your second round pick than you would if it were a 1st round pick. If you don't get a player who at least gets a lot of reps, you lose a fair number of points but nowhere near what you would if it were a 1st round pick.
And so on. Where you score BIG points is if you get a 5th, 6th, or 7th rounder who starts and even bigger points if they are a probowler caliber. Every heard of guys by the name of Tom Brady, Patrick Pass, and David Givens ??
Under this kind of a weighting system and with 65% of the clubs gettting busts from their 1st round picks each year, you would be hard put to figure that the Patriots aren't one of the top 5 drafting teams. How can that be any lower than an A- or a B+ ??
Successful drafts (B- to A) probably get you a couple starters and a solid backup with lots of reps as a rough qualitative feel. Here are names for for 2001 to 2004:
2004 - Wilfork, Watson
2003 - Warren, Wilson, Samuel, Koppen, Banta-Cain
2002 - Graham, Branch, Green, Givens
2001 - Seymour, Light
So 2001 and 2004 look a little light (excuse any puns) but when you get solid starters and a probowler in your 1st round picks and solid starters in your 2nd round picks, I'm not sure how you could be rated less than a B-.
2003 looks like a banner year both in terms of number of solid players and in any weighting system - at least an A.
2002 Looks like a very good year also. Branch, Green and Givens as 2nd, 4th, and 7th round picks probably add up pretty well in a weighted assessment and Graham doesn't lose you any points - probably at least an A-.
Just some thoughts for fun.