It gets annoying. Especially when people don't give clear cut opinions
before the draft. We have a bunch of posters that like to play that game and I'm not talking about
@captain stone. I know he gets a lot of grief but we have a few posters here who love talking about stuff
after the fact without giving their opinions
before the action starts. That's beyond old and even some of the old draft forum guys are guilty of it.
Its tough. You need to have some accountability and consequence and allow people to take chances. Pats/Bill are unique though bc of Bill's tenure and security.
I'm in work but a few quick ones ...
Short term - simply compare their play to other rookies and go from there on a scale from rook to vet. Also other rookies at the same position who have come in recently. Add in some context for players around them, overall team, maybe a position switch etc
It's not unreasonable to expect contributions from top 64 guys. I think we all can agree on what those would be for certain positions. Playing time, snaps
Long term - second contracts - only 30% of prospects drafted get signed to
second contracts to the
same team. That's a good indication of how much a team wants a player. Teams should probably be leveraging early picks for established vets at that % considering injuries, learning a new system, learning curve in general etc
Pro bowl/All-Pro selections
Look at the overall draft class regardless of position and see how they shape up.
Just ask me. I have a better handle on that stuff than most.
I love living in alternate places and always think about "what if" if this prospect would have been drafted by this team. One of my favorites is Randy Moss and the Rams. They could of had him Warner, Faulk and Bruce on the same team. They got Holt the next year but those 4 would have been unbelievable to watch.