PDA

View Full Version : King Carl's Drafting Success. The Planet Decides.


BigRedChief
03-19-2005, 06:18 AM
Stolen from the chiefscoalition site and nychiefsfan.


You don't have to break it down like I did, but I was curious about our overall success, or lack of it, regarding our drafts. Overall, CP did better than what I thought (I thought it'd be a grade of "D"). He didn't do much better, but better...
I assigned a letter grade to each year, then added the letter grade's point value and divided it by 16 (# of years CP's drafted for us). My overall total average for CP was 2.01875, which is a "C". I tried to be as fair as possible.
If anyone gets really bored, use the following GPA scoring system to grade the overall draft:
A = 4.0
A- = 3.7
B+ = 3.3
B = 3.0
B- = 2.7
C+ = 2.3 . . .
C = 2.0
C- = 1.7
D+ = 1.3
D = 1.0
E = 0
King Ego's 1st three rounds selections since he took over:
1989
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Derrick Thomas DE Alabama
2 32 Mike Elkins QB Wake Forest
3 60 Nasrallah Worthen WR North Carolina State
GRADE:A-
If the only person CP drafted in '89 was DT, he would get an A, but he wasted the two following picks on losers. Props to getting DT.
1990
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 13 Percy Snow ILB Michigan State
2 40 Tim Grunhard C Notre Dame
4 96 Fred Jones WR Grambling
GRADE:C- With the 13th overall pick, we get Percy Snow??? :blink: Great move CP :angry: Grunny was a very good selection, so props on getting him.
1991
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 21 Harvey Williams RB Louisiana State
2 50 Joe Valerio G Pennsylvania
3 77 Tim Barnett WR Jackson State
GRADE: D
1992
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 20 Dale Carter CB Tennessee
2 40 Matt Blundin QB Virginia
GRADE: A- Carter was an awesome selection, but then we got Blundin :rolleyes:
1993
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
3 74 Will Shields G Nebraska
GRADE: A Shields has been a superstar for us. Props to CP :clap:
1994
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 25 Greg Hill RB Texas A&M
2 58 Donnell Bennett FB Miami
3 92 Lake Dawson WR Notre Dame
3 96 Chris Penn WR Tulsa
GRADE: D
1995
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 31 Trezelle Jenkins T Michigan
3 81 Tamarick Vanover WR Florida State
3 97 Troy Dumas LB Nebraska
GRADE D: Vanover was a good KR/PR, that's it.
1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 28 Jerome Woods FS Memphis
2 58 Reggie Tongue SS Oregon State
3 68 John Browning NT West Virginia
GRADE B: Woods and Tongue were arguable CP's best 1st 2 picks up to this point.
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 13 Tony Gonzalez TE California
2 47 Kevin Lockett WR Kansas State
GRADE: A- Gonzo was a great selection. Lockett: not-so-great
1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 27 Victor Riley T Auburn
3 88 Rashaan Shehee RB Washington
GRADE: D Riley was mediocre, at best. Shehee was a joke.
1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 14 John Tait T Brigham Young
2 54 Michael Cloud RB Boston College
3 75 Gary Stills DE West Virginia
GRADE C+: Remember reading about CP swearing at Tait during negotiations...and Tait's a Mormon. Dumbass. Stills is a great ST player.
2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 21 Sylvester Morris WR Jackson State
2 54 William Bartee CB Oklahoma
3 85 Greg Wesley SS Arkansas-Pine Bluff
GRADE: D It would have been an F is they didn't draft Wesley, but if you look at what a waste the 1st 2 picks are, it would arguably be an F.
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
3 75 Eric Downing DT Syracuse
3 77 Marvin Minnis WR Florida State
GRADE F Downing is about as worthless as Sims. Minnis??

2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Ryan Sims DT North Carolina
2 43 Eddie Freeman DE Ala.-Birmingham
GRADE: F- I wish there was a lower grade than F- :hmmmmmmm:
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State
2 47 Kawika Mitchell MLB South Florida
3 92 Julian Battle CB Tennessee
GRADE B Priest's questionable hip saved CP this year. Mitchell and Battle havent blossomed into the players we hoped.
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
2 36 Junior Siavii NT Oregon
2 61 Kris Wilson TE Pittsburgh
3 93 Keyaron Fox OLB Georgia Tech
GRADE C+: Siavii is still raw. Wilson might be a great player, but we really needed D on this pick. Fox was rarely used outside of ST.

Manila-Chief
03-19-2005, 06:48 AM
Yes there are the D.T. & Gonzo's .... but many of those drafts you only listed the first couple rounds ... to grade high there must be probowl players along with a bunch of blue collar/bring your lunch bucket type players to fill up the roster .... there are not enough of either kind...

I notice most others are giving him an F ... that was my first reaction but there is enough Dale Carter types to keep it from being a total failure.

But, he is a long way from being successful in the draft business.

I thought his drafts were bad but didn't realize they are as bad as they are until you see it in black and white!!!

That is why we are all on pens and needles hoping to get Surtain and then 2nd. tier D players... should have come from the draft... but he was a failure.

Manila-Chief
03-19-2005, 06:49 AM
Big Red ... if you can still edit the title of your post .... in light of the stats you posted ... should you not change the title to .....

Kingless .... he certainly not a king!!!

whoman69
03-19-2005, 10:02 AM
If you count the four drafts since DV got here, he has drafted just 2 starters, 3 if you count Mitchell who won his spot by injury. They drafted much better, at least defensively when Marty was here. What has he done lately. It seems he's been drafting for depth on a team that still has alot of holes in the starting lineup. Tweeners, guys out of position and reaches.

Deberg_1990
03-19-2005, 10:04 AM
He has yet to DRAFT a FRANCHISE QB, RB or WR in 16 years..You would think most GM's could have at least done it by accident by now????...I love LJ so far but the verdict is still out on him. Grade F

PHOG
03-19-2005, 10:21 AM
Manny, your a fan of ??? :spock:

:hmmm:

foxman
03-19-2005, 12:04 PM
We suck at talent evaluation and as such we suck at the draft. Thats the only reason why trading for a proven player makes some sense. If we keep the pick we'll likely do something stupid with it anyway.

I gave CP a D, that might have been optamistic, but since Gonzo and Shields are HOF material they kind of scew his legacy a tad.

J Diddy
03-19-2005, 12:52 PM
In response to Percy Snow, He was a stud coming out of Michigan State. I remember seeing some draft warroom show that year and Schottenheimer was going ballistic on getting the kid.
In response to Sims, everyone was stoked on Sims, As a matter of fact ESPN barely did any coverage on him, because he was regarded as the best DL in the draft. The big search was who was on the 2nd best DL in the draft.

So there you go Carl got 2 studs out of college that didn't work out. If he had the benefit of hindsight like you do I'm sure he wouldn't pick them.

The thing that pisses me off about Carl is not when he drafts a college stud early and they flop.

It is when he drafts projects way too freaking early. Alot of players, he just creams all over himself over and gets them regardless of positioning.

It's almost like every pick he's trying to prove someone wrong.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 12:56 PM
In response to Percy Snow, He was a stud coming out of Michigan State. I remember seeing some draft warroom show that year and Schottenheimer was going ballistic on getting the kid.
In response to Sims, everyone was stoked on Sims, As a matter of fact ESPN barely did any coverage on him, because he was regarded as the best DL in the draft. The big search was who was on the 2nd best DL in the draft.
Maybe Carl should get his own scouting department and quit watching ESPN so much. There were 5 teams ahead of the Chiefs that knew better than to take Simms.

Hell, the Vikqueens look like geniuses for not getting their pick up in time. :banghead:

HC_Chief
03-19-2005, 01:04 PM
The thing that pisses me off about Carl is not when he drafts a college stud early and they flop.

It is when he drafts projects way too freaking early. Alot of players, he just creams all over himself over and gets them regardless of positioning.

It's almost like every pick he's trying to prove someone wrong.

Yep.

milkman
03-19-2005, 01:14 PM
Yep.

What he said.

J Diddy
03-19-2005, 01:33 PM
Maybe Carl should get his own scouting department and quit watching ESPN so much. There were 5 teams ahead of the Chiefs that knew better than to take Simms.

Hell, the Vikqueens look like geniuses for not getting their pick up in time. :banghead:

Yeah, that's rationale. Do you think if any of their needs were at DT they would have hesitated to take him?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:37 PM
I don't see why everyone bashes on the Percy Snow pick. At the time, it was a very good decision.

He won the Lombardi and the Butkus award and was the Most Valuable Player in the Rose Bowl.

No one could predict he would get injured in such a freak accident.

milkman
03-19-2005, 01:40 PM
I was excited about the Snow pick.
I thought he was going to be a stud in the NFL.

J Diddy
03-19-2005, 01:45 PM
I don't see why everyone bashes on the Percy Snow pick. At the time, it was a very good decision.

He won the Lombardi and the Butkus award and was the Most Valuable Player in the Rose Bowl.

No one could predict he would get injured in such a freak accident.

That's what I'm saying.

Sometimes studs don't work out.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 01:47 PM
I was excited about the Snow pick.
I thought he was going to be a stud in the NFL.
I bet he would have been.

el borracho
03-19-2005, 01:51 PM
I'd probably give Carl a C.

Obviously he is not as astute as Pioli has been the last few years but he doesn't even come close to the ineptness of Beathard in his San Diego days.

J Diddy
03-19-2005, 01:54 PM
I'd probably give Carl a C.

Obviously he is not as astute as Pioli has been the last few years but he doesn't even come close to the ineptness of Beathard in his San Diego days.

I would have to agree, however I'm ready for him to pick someone who can help immediately.

Projects are good if you've got one or 2 on your roster, but when the majority of your d is constructed of them then you have problems.

Logical
03-19-2005, 04:30 PM
In the the first round you should hit 50% so Carl gets an F for that round Carl is far far below that.

Hitting only around 10% in the second round for actual quality players another F.

He might get a D for all other rounds combined.

So I gave him an F.

Logical
03-19-2005, 04:37 PM
Clearly with 28 out of 43 at D or lower Carl is considered a failure by Chiefs Planet in the draft arena.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:56 PM
In the the first round you should hit 50% so Carl gets an F for that round Carl is far far below that.

Hitting only around 10% in the second round for actual quality players another F.

He might get a D for all other rounds combined.

So I gave him an F.
Jim, I bet you are hard pressed to find any team who has consistently drafted 10th or worse and have 50% of their first rounders as impact players today.

keg in kc
03-19-2005, 05:01 PM
Abysmal failure.

Successful teams are built on a foundation, a core, of solid, productive drafted talent. And we just don't have that. We've been forced to attempt to build a team via free agency and trades for the last five years because our drafts over the last seven-ten years have been utterly unproductive, regardless of round.

whoman69
03-19-2005, 05:05 PM
I'd probably give Carl a C.

Obviously he is not as astute as Pioli has been the last few years but he doesn't even come close to the ineptness of Beathard in his San Diego days.
They went to the SB when Beathard was GM. He catches alot of unfair flak for Ryan Leaf.

BigChiefFan
03-19-2005, 05:07 PM
Abysmal failure.

Successful teams are built on a foundation, a core, of solid, productive drafted talent. And we just don't have that. We've been forced to attempt to build a team via free agency and trades for the last five years because our drafts over the last seven-ten years have been utterly unproductive, regardless of round.
Unfortunately for us carl was just REWARDED with a big , new 4 year contract. His GM job has been terrible and I can't believe they signed him again, guess that proves that making money is more important than delivering Super Bowls. The bar has been set low so, I don't expect anything great this upcoming season. I've all but given up.

BoroChief
03-19-2005, 05:15 PM
I pretty much agree that except for the few bright spots i.e. DT, Gonzo and very few others CP's drafting skills suck. A lot of the names on the draft list reside in the where are they now file for their utter failure to live up to the hype the media had placed on them. I forgot about the Matt Blundin pick. He sucked when he played at UVA and I didn't see enough in him to be able to transition into the nfl. Still lmao over that one. Realize I'm a huge UVA fan and I was glad for Blundin at the time, but I didn't see him making it in the NFL.

Logical
03-19-2005, 07:53 PM
Jim, I bet you are hard pressed to find any team who has consistently drafted 10th or worse and have 50% of their first rounders as impact players today.

Russ the statistic of 50% of all first rounders being successful starters came from an Analyst on NFL Total Access on the NFL network.

Logical
03-19-2005, 08:01 PM
...
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State
2 47 Kawika Mitchell MLB South Florida
3 92 Julian Battle CB Tennessee
GRADE B Priest's questionable hip saved CP this year. Mitchell and Battle havent blossomed into the players we hoped.
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
2 36 Junior Siavii NT Oregon
2 61 Kris Wilson TE Pittsburgh
3 93 Keyaron Fox OLB Georgia Tech
GRADE C+: Siavii is still raw. Wilson might be a great player, but we really needed D on this pick. Fox was rarely used outside of ST.My god you are an easy grade, No way 2003 can ever be higher than a C given Mitchell and Battle are dismal failures and we desperately needed Defense in the first round and went offense.

Then you give a C+ for what is clearly at best an Incomplete, if you grade on last season only it is a clear F.

Well at least overall you gave them a D

el borracho
03-20-2005, 02:43 AM
They went to the SB when Beathard was GM. He catches alot of unfair flak for Ryan Leaf.
Yes, the Chargers went to the Superbowl- the game was over before the end of the first quarter.

Ryan Leaf isn't the reason I would give Beathard an F. I give Beathard an F for trading future 1st round picks for current 2nd round picks. It was insane.

Redcoats58
03-20-2005, 04:55 AM
My god you are an easy grade, No way 2003 can ever be higher than a C given Mitchell and Battle are dismal failures and we desperately needed Defense in the first round and went offense.

Then you give a C+ for what is clearly at best an Incomplete, if you grade on last season only it is a clear F.

Well at least overall you gave them a D
I don't think you can say that Mitchell and Battle are dismal failures. They haven't had enough playing time to be failures yet. Most players don't hit stride until their third year. If they are still playing poorly at the end of this season then I will agree they are dimal failures, until then give them a chance.

CrazyHorse
03-20-2005, 05:25 AM
It's difficult to say what grade I would give CP for drafting. I believe that he has been someone who generally lets the coaches pick the players they want.

I believe he has the last say. For example, it's no secret that Johnson was his pick. But that was the exception, not the rule. It was fairly obvious by the way DV recieved the decision.

But of course, if this is a linch mob thread for Peterson, I appologize if I have injected some logic into the debate.

Carry on.

htismaqe
03-20-2005, 05:55 AM
My god you are an easy grade, No way 2003 can ever be higher than a C given Mitchell and Battle are dismal failures and we desperately needed Defense in the first round and went offense.

Then you give a C+ for what is clearly at best an Incomplete, if you grade on last season only it is a clear F.

Well at least overall you gave them a D

Larry Johsnon alone gets that draft a C.

It was widely publicized that DV wanted Tyler Brayton. Given that, and our track record with other defensive draftees during his tenure, I think we can be thankful that we got a PLAYER, rather than wasting yet another 1st-round draft pcik.

|Zach|
03-20-2005, 05:59 AM
No one could predict he would get injured in such a freak accident.
The Chiefs Planet Brain Trust can.

BigRedChief
03-20-2005, 07:42 AM
My god you are an easy grade, No way 2003 can ever be higher than a C given Mitchell and Battle are dismal failures and we desperately needed Defense in the first round and went offense.

Then you give a C+ for what is clearly at best an Incomplete, if you grade on last season only it is a clear F.

Well at least overall you gave them a D

Look at the top line of the first post. Theses are not my grades but nychiefsfan's grades. He did all the work I just stole....um I mean borrowed it.

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:30 AM
Russ the statistic of 50% of all first rounders being successful starters came from an Analyst on NFL Total Access on the NFL network.
Jim, I don't doubt. But again, what are those statistics for the teams that draft worst than 10th position on a consistent basis?

Indy did great with the draft, but they had a bajillion chances in the 90s as they were rarely less than 8th.

KCWolfman
03-20-2005, 08:31 AM
The Chiefs Planet Brain Trust can.
Obviously we have learned a lesson. ;)

Messier
03-20-2005, 08:46 AM
One thing i think is interesting is that people act like Carl is sitting in a draft room alone picking these players. Carl picks strongly on the recammendation of scouts and coaches. Many of the very players that were busts were players the coaches wanted.

milkman
03-20-2005, 08:51 AM
One thing i think is interesting is that people act like Carl is sitting in a draft room alone picking these players. Carl picks strongly on the recammendation of scouts and coaches. Many of the very players that were busts were players the coaches wanted.

We know this, but that doesn't excuse him.
He's the incompetent that hired the scouting staff.

http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/animals/rodents/three_blind_mice/three_blind_mice_lg_nwm.gif

whoman69
03-20-2005, 09:30 AM
It's difficult to say what grade I would give CP for drafting. I believe that he has been someone who generally lets the coaches pick the players they want.

I believe he has the last say. For example, it's no secret that Johnson was his pick. But that was the exception, not the rule. It was fairly obvious by the way DV recieved the decision.

But of course, if this is a linch mob thread for Peterson, I appologize if I have injected some logic into the debate.

Carry on.
The Larry Johnson deal showed that CP is the final arbiter on whom the Chiefs take in the draft. I would have to state that Carl made the right decision in that case because the situation with Priest was so unsettled. Its turned out that LJ is the best back that CP has ever drafted, not that its a really high standard.
Since CP makes the final decision, granted that he does it with input from his head coach, its in the end his fault for the lack of talent being brought here on draft day. If I were to rate his drafts 1997 and prior, he might get a B. From that point on its F minus and he has a ways to go to make it an F.

CrazyHorse
03-20-2005, 11:15 AM
The Larry Johnson deal showed that CP is the final arbiter on whom the Chiefs take in the draft. I would have to state that Carl made the right decision in that case because the situation with Priest was so unsettled. Its turned out that LJ is the best back that CP has ever drafted, not that its a really high standard.
Since CP makes the final decision, granted that he does it with input from his head coach, its in the end his fault for the lack of talent being brought here on draft day. If I were to rate his drafts 1997 and prior, he might get a B. From that point on its F minus and he has a ways to go to make it an F.

In other words, nobody else on the staff is held accountable for thier effort, or for the effect it has on the team. It pretty much all goes back to Peterson.


I think the drafts started going downhill about the time we hired that dude from New Orleans for our personnel department. The same guiy that traded away the draft for Ricky Williams if I am correct.

htismaqe
03-20-2005, 12:31 PM
In other words, nobody else on the staff is held accountable for thier effort, or for the effect it has on the team. It pretty much all goes back to Peterson.


I think the drafts started going downhill about the time we hired that dude from New Orleans for our personnel department. The same guiy that traded away the draft for Ricky Williams if I am correct.

He came with Vermeil. Vermeil's drafts have been horrible.

BigRedChief
03-21-2005, 08:17 AM
He came with Vermeil. Vermeil's drafts have been horrible.

Yeah I forgot about that. I remember the thread talking about how we "improved" our draft personnel by getting the guy that engineered trading a whole draft for Rickey Williams.

nmt1
03-21-2005, 10:57 AM
That's a nice breakdown. I'd be interested to see how other teams have faired.

BigChiefFan
03-21-2005, 11:10 AM
That's a nice breakdown. I'd be interested to see how other teams have faired.
How many other teams have had a GM for 17 years? 17 years is ample evidence Carl needs to relinquish his GM duties.

Pants
03-21-2005, 11:17 AM
Not going to read the whole thread. Grade - D+

Trade for Surtain, we won't get ANYTHING better than Surtian in the 2nd. Most likely we'll get another Bartee. I don't see why poeple are reserved about trading our 2nd. Yeah, we COULD POSSIBLY get PS without trading, but if trading makes it a sure deal, then go for it. WTF needs a 2nd round pick with CP as their drafter?

nmt1
03-21-2005, 11:26 AM
How many other teams have had a GM for 17 years? 17 years is ample evidence Carl needs to relinquish his GM duties.

I realize that your whole purpose for posting this analysis is to piss and moan about Carl Peterson but I think it would be interesting to have a comparison of all teams regardless of management. I'm not interested in defending or indicting anyone, I'm interested in how much of a crap shoot the draft really is.

Mark M
03-21-2005, 11:32 AM
I think you also have to take into consideration who was still available, as well as compare it to other teams around the league. Grading on a curve, so to speak.

Also, one must include ALL the draft picks from every round, otherwise you are judging performance with incomplete data.

So, to use just the first three picks of each draft, I'd have to give Carl and Co. a D+.

When you factor in the other rounds, a straight C.

MM
~~:arrow:

BigChiefFan
03-21-2005, 11:37 AM
I think you also have to take into consideration who was still available, as well as compare it to other teams around the league. Grading on a curve, so to speak.

Also, one must include ALL the draft picks from every round, otherwise you are judging performance with incomplete data.

So, to use just the first three picks of each draft, I'd have to give Carl and Co. a D+.

When you factor in the other rounds, a straight C.

MM
~~:arrow:
Mark,
The defense sucks and consists of mostly drafted players. The offense kicks ass and consists of mostly FAs. That's all the research I need to do, to know the FO has been awful, especially on the first day, and that day counts a hell of alot more, IMO. Especially considering the salaries those guys make. I'd much prefer to be great on day one and lousy on day 2.

Mark M
03-21-2005, 11:43 AM
Mark,
The defense sucks and consists of mostly drafted players. The offense kicks ass and consists of mostly FAs. That's all the research I need to do ...
Yet, in the 90's, the defense kicked ass with drated players (DT, Smith, Carter, etc.) and the offense sucked with FAs (Bono, Grbac, Alexander, etc.).

Different side of the same coin.

to know the FO has been awful, especially on the first day, and that day counts a hell of alot more, IMO. Especially considering the salaries those guys make. I'd much prefer to be great on day one and lousy on day 2.
While I see your point, being lousy on day two is just as unacceptable as sucking ass on day one IMHO. Just look around the league and you'll see a ton of great players that were 2nd day picks.

MM
~~:arrow:

BigChiefFan
03-21-2005, 11:49 AM
Yet, in the 90's, the defense kicked ass with drated players (DT, Smith, Carter, etc.) and the offense sucked with FAs (Bono, Grbac, Alexander, etc.).

Different side of the same coin.


While I see your point, being lousy on day two is just as unacceptable as sucking ass on day one IMHO. Just look around the league and you'll see a ton of great players that were 2nd day picks.

MM
~~:arrow:
I won't let you give Carl credit for Neil Smith. :p I wouldn't say losing on day TWO is JUST as unacceptable because the guys on day one are SUPPOSED to be IMPACT players and they also COST more money than the 2nd day guys. Landing guys on the 2nd day is an added bonus. I see your point, but I do think there is a difference and it's not that I prefer one over the other, doing well on both days would be optimum. :p

Mark M
03-21-2005, 12:05 PM
I won't let you give Carl credit for Neil Smith. :p
Whoops ... sorry. Don't know why, but I always forget that he was drafted before Carl go here. :redface:

I wouldn't say losing on day TWO is JUST as unacceptable because the guys on day one are SUPPOSED to be IMPACT players and they also COST more money than the 2nd day guys. Landing guys on the 2nd day is an added bonus. I see your point, but I do think there is a difference and it's not that I prefer one over the other, doing well on both days would be optimum. :p

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I see day two as vital to building a team.

If you get 1 good players on day two, then you've done less than well. If you get 2, outstanding. If you get three, then you're a freaking genious (CP spelling).

If you get one on day two, then it's also unacceptable. Two is acceptable, three is outstanding, and four is again genius status.

MM
~~:shrug:

BigRedChief
03-22-2005, 07:33 AM
I realize that your whole purpose for posting this analysis is to piss and moan about Carl Peterson but I think it would be interesting to have a comparison of all teams regardless of management. I'm not interested in defending or indicting anyone, I'm interested in how much of a crap shoot the draft really is.

Why don't you get on it and find or do the other teams draft analysis?:harumph:

BigChiefFan
03-22-2005, 07:44 AM
Whoops ... sorry. Don't know why, but I always forget that he was drafted before Carl go here. :redface:



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I see day two as vital to building a team.

If you get 1 good players on day two, then you've done less than well. If you get 2, outstanding. If you get three, then you're a freaking genious (CP spelling).

If you get one on day two, then it's also unacceptable. Two is acceptable, three is outstanding, and four is again genius status.

MM
~~:shrug:
Like I said, the 2nd day is important, but let me ask you this... Do you expect more from a 1st rounder than a 7th rounder? If you answered yes, than you can see where I'm coming from.

nmt1
03-22-2005, 07:50 AM
Why don't you get on it and find or do the other teams draft analysis?:harumph:

It would be an interesting study but, alas, time is not permitting.

htismaqe
03-22-2005, 07:51 AM
Yeah I forgot about that. I remember the thread talking about how we "improved" our draft personnel by getting the guy that engineered trading a whole draft for Rickey Williams.

To be fair and factual, Mike Ditka engineered the draft of Ricky Williams. Kuharich just obliged the wishes of his coach.

whoman69
03-22-2005, 11:59 AM
I realize that your whole purpose for posting this analysis is to piss and moan about Carl Peterson but I think it would be interesting to have a comparison of all teams regardless of management. I'm not interested in defending or indicting anyone, I'm interested in how much of a crap shoot the draft really is.
If such a comparison would be done it would be useless to compare us to what the Bengals and Cardinals did in the last decade. I compared our drafts to the Steelers, and they kicked our doors in. I would post a link but no search function.

nmt1
03-22-2005, 12:06 PM
If such a comparison would be done it would be useless to compare us to what the Bengals and Cardinals did in the last decade. I compared our drafts to the Steelers, and they kicked our doors in. I would post a link but no search function.

I'm sure they did. They have historically been one of the better drafting teams. In fact they engineerd what could be the best draft ever back in the 70's. Don't remember the year. EDIT: They picked Lynn Swann, Jack Lambert, Mike Webster, and John Stallworth in 1974.
I suspect if you compare us to the Patriots over the last 4 years, we'd get our doors blown off again.
No one is arguing that we've drafted well. I'd like to see how we did in comparison to the rest of the NFL, not just the bad or the good. I'd like to get a good perspective on the whole thing. My guess is that we're not in the top half of the league.

ChiefsCountry
03-22-2005, 12:21 PM
Well alot of you aren't factoring in alot of factors in Carl's drafting. First of you we haven't drafted a Stud QB, RB, WR. How many first round picks have we spent on those positions? 4, 3 RB's and 1 WR. Williams and Hill would have been good players in Vermeil's offense but not in Marty's. Both showed flashes but they were Priest type backs and Marty wanted Okoye type backs. No QB's have been picked in the first round. We have a fair balance between offense and defense first rounders. Snow got hurt in a freak accident, we would have been a stud. Him and DT as linebackers would have been great. DT might have had even better career with a stud MLB next to him. Sly Morris showed some potential his rookie year, and that was with Clown Grbac throwing the ball to him. Another freak accident in practice. Morris could have been a good NFL WR. Jenkins was the biggest bust. He just sucked. Carter was a darn good corner. At the time only Deion was considered to be better than him. Screwing up the Jenkins pick made us pick Tait and Riley. They were good OT's. We let them go bc they wanted more money but for the most part they were solid. Shields and Gonzo are no brainers as good picks. Dawson and Penn could have been a good #2 and #3 WR combo. If we could have gotten a true #1 WR. They would have done good. Woods has been a solid S since his rookie year. He did have a pro bowl year. Browning, Tongue, Edwards, and Horn formed a darn good draft. Jury is still out on Sims. But in all honesty the drafts started to really suck was when Vermeil showed up. I would grade them at a C. Everybody is saying a F, but other than Vermeil's first year when was a year we really sucked. Every season we have been a playoff team or battling for a spot in the playoffs. It might not be great but we have been an average to above average team since 1989. That is a C.

crossbow
03-22-2005, 12:24 PM
Look at the top line of the first post. Theses are not my grades but nychiefsfan's grades. He did all the work I just stole....um I mean borrowed it.

It is not called plagerism anymore, the new term is "research". :(

nmt1
03-22-2005, 12:28 PM
If such a comparison would be done it would be useless to compare us to what the Bengals and Cardinals did in the last decade. I compared our drafts to the Steelers, and they kicked our doors in. I would post a link but no search function.

You've missed my point all together. If we're going to compare ourselves to the Steelers, shouldn't we also compare ourselves to the Cardinals and Bengals? Why is it OK to compare ourselves to the best teams and ignore the worst?
I'm not stupid, I know why we need only compare ourselves to the best drafters in many people's minds. It gives them a reason to piss and moan about Carl Peterson.
If one is interested in being fair and at least semi-objective, then one must factor in all data. Ask Gaz, he'll agree.

BigRedChief
03-22-2005, 01:13 PM
It is not called plagerism anymore, the new term is "research". :(

If you give credit you get to steal it all anyway. Ain't America great! :clap: