View Full Version : draft grade
10-04-2000, 08:21 AM
With the bye week upon us it gives everyone a chance to figure how we stand towards the rest of the season. After giving it thought I just can't keep from laughing when during the draft when they announced the chiefs had selected Greg Wesley in 3rd round, it looked as if everyone (analyist) were laughing inside and immediately started considering the chief draft a bust,( on a grade level c or below)I wonder what kind of grade they would receive now?
I think if you run down every team's list of draftees & completed a current statistical comparison, we win hands down. However, we are "grading" on terms of immediate contribution. A draft can't adequately be graded until 5-6 years afterwards, IMHO. Then & only then you know how your later round picks have developed.
I know Hicks was a non-draftee but even if we got him in the 3-7th rounds, he would have to be a contender for steal of the draft. Still, he's taken 2 full years to develop into the player he is now whereas a player taken ahead of him may have made an immediate contribution to his team but may have since been booted out of football. There are a LOT of variables to consider when grading a draft. It's no exact science but then, I'm probably preaching to the choir.....
10-04-2000, 09:18 AM
I am a detractor of King Carl's draft record. I will give him a preliminary passing grade this year. That being said, the rookies contributing this year are starting or playing over the last 10 year high round draft busts. Where is Lockett, Atkins, Parker, Cloud, Shehee, Jenkins, and a host of others? Tait and Gonzo are great, Wesley and Morris look good. The jury is out on Dennis but he looks promising. Warfield is a ? Carl has a few hits recently, but outside of Derrick his early drafts were poor to avg. Skill position players drafted were downright awful. Free-Agent acquisitions were questionable and none delivered a Super-Bowl. Peterson has been a superb GM in regards to lifting this franchise from the depths of despair. His talent evaluation and acquisition can only be considered below average.
10-04-2000, 09:29 AM
Right now everyone must be in a state of euphoria over the draft this past year. I wish I could say I was not surprised by Wesley, but I thought who the hell is he. Morris might be the best we have made since TG, but if there had been a RB around, we would not have taken him. Looks like we would have been OK, with Alexander, but Dayne, Jones, Lewis, who knows, all could be great in time. Bartee, looks like more of a project than they thought, but the rest looks like a solid draft. Now we need another next year. The 99 class, with the exception of Tait, is rather lackluster, Cloud, Stills, Atkins, Parker, have not shown much yet, so it does prove, it is a crapshoot.
Give Carl a chance, Blond. Unquestionably, he's improved.
It's not fair to throw Warfield's name out, he is not healthy AND was a 7th rounder if I'm not mistaken. Atkins (4th round?) is still a player and would be starting if Wesley weren't such a stud. Lockett & Parker still contribute & I would go so far as to call Lockett a clutch & possession receiver. The proverbial jury is still out on Cloud. Undeniably, Shehee & Jenkins were a couple of the worst busts this franchise has seen. However, the draft is hit & miss - a total crapshoot. If half your picks stick, you're doing quite well, IMHO.
I note that you've neglected to mention Grunhard, Bennett, Riley, Shields, Stills, Szott, Tait, & Woods in your synopsis. Also, Carl's record on undrafted talent development is unequaled throughout the NFL, IMHO. O'Neal, Maslowski, Hicks, Perez, & Anders complete that current list.
10-04-2000, 12:57 PM
I think 11 drafts is a fair chance. Of the 8 drafted players you mention 1 is a pro bowler...Shields. Not 1 skill position starter in 11 years? I won't count Morris because he only starts as a rookie because of the weakness of Lockett and Parker. Grunhard and Szott were solid as rocks but guards only win superbowls with All-Pro QB's, RB's, and WR's. The great teams are built with first round skill position draftees not solid mid round servicable linemen. Not that they arent the guts but look at every great team of the last decade. Can you name the Center of St. Louis? The Full-Back in Indy? The Strong Safety of Bronco's SB teams? Morris seems to be a great start, but Carl is still responsible for not drafting a player of his ablities for the first 10 years he was here.
10-04-2000, 01:31 PM
I for one expected more from Bartee. It's just his rookie season, and since he's changed position so much in college I expect it'll take him a while to find a groove at CB, but the 5th rounder (Dennis) already passed him up. Maybe he won't pull through for us, but I'm still hoping.
10-04-2000, 01:46 PM
I think you forgot our Offensive Pro Bowl tight end Tony Gonzales.<P>
10-04-2000, 02:01 PM
This past draft looks like it was a huge success. I did really want Alexander, although even if he had been on the board at #21 it was rumoured that CP still would have had no interest in him http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/confused.gif. Once we got into round 2 without a RB though I really wanted Touchdown Travis Prentice from Miami of Ohio. I guess we'll see how well he can do now that Errict Rhett is out for the rest of the season. If we had taken Prentice we wouldn't have needed Moreau in Round 4 and may still have gotten Wesley and Bartee.
Anyway, props to CP and Gun for a job well done and for making me feel like an idiot.
BTW, I still think Alford might be the steal of that draft........ http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif
It's cool. I'm not going to change your mind, nor am I trying to. I know & acknowledge there have been draft debacles in KC during Carl's tenure. However, I think he's improved in the past 3-4 years and if he continues on this pace, we'll be fine in the longrun.
Re: skill position starters in the past 11 years. I don't think your's is a fair statement. There have been *some* but they are no longer with the team. The NFL starter that plays more than 4 years is the exception rather than the rule. Why don't you focus on the recent past & future instead of the distant past? Outside of Chicago, Ditka is judged on his failures in New Orleans & will be remembered for that. Fortunately, he's already a HOF TE because he'd not make it as a coach. Beathard is remembered for the Ryan Leaf debacle rather than his success for nearly a decade with other teams. The NFL is all about "what have you done for me lately" and lately, Carl has proven his worth as a GM. At least to me!
10-04-2000, 04:57 PM
I feel like a heel for bashing Carl for his draft record after what appears to be a solid draft. I give Peterson all the credit in the world for turning this franchise around. However, his draft record is terrible. Almost 100 draftees, and 4 pro bowlers? (Derrick, Shields, Gonzo, Dale Carter, am I missing any KC draft PBers?) Gonzo is the closest thing to a skill position PBer, but TE is questionable. His FA history is not good either. For every Hicks, Hasty, or Alexander, there is a Bono, Elliot, or Bam Morris. I read Peterson say that a successful first round pick should play for you for at least 10 years. That would make only DT (a no-brainer @#4) as a success so far w/the last 4 still possible. By my count(dubious) at least 1/2 of his FIRST ROUNDERS are a bust. His one HUGE success was hiring Marty Schottenheimer, who won with journeymen QB's like Bono, Pelluar, Gannon, and a host of ordinary WR's and RB's. I agree I sound like a wet blanket.
10-05-2000, 11:07 AM
Did Carl draft Neal Smith? He made a few. Grunhard made it last year. Kimble has been a pro bowler a few times. Remember Christian Okoye? Pro bowler. Szott could have. Name an NFL GM, and i'll show you one whose made a few mistakes in the draft.
10-05-2000, 12:55 PM
Neil and Okoye were already here. Szott has never been to Hawaii. Kimble was not drafted by KC. As for Grunhard, just like Shields, PB o-linemen do not win championships. QB's, WR's, RB's Oh My. <BR>
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.