Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Both are interesting.
The problem with results is that there's no telling how a player going to a particular team impacted that. Meanwhile, the actual draft outcome is a 'scoreboard'. It is a pretty inescapable statement of what the NFL thought of these players as prospects at the moment they were drafted.
I think that's a more than fair barometer for how well we did in the draft itself. Then at seasons end, you take a look at how well your prospects did in their new homes.
Besides, a rookie year doesn't ultimately mean much and I'm not going back to a 3-year view of these damn things every season. Moreover, there's no uniform standard you could really apply that would work across all draft boards (how to you measure a guards performance, for instance). Meanwhile the draft slotting 'score' is a concrete number; an obvious score.
|
I was about to ask if we've gone back three years later to see who really was the king of the draft. These have been going on for a while, right?
(And I was kidding about not counting Pumphrey, though I still can't figure him out. He'd better be the most elusive guy on the planet.)