Draft Grades......

From the past. Only way to do it.

Let's do 2002 - 2004, the first 3 Fox/Hurney:

2002: B+

1 (2) - Peppers DE

2 (34) - Foster RB

3 (73) - Spoon LB

4 (100) - Wesley CB

5a (137) - Fasani QB

5b (145) - Kyle Johnson FB

6 (174) - Keith Heinrich TE

7a (213) - Pete Campion T

7b (258) - Brad Franklin CB

I give it a B+ for Peppers and Spoon. If Foster wasn't an injury case who's been less productive than Goings, this would be an 'A'. The fact that 3 of the top 3 have been starters is everything you can really expect. We sure tanked hard on day 2, though. Somehow, Wesley has made the roster for 3 years.

2003: B-

1 (8) - Jordan Gross T

2 (50) - Bruce Nelson OL

3a (76) - Mike Seidman TE

3b (82) - Ricky Manning, Jr. CB

4 (119) - Colin Branch FS

5 (145) - Kindal Moorehead DT

7a (226) - Walter Young WR

7b (247) - Casey Moore FB

I give this one a B-, mainly b/c of our success on day 2. I expect 3 starters from a draft (not by injury), and while we got that in 2004, we quickly replaced them in the 2005 offseason. Gross was fantastic as a rookie, but was par upon the move to LT, which is where we'd hoped he'd excel. Nelson is an F. Seidman has not done what you hope out of a day 1 pick. Manning deserves an A for getting us to the big game - but we just signed a big $$ corner to replace him as a starter, and spent a #1 pick in 2004 on the same position.

While Branch and Morehead remain employed, and both were starters last year, they didn't excel. Still - the fact that we built this depth through the draft, and had adequate performers on low cap cost, day 2 picks, is admirable.

2004: A premature and optimistic A-

1 (28) - Chris Gamble CB

2 (62) - Keary Colbert WR

3 (94) - Travelle Wharton OT

5 (163) - Drew Carter WR

6 (196) - Sean Tufts LB

7 (232) - Michael Gaines TE

Premature and optimistic b/c if 3 of these guys perform admirably, it will be massive for the franchise. Gamble improved last year, and should continue to develop. Colbert started 15 games as a rookie, and looks to be starting in 2005. Wharton played admirably at G, and is being given the opportunity to plat LT - if he succeeds, this draft gets a A regadrless of whatever happened on day 2. Drafting a top CB, WR, and OT in the late portion of the top 3 rounds is remarkable. Here's hoping they don't suck.

As for the other 3 - here's hoping they don't suck. But who knows.

 

first thing that sticks out to me in looking at this is the lack of WRs drafted since 1998.

smith, colbert, young, carter -- am i missing anyone?

need i remind anyone that instead of that jason peter pick in 1998, that could it have been randy moss...

 

01 - A+. Three Pro Bowlers. Only problems? Didn't get a back soon enough - and basically wasted a 4th rounder because of QB need.
Weinke was part of that as well (and ironically had 6 rushing TDs that year). If we'd gotten Buckhalter with that 4th, that woulda been pretty badass.

02 - A-. One all-pro, and what a top 5 pick should look like. One other fulltime starter in WW. Foster was a good pick right now, and still feel like he was the better back coming out - Portis was better than I thought he'd be. Wesley never really mattered, and we gambled on a bunch of crap - though, obviously, Kyle Johnson turned out not to suck and we might've jettisoned him too quickly.

03 - C+. You can't blame them for Gross over bigger impact, and he'll be an above average starter, but it was still a need pick. Nelson's a bust, always seemed to be a bust (and yet, he didn't run a 4.3 40...so maybe, just maybe, there are other reasons for players to bust). Manning, in retrospect, was a great pick in the time that he was taken, and not as much now that the rules have changed. One could actually say that Manning's one of the reasons the rules were changed, given his 2003 postseason. Seidman looks promising, but still has to actually do it, and Branch is so good he's gotten replaced by a few hundred safeties on the roster this year...he could, actually, be cut this year.
So pessimistically, other than Gross, the better parts of this draft for us might've already had its most impact. Moorehead might be the 2nd best player in our 03 draft, which is sad, but I liked this pick as much as any of them because unlike the picks ahead of him, this one has legit potential to be much better than he started out as.

04 - A-. Though we somewhat forced these players into integral roles, these guys are big parts of this team and how they play this year could help determine in a large part how good this team is. They could be weak links, or they could be strong spots. Gamble and Colbert need to keep growing into their roles, especially removing the mental lapses like drops and blown assignments. Wharton, if he's going to stick at LT, would make this draft look like a huge win, but if he washes out at LT and goes to LG where he's going to have to get stronger, that brings this draft down a lot. The 2nd day is already a wash.

Specifically, from a draft standpoint, I think that teams like GB who traded up for Ahmad Carroll, for instance, will have regretted passing Gamble. Whether Colbert can grow to the level of some of the other WRs in the 04 draft is harder to say, but he's started strong.

05 - right now, I see a bunch of guys who could start by next year, if not sooner. Which is good - we're not as talent-poor as we were in 04 or 02 to where guys have to start. We got strong guys, and guys who'll be able to grow into roles, which is something we've generally been missing in the Fox regime. If Haye or Seward can grow into key contributors, that'd be huge.

 

Suits me that it was not.

 

2001 will be the draft all others will be compared to for years. Just outstanding - and coming at a pivotal time in the franchise, where ALL of our drafts had sucked. The first six picks had major contributions at some point. 5 were on the roster until late last year.

Gotta tip the hat to Seifert on thato one.

 

Yep, and if they're strong, it's big. Plus, the jury's still out on Carter and Gaines - although I think Gaines may be headed for early retirement.

But we had mixed results last year 'forcing' guys into roles - Gamble and Colbert weren't scheduled to start, Branch was (and failed), and Morehead really played well - considering.

Looking back at who we had on the active roster, their experience, our schedule, the early season debacle, man it's a credit to the coaches and the players that we finished 7-9. And those guys playing gave our depth ALOT of invaluable experience. Even if Branch isn't starting, he's pretty good, cheap depth. Same with Morehead.

The only one we're 'forcing' into a role this year the way we did with Branch is Wharton - and I got the feeling he can hang.

 

Props to Goings too for being 'forced' into a starting role he dang sure wouldn't have sniffed if not due injury last year as well.

 

And for playing very well in it.

 

and smith was really a return man.

i think i win another argument with mags. this FO places a lower priority on WRs than it does on DBs.

 

i'm thinking he stays and seidman loses out. in any case, i think it's great that they won't get handed a job this year as there is some competition.

did we draft our obligatory TE or FB this year?