Morgan is probably done...

I agree with you on that. I do not think we have had great drafts but they have not really been terrible either. If you compare them to the ones we had prior to 2001 they have been really good. We are atleast getting guys who contribute to the team in the draft. They may not be "stars" but they are not usually washing out either. We have had a few busts like Nelson and Ellison but for the most part we have hit singles if not home runs.

 

I don't know about that. 1998 was definitely our worst, but I don't see the others being any worse than the ones we've had lately.

1995: Kerry Collins, Tyrone Poole, Blake Brockermeyer, Frank Garcia, Chad Cota.

1996: Tim Biakabatuka, Muhsin Muhammad

1997: Mike Minter, Kris Mangum

1998: ... ? Ugh.

1999: Chris Terry, Mike Rucker, Hannibal Navies

2000: Deon Grant, Jeno James

2001: Dan Morgan, Kris Jenkins, Steve Smith, Chris Weinke

2002: Julius Peppers, DeShaun Foster, Will Witherspoon, RANDY FASANI!

2003: Jordan Gross, Mike Seidman, Ricky Manning, Colin Branch

2004: Chris Gamble, Keary Colbert, Travelle Wharton, Drew Carter, Michael Gaines

2005: Thomas Davis, Evan Mathis, Adam Seward, Geoff Hangartner


Maybe you're right, as they do look a little better in context, but I'm not sure we got any Mooses, Minters, or Ruckers from '03 to '05.

 

Yeah. We've gotten some guys who can play and fill some roles, but no real difference makers.

Since 03, is Gamble really the most productive player we've drafted? Sure looks like it. Gamble has been about what I expected, good ball skills, good size, average cover skills in quickness, iffy tackler (though better now), questionable decision making. And he tops the list.

Best value might be Wharton, a good year at guard, a decent year at LT before getting hurt this year.

 

I think DeAngelo and Mathis are gonna turn out to be nice picks.

 

Its easy to look at our drafts and say we suck at drafting. I wonder how other teams look when you do the same type of comparative study. Are we good bad or average compared to other teams? I am too lazy to do that much research but if someone else wants to I will read it.

 

The average is between one and two long-term starters per draft, along with a couple of contributors, so we generally do ok. That's not a great way to evaluate drafting success, though, since guys who start for crappy teams might not for good ones.

 

Those old drafts do look better when you put them up there like that. I really do not think you can judge a draft by how many franchise players you land. The goal is to build a solid team. You need a lot of above average players to do that. It is not reasonable to think you will land lots of stars.

We have landed our share of stars in Peppers, Smith and before his injuries Kris Jenkins. I think our biggest failing has been on the offensive line. Wharton was a nice pick. You rarely find a guy who can play LT at an adequate level in the third round. His injury is hurting us a lot. Gross is a guy I wanted but he has not been as good as I hoped. He is still fairly solid at RT though. The rest of our efforts have been busts though. We have had to throw a lot of money at the OL for mixed results. I think a lot of our inconsistency over the past few years is due to a weak OL. We can not rely on our running game.