Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 79
  1. #61

    Re: Grading the Draft



    Nah. You still get an A, if the projects look like good bets, a la Todd Heap.
    That is what you said orriginally. Which is laughable to compare Heap to later round picks.

    Then you said:

    Heap and Yanda, and Smith and Chester for that matter, are or were all *projects* at their chosen positions. Raw talent, not NFL ready
    Ok yeah, Heap wasn't NFL ready. Suuuuure.

    Am I the only one seeing this? I feel like I'm taking crazy Pills. Todd Heap was NFL ready, we just had shannon sharpe. Grubbs should be NFL ready according to the team, and national scouts.

    The rest of the guys like figurs? These guys will be projects, guys who need to learn the position.

    Nothing wrong with being a project. . .

    Bart Scott was a project, he learned the position, and now is a pro bowler.



    But please, lets not give this draft an "A" until these project guys, essentially everyone besides Grubbs, pan out.


    And please don't compare Heap, a probowler and playmaker drafted in the 1st round, to some 2nd day projects. Pul-lease.




  2. #62

    Re: Grading the Draft

    CBD, spare the sarcasm. It doesn't help. Non-NFL ready projects can be drafted anywhere in the draft. Bubba Franks, TE Miami, was drafted *ahead* of Heap in the 1st round, by Green Bay. Why? Analysts at the time said he was more polished. I'm not saying Heap *couldn't* have played his first year, of course he could have.

    You keep using the word 'project' your way, and telling me I'm using it wrong.

    Are you taking crazy pills? I don't know. I wish you would take some listening pills instead.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  3. #63

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Actually Heap did play his 1st year out of a lot of 2 TE sets, and was produtcive until his ankle injury.


    Polish wasn't a problem, and no-one ever said he was a project. Show me an article where they said he was a project.


    Produce that, and you have my respect. But being that it doesn't exist, its laughable to me. No-one said he was a reach or a project being drafted later in the 1st round.


    Late in the 1st round v. a 2nd Day pick? really, please stop trying to make them the same.


    Heap was not a project. Grubbs shouldn't be either . . . almost all players drafted in the 1st round will be playing for their team in some capacity, and most likely starting. Because they aren't projects.


    our draft this year besides Grubbs? Projects.


    Draft is a "B" at best until proven otherwise.




  4. #64

    Re: Grading the Draft

    I don't care if you respect me and I don't care if you deliberately misunderstand me.
    I give up. :brickwall:
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  5. #65

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Explain to me how Todd Heap was a "project"

    Or just get any one other person to agree with you that Todd Heap was a project.

    Then I'll understand. Until then, you are making / made a terrible comparison.

    Compare Heap to Grubbs at most, not to the lower round 2nd days picks.

    Or if you were searching for a comparison, Adalius and Bart Scott are good examples; Heap is not.




  6. #66

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave View Post
    Explain to me how Todd Heap was a "project"

    Or just get any one other person to agree with you that Todd Heap was a project.

    Then I'll understand. Until then, you are making / made a terrible comparison.

    Compare Heap to Grubbs at most, not to the lower round 2nd days picks.

    Or if you were searching for a comparison, Adalius and Bart Scott are good examples; Heap is not.
    Here again is my original quote.
    > Nah. You still get an A, if the projects look like good bets, a la Todd Heap.
    > Everything I read about Yanda makes him look like a good bet. Day 1
    > starter? Barring injury, no. Multi-year starter? Yes.

    Todd Heap was merely an illustration, so your fixation on my use of his name is ill-placed. My point was that some players-who-are-not-yet-near-their-NFL-potential, I will call them "projects," can contribute to the grade of the team, based on how good a risk you think the pick is.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Foggy Bottom, DC
    Posts
    530

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Dave, I think in some ways you are being a little harsh on this draft. There are some projects in there but it isn't totally like 2004. And not just with this draft, but with every draft you have to wait until they pan out or bust to truly give it a grade.

    As far as the project label this is how I break them down:

    1. Grubbs- NFL Ready
    3. Figurs- as a PR/KR: NFL Ready (but as a WR: Project)
    3. Yanda- Project
    4. Barnes- Project
    4. Mclain- NFL Ready
    5. Smith- Project
    6. Burgess- Project

    So in all you have 2 players I expect to start on offense and a third who should be an elite return man. That is immediate production from 43% of the class and not nearly as useless as that god awful '04 haul (thanks Phil!).




  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Burnie
    Posts
    349

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave View Post

    But please, lets not give this draft an "A" until these project guys, essentially everyone besides Grubbs, pan out.

    Draft is a "B" at best until proven otherwise.
    This is totally ridiculous ! That's the whole idea of grading the draft now. To give your opinion on whether or not you think these picks WILL pan out or not! By giving this draft a "B" you are saying that 3-4 of our picks won't pan out and be in the League 3-4 years from now. Personally, barring injury, I think all of our picks have a solid chance of staying in the NFL, that's why I gave it an A-. The only pick I have any doubts about is Troy Smith, who at the end of the fifth round I consider a steal!

    If you don't want to rate it now, based on your intuition, then don't post here. Wait 3-4 years and then tell us what you think of the 2007 draft!
    ... They shall mount up with wings as Eagles;




  9. #69

    Re: Grading the Draft

    My point was that some players-who-are-not-yet-near-their-NFL-potential, I will call them "projects," can contribute to the grade of the team, based on how good a risk you think the pick is.
    I'm glad you've redefined the word "project" to fit your needs. But I dont think anyone else would call Todd Heap a project because he wasn't up to full potential. He was a pro-bowler once sharpe left. Real project there.


    If you wanted to make a good comparison, you should have reference Adalius or Bart Scott or someone. And then, that would prove my point. For all the Adalius' out there there are plenty of players who don't make it. YOu don't assume you're getting an adalius in a late round pick


    As far as the project label this is how I break them down:

    1. Grubbs- NFL Ready
    3. Figurs- as a PR/KR: NFL Ready (but as a WR: Project)
    3. Yanda- Project
    4. Barnes- Project
    4. Mclain- NFL Ready
    5. Smith- Project
    6. Burgess- Project

    I dont know about McClain being NFL ready, i want to see him play NFL level talent at linebacker and butt heads with them.

    Figurs as an KR . . . saying he's NFL ready is also a jump. Maybe he is, but we drafted a KR two years ago who we thought would be the same . . . and BJ sams beat him out

    Taking a hit on an NFL KR is a lot different than college. Its easier when you have blazing speed and you're killing college players with straight up speed.



    Not saying it was a bad draft. But an "A" is silly. "A" means slam dunk. This was far from a slam dunk. It was a "B" at best. Solid.


    Could be a "c" if some people tank, an "A" if some lower guys pan out.
    Last edited by ClericBlackDave; 05-02-2007 at 05:29 PM.




  10. #70

    Re: Grading the Draft

    > I'm glad you've redefined the word "project" to fit your needs.
    I have used it the same way in this entire thread, since I defined it for you in the first post on the point. I am glad you finally slowed down the sarcasm enough to read. And if you read other people's posts carefully - such as Greenwave52's, which you thoughtfully quote - they also use the term "project" to relate to the quality of NFL-readiness. You are still hung up on my use of Heap's name, perhaps?

    Anyway, I'm relieved I finally penetrated the sarcasm, though I wish I could also have turned it off. It comes across as kind of rude, in the same way Tex Ritter's mocking use of smilies comes across as rude. There's good company for you.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Foggy Bottom, DC
    Posts
    530

    Re: Grading the Draft

    For the record I thought this was a "B" draft as well. Eric DeCosta summed it up well in the press conference by saying they hit a lot of doubles and singles.




  12. #72

    Re: Grading the Draft

    they also use the term "project" to relate to the quality of NFL-readiness. You are still hung up on my use of Heap's name, perhaps?
    Please don't compare me with Tex Ritter because I dont agree with your characterization of saying Heap was a project.

    Get someone to agree with that besides yourself. When Greenwave or someone else says Heap was a project . . . i'll eat my hat

    For the record I thought this was a "B" draft as well. Eric DeCosta summed it up well in the press conference by saying they hit a lot of doubles and singles.
    Greenwave, Obviously, I agree and its the effects of the kool-aide when fans would class it an "A" when people in the process and the ravens organization would realize that it was a "B" but that it was good considering we were drafting late in the round.




  13. #73

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave View Post
    Please don't compare me with Tex Ritter because I dont agree with your characterization of saying Heap was a project.

    Get someone to agree with that besides yourself. When Greenwave or someone else says Heap was a project . . . i'll eat my hat

    Greenwave, Obviously, I agree and its the effects of the kool-aide when fans would class it an "A" when people in the process and the ravens organization would realize that it was a "B" but that it was good considering we were drafting late in the round.
    Every single guy in the draft is a project in some sense of the word and will need to work to play and/or actually be a decent NFL player. For example, JO was a guard for a year and he's a hall of fame Left Tackle. Besides, is this really a huge issue to debate? There are also some first round "projects" that worked out very well, Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Mark Clayton (thus far) and some that were far from spectacular, Travis Taylor, Kyle Boller, Duane Starks post 2000, Dwan Edwards...you get the idea. Every rookie is a project to at least some extent of the word, some need more work than others.

    As to where we were drafting playing a role in "grading", that just goes back to how silly this is. You can only truly evaluate a draft 3-5 years after the draft. All of the grades right now are sex-appeal. Who got more hyped players, who got the trendy skill players that will look good in Madden? It really means nothing right now. Russell, Thomas, Peterson, Johnson, Quinn...any one or all of them might be completely worthless. History says more than a couple.

    As for actually trying grade now, all of the prospective new Ravens look very interesting rare or well done. I'd say A- based on what was available and the ways these players will improve the team. BJ Sams' issues aren't a massive concern, one of the weakest offensive line links (Vincent) is gone, we have some depth at Tackle in case of an injury in Yanda, Barnes and Burgess should be good special teamers as Barnes especially has a chance to be a star depending on if he follows the Rod Green or the Thomas/Hartwell tree. Smith is probably the most interesting late round QB prospect Baltimore has had in years....all of us fans get excited about the random second day QB, but this guy is more interesting than Alexander, Josh Harris, Drew Olson et al.

    If you want to define "project" as "needs to learn a new position or requires substantial improvement before they can get on the field for the drafting team" ~ sure, Heap doesn't really fit in that category ....but Terrell Suggs certain did fit this bill. Suggs is obviously a better bet than a 4th rounder. Did you give the Ravens an A in for drafting Suggs and trading up to get Boller? (two "projects")

    Festivus views "project" as "a drafted rookie or player that needs minor work" ~ Heap fits that bill, as did JO, Ray, Ed Reed, Cmac.

    There is the gray area in between ~ Travis Taylor needing to learn the professional differences at WR
    Last edited by ExiledRaven; 05-02-2007 at 05:58 PM.




  14. #74

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave View Post
    I dont know about McClain being NFL ready, i want to see him play NFL level talent at linebacker and butt heads with them.

    Figurs as an KR . . . saying he's NFL ready is also a jump. Maybe he is, but we drafted a KR two years ago who we thought would be the same . . . and BJ sams beat him out

    Taking a hit on an NFL KR is a lot different than college. Its easier when you have blazing speed and you're killing college players with straight up speed.
    While I agree that I don't think this was an A draft, some of the statements you make are very contradictory.

    You don't want to think Adam Terry can play RT until he starts there for a while...hence the "Gaping Hole" at RT, but you pimped Staley...implying that Staley would have been somewhat of a solution...even though Staley is smaller and has never played RT, and in fact, only played LT for 2 years.

    Then Grubbs is ready to start...I guess based on his ability and competition.

    But McClain isn't ready to start even though he was virtually unaminously the top FB and played in the same conference as Grubbs?




  15. #75

    Re: Grading the Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenWave52 View Post
    As far as the project label this is how I break them down:

    1. Grubbs- NFL Ready
    3. Figurs- as a PR/KR: NFL Ready (but as a WR: Project)
    3. Yanda- Project
    4. Barnes- Project
    4. Mclain- NFL Ready
    5. Smith- Project
    6. Burgess- Project
    You and everyone else here are forgetting two.
    3. McGahee
    4. McNair
    This draft brought those guys and they have to be considered, cause if it didn't, we had three more picks to look at.

    FWIW, Heap was ready as a pass catching TE right away, but the guy couldn't block my mom, coming out of school.

    My grade of this draft, including McNair and McGahee which you can't not consider them, would be an A.

    - C -




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland