There are ten first rd picks going back to 1995 in chronological order. What would be your grade for each one? An A+ to me would be a sure fire hall of famer(montana, walter payton etc.) among the absolute greatest of all time at their position so i'm not bashing anyone by giving them a B+.
Rolltide's grading scale:
A+-Montana-unitas-payton-reggie white-larence taylor-jim brown-elite
A-Aikman-bettis-campbell-jason taylor--2nd level elite
B+-randall cunningham-phil simms-ricky watters-isaac bruce--near HOF..
You get the idea..
95-Mcnair--B+
96-Eddie--B+
97-K holmes--C
98-K dyson--D+
99-kearse--B+
2000-k bulluck--B+
2002- haynesworth--B
2003-woolfolk--D
2005-pacman--D
2006-v young--TBD...future A+...
Rolltide's grading scale:
A+-Montana-unitas-payton-reggie white-larence taylor-jim brown-elite
A-Aikman-bettis-campbell-jason taylor--2nd level elite
B+-randall cunningham-phil simms-ricky watters-isaac bruce--near HOF..
You get the idea..
95-Mcnair--B+
96-Eddie--B+
97-K holmes--C
98-K dyson--D+
99-kearse--B+
2000-k bulluck--B+
2002- haynesworth--B
2003-woolfolk--D
2005-pacman--D
2006-v young--TBD...future A+...
Yup. I think the rest are very fair except Pacman. I think both Woolfolk and Haynesworth can change slightly.
A+-Montana-unitas-payton-reggie white-larence taylor-jim brown-elite
yeah, let's lump Vince in there while we are at it.
yeah, let's lump Vince in there while we are at it.
SEC 330 BIPOLAR said:
it looks a little like mine this past year, about a 2.5:suspect:
Titans GPA.....the methodology was wrong
My approach was all wrong. I didn't take into account the players that were realistically available when we drafted those guys. The fact that steve mcnair is not john elway doesn't make him less of a draft pick because elway wasn't there to be drafted. Had kerry collins had an elway like career we could say that. Obviously not true.
Take 1995. We had three choices; a QB, mcnair or collins or kevin carter. That was it. Of those three choices mcnair was the best. Had we not drafted steve then we would have had to use a future draft to get a QB and nothing was available in the first or second rd in the next 2 drafts unless you think jim drunkenmiller or tony banks would have been worthy. Therefore the mcnair pick was an A+.
The 96 draft is more an issue. We made a great pick with eddie and you can't knock it since there was no walter payton available instead. The rams had already taken lawrence phillips off the board so we didn't have that temptation but there was a future hall of fame WR available to give to our young QB. Marvin harrison. At a time when eddie's prime ended(after the 2000 season) harrison was just getting wamed up.
How different our team might have been with harrison at WR. As valuable as eddie was to the team remember the main reason we didn't win a super bowl in 99 or 2000 was because our offense was too one dimensional and because we didn't have a good WR corp.
My approach was all wrong. I didn't take into account the players that were realistically available when we drafted those guys. The fact that steve mcnair is not john elway doesn't make him less of a draft pick because elway wasn't there to be drafted. Had kerry collins had an elway like career we could say that. Obviously not true.
Take 1995. We had three choices; a QB, mcnair or collins or kevin carter. That was it. Of those three choices mcnair was the best. Had we not drafted steve then we would have had to use a future draft to get a QB and nothing was available in the first or second rd in the next 2 drafts unless you think jim drunkenmiller or tony banks would have been worthy. Therefore the mcnair pick was an A+.
The 96 draft is more an issue. We made a great pick with eddie and you can't knock it since there was no walter payton available instead. The rams had already taken lawrence phillips off the board so we didn't have that temptation but there was a future hall of fame WR available to give to our young QB. Marvin harrison. At a time when eddie's prime ended(after the 2000 season) harrison was just getting wamed up.
How different our team might have been with harrison at WR. As valuable as eddie was to the team remember the main reason we didn't win a super bowl in 99 or 2000 was because our offense was too one dimensional and because we didn't have a good WR corp.
That really complicates things, RT. Are you planning on going through the rest of the picks?
i think that bullock should be A+ heseasily in the top 3 linebackers
Yea, considering where Bulluck was picked in the draft he is definately an A+. Heck Bulluck might be an A+ if he was drafted #6.
Ok bulluck an A+...
Since dick butkis or lawrence taylor were not available i think bulluck was as good as we could have done with that pick. Note that the colts took rob morris a couple of picks before. They added marcus washington in rd 2 and he was just average.
All around there is no better OLB in the game than bulluck. He plays the run, is great in coverage and had 5 sacks last year.
Since dick butkis or lawrence taylor were not available i think bulluck was as good as we could have done with that pick. Note that the colts took rob morris a couple of picks before. They added marcus washington in rd 2 and he was just average.
All around there is no better OLB in the game than bulluck. He plays the run, is great in coverage and had 5 sacks last year.
Pacman is more like a C only because he just came out of his rookie year. If he doesn't make improvements he might slide but his return ability alone gets him more than a D for his rookie year alone.
Woolfolk is more like a D- and he gets that only because he made the roster.
Woolfolk is more like a D- and he gets that only because he made the roster.
Pacman...
I have been watching football since the 1960s and have never seen a more lame tackle attempt than what he had against the raiders with the game on the line. He gets a D until he proves otherwise.
I have been watching football since the 1960s and have never seen a more lame tackle attempt than what he had against the raiders with the game on the line. He gets a D until he proves otherwise.
I think Pacman is a C- in my book. He gets a D because of his return stats alone. Woolfolk is without a doubt a D- unless he can do something this season, then he will be a D+/C-. I agree with RollTide on all the others though.
Since you brought it up, Bulluck gets a pass for his lame tackle attempts?RollTide said:
A D because of his return stats? They were great! 4th in the NFL in kickoff returns, 10th on punt returns, and only 2 people in front of him there had more than 10 returns, so really he did much better. Why wouldn't he go up from a C- to at least a C+ because of that. Also, don't forget, he had two TDs called back, besides the one he got credit for. I don't know, I'd give him a C I guess, but I'm hoping for improvement.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
