BrudLee
06-19-2006, 05:45 PM
... in his latest MMQB (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html). The Redskins grade out as a C-, and I think he may have been kind.
2001 brought us such luminaries as Rod "50/50" Gardner, Sage Rosenfelz, and Fred Smoot. The only player who was at all valuable was Fred, and he has never been a #1 CB after 5 years in the league.
Peter King and I agree on little. I don't care for Starbucks, and I like Art Monk. But I'm afraid he's right on this one.
SkinsLove24/7
06-19-2006, 05:53 PM
It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.
BrudLee
06-19-2006, 06:11 PM
It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.
You aren't bashing me - I didn't write a four page column about it.
I tend to agree with King assertion that drafts shouldn't be graded until the players actually perform - it's one of the reasons I think Eagles fans are especially delusional this year (Did you see who we got in the draft? We're back, baby!). And, since I've been a fan of the Redskins for a little while now, I remember the days when we all hoped Rod Gardner would turn the corner, and I'm glad they're past.
Beemnseven
06-19-2006, 06:15 PM
It's about 5 years late to really care about how the Skins did in the 2001 draft. Not to bash you but it's just kinda outdated.
On the contrary, the best indicator of a draft in terms how those players actually performed in the NFL is about 3-5 years down the road.
By the same token, you can't rate the 2006 draft by those standards either, because none of the 2006 draftees have played in the NFL yet. You can rate them based on what their status is coming out of college. But to get an accurate gauge on how well this draft class will do, you'd have to wait at least until 2009 or later.
dmek25
06-19-2006, 07:07 PM
that draft sucked for the redskins, plain and simple. gardener is out of the league and smooty isnt that far behind
hooskins
06-19-2006, 07:29 PM
peter king can suck my nuts...he is terrible like the rest
ArtMonkDrillz
06-19-2006, 07:57 PM
I agree with Cinnci and Carolina being the only A's given, but there were some grades that didn't make much sense. King is great at trashing a team and then turning around and saying that they are going to win it all.
D'BOYZ
06-20-2006, 11:38 AM
well even thought I also didn't agreed with some of his grades I totally agreed with the grade he gaved dallas I think it should had been lower that was one of the worst drafts ever didn't like it then sure don't like it now....
I also agree the best way to grade a draft it's 3-5 years later after the players perform because right now they're are just names and assumptions, right now NO looks like one of the teams that did the best draft by selecting Bush but if he turns in to a L.Phillips not so good draft after all.
firstdown
06-20-2006, 01:30 PM
that draft sucked for the redskins, plain and simple. gardener is out of the league and smooty isnt that far behindWhy would you think Smoot is going to be out of the league soon? He is a top 10 corner plays hard and will play hurt. Now I know there where issues when he left but you can't write off his tallent because you no longer like him. Maybe you have reason to believe he is not very good.
Giantone
06-20-2006, 01:39 PM
... in his latest MMQB (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html). The Redskins grade out as a C-, and I think he may have been kind.
2001 brought us such luminaries as Rod "50/50" Gardner, Sage Rosenfelz, and Fred Smoot. The only player who was at all valuable was Fred, and he has never been a #1 CB after 5 years in the league.
Peter King and I agree on little. I don't care for Starbucks, and I like Art Monk. But I'm afraid he's right on this one.
If you think about it ,he'll most likely upgrade you guys to a C ,look at what he gave the Jets and you guys have most of their good picks from 2001 .