San-O Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Looks like another review of the 2005 draft has Buffalo graded as a 'D'. Was originally a C +. I can't help but wonder how much not having a 1st plays into that, apparently not at all. Didn't Ole' Whitey trade away the first to move up or back into the 1st to get Losman? See ESPN per below. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/news/story?id=3333998
Steely Dan Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 The first grade is an average of several draft grades. The second is the grade given by Scouts Inc. this year. I think if you look at the first grade vs. the second grade it proves how stupid some of those grades can be. NFL Team 2005 Average 2008 Scouts Inc. Arizona A- D Atlanta B- B Baltimore A- A- Buffalo C+ D Carolina B D Chicago B D Cincinnati B B- Cleveland A- B Dallas A A- Denver C- D Detroit B- F Green Bay C+ C Houston C+ D+ Indianapolis C+ C+ Jacksonville C C Kansas City B- C+ Miami B+ C+ Minnesota A F New England B- B+ New Orleans B- C N.Y. Giants C+ B N.Y. Jets C- C+ Oakland B B- Philadelphia A- B- Pittsburgh B B- San Diego B+ A San Francisco B+ C+ Seattle B- A- St. Louis C+ B+ Tampa Bay B B+ Tennessee B+ A- Washington C C- Seattle and St. Louis get better grades three years later and many others go down. Most draft grades immediately after the draft only grade the so-called "value" of the draft. So a team seen as taking a "reach" is downgraded while teams that draft guys exactly where the talking heads think they should go is given a great grade. Needs also enter into the grades as well the number of players a team takes. If a team takes the best player at a position regardless of need it is downgraded on a lot of those things and if a team only has five picks they'll be downgraded just because they didn't get a lot of players. Don't take too much stock in grades given just after the draft. I be a lot of fans of Seattle and St. Louis bombarded the fan's message boards with scathing posts about how bad their team drafted because the talking heads said they sucked and the fans of Detroit and Minnesota crowed about how that draft would push them into the SB.
San-O Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 The first grade is an average of several draft grades. The second is the grade given by Scouts Inc. this year. I think if you look at the first grade vs. the second grade it proves how stupid some of those grades can be. NFL Team 2005 Average 2008 Scouts Inc. Arizona A- D Atlanta B- B Baltimore A- A- Buffalo C+ D Carolina B D Chicago B D Cincinnati B B- Cleveland A- B Dallas A A- Denver C- D Detroit B- F Green Bay C+ C Houston C+ D+ Indianapolis C+ C+ Jacksonville C C Kansas City B- C+ Miami B+ C+ Minnesota A F New England B- B+ New Orleans B- C N.Y. Giants C+ B N.Y. Jets C- C+ Oakland B B- Philadelphia A- B- Pittsburgh B B- San Diego B+ A San Francisco B+ C+ Seattle B- A- St. Louis C+ B+ Tampa Bay B B+ Tennessee B+ A- Washington C C- Seattle and St. Louis get better grades three years later and many others go down. Most draft grades immediately after the draft only grade the so-called "value" of the draft. So a team seen as taking a "reach" is downgraded while teams that draft guys exactly where the talking heads think they should go is given a great grade. Needs also enter into the grades as well the number of players a team takes. If a team takes the best player at a position regardless of need it is downgraded on a lot of those things and if a team only has five picks they'll be downgraded just because they didn't get a lot of players. Don't take too much stock in grades given just after the draft. I be a lot of fans of Seattle and St. Louis bombarded the fan's message boards with scathing posts about how bad their team drafted because the talking heads said they sucked and the fans of Detroit and Minnesota crowed about how that draft would push them into the SB. Well, between the 2005 draftees, they had a combined 5 starts per NFL.com. Some of the guys are not in football anymore. The immediate grades are of less value obviously, however looks like a lot of the grades looking back three years were pretty good on average. Buffalo's looked sketchy back then, even worse now. That draft by TD probably weas the icing on the cake as far as Ralph was concerned.
bills_red Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Buffalo Bills The Bills did not have a first-round pick in 2005, but this was still a pretty poor effort overall. WR Roscoe Parrish is an above-average return man, but Buffalo envisioned him as the type of player who did much more than just return kicks. The rest of this meager class has done little to distinguish itself as well. 2005 Draft Class Name Position Draft Pick Draft Team Current NFL Team '05 Grade '06 Grade '07 Grade Roscoe Parrish WR 2 (55) Buffalo Buffalo 65 65 64 Kevin Everett TE 3 (86) Buffalo Buffalo 40 50 40 Raymond Preston C 4 (122) Buffalo Buffalo 65 57 58 Eric King CB 5 (156) Buffalo Tennessee 63 49 56 Justin Geisinger G 6 (197) Buffalo Washington 40 40 40 Lionel Gates RB 7 (236) Buffalo None 40 40 40
Pete Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 That is really reaching. The draft was not that strong and we did not pick until selection #55. Besides Frank Gore, you could make the argument that Roscoe is the best player on the board at that point. Our third round pick was Kevin Everett. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is too easy to go back and look at drafts and criticize. And besides- since when does this board care what sportswriters opinion is? http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2005
SABURZFAN Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Didn't Ole' Whitey trade away the first to move up or back into the 1st to get Losman? this makes the 05 draft blow even more.
San-O Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 That is really reaching. The draft was not that strong and we did not pick until selection #55. Besides Frank Gore, you could make the argument that Roscoe is the best player on the board at that point. Our third round pick was Kevin Everett. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is too easy to go back and look at drafts and criticize. And besides- since when does this board care what sportswriters opinion is? http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2005 I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. The article was about going back and re-evaluating the draft three years later. By consensus, the combined draft grade per the mentioned contributors was rather weak. Going back after three years, it looks worse. I'm not saying it was a strong draft, I'm not even being critical of about TD trading UP to get Losman the previous year leaving no # 1 pick. Saying Roscoe may have been the best player available there is ludicrous IMO, and so what. In hindsight, he wasn't. TD gets credit for reaching for a player that three years later didn't warrent the pick? There is no starter from that draft. R.P. couldn't crack the starting lineup of one the worst offenses in the league.
Pete Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. The article was about going back and re-evaluating the draft three years later. By consensus, the combined draft grade per the mentioned contributors was rather weak. Going back after three years, it looks worse. I'm not saying it was a strong draft, I'm not even being critical of about TD trading UP to get Losman the previous year leaving no # 1 pick. Saying Roscoe may have been the best player available there is ludicrous IMO, and so what. In hindsight, he wasn't. TD gets credit for reaching for a player that three years later didn't warrent the pick? There is no starter from that draft. R.P. couldn't crack the starting lineup of one the worst offenses in the league. Roscoe is one of the best returners in NFL history statistically. He has been underutilized but shows big play ability. Looking back at the draft which players would you take before Roscoe at pick 55? Go ahead and name 10. For a weak draft and not having a pick until 55- Roscoe is a good pick IMO. Justin Tuck would of been a better pick in hindsight- but I am ok with the Roscoe pick
Recommended Posts