deep2evans Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 This is truly one of the more asinine things I've ever seen. ESPN has a series of grades from nationwide publications ranging from USA Today to FoxSports.com on their front page right now. If you click on Larry Weisman's ratings, THEY ARE FROM THE 2008 DRAFT. Is this laziness, or do they just not have a clue? http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=4104114
PromoTheRobot Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Count Jason Cole of Yahoo among the idiots: "However, neither Wood nor Levitre are great athletes, even by offensive line standards, and appear to be reaches." Yes, Jason. That's why both were regarded the best at their positions in the draft. PTR
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Count Jason Cole of Yahoo among the idiots: "However, neither Wood nor Levitre are great athletes, even by offensive line standards, and appear to be reaches." Yes, Jason. That's why both were regarded the best at their positions in the draft. PTR And yet if the Patriots drafted either one of the guys, it would be heralded as THE greatest value.
Lori Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Guessing they built that page before the draft, planning to come back through and update the links, but missed that one somehow. At least I HOPE that's what happened, because otherwise, that is pretty bad. This year's USAT link, which has the Bills at A- and the Fins at C: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ft-grades_N.htm
nodnarb Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 If there's ever been a collection of more meaningless and arbitrary data, I'd like to know what it is.
Lori Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 It's been corrected. Hmmm. Almost like someone from ESPN read this post. They didn't recompute the averages, though, and I'm far too lazy to check all those links to see if they're correct. (Actually, I have a game to go cover right now, but I wasn't planning on it anyway ...)
John from Riverside Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 I kinda expected poor draft grades from the mindless type writers because this was from the outside a very boring draft.....it was also a very necessary one...... We didn't take what was considered the best DE at the position even though he was on the board when we picked.....we took OL instead of grabbing a shiny new toy in a RB or WR...... No what we did was fill REAL needs with this draft......I didnt agree with the last 2 picks but jesus these are the last rounds of the draft
Poeticlaw Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 This is truly one of the more asinine things I've ever seen. ESPN has a series of grades from nationwide publications ranging from USA Today to FoxSports.com on their front page right now. If you click on Larry Weisman's ratings, THEY ARE FROM THE 2008 DRAFT. Is this laziness, or do they just not have a clue? http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=4104114 We grade upon the players we get they are grading based on the assumption of our needs, where we picked a player compared to where the player should have been picked, and they aslo seem to give a little extra to the team that got the falling guy as best pick for value example our TE wo was a 2-3 in the 4th.
mrags Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 What I dont understand is how the hell the Jets got such high grades? They gave away their entire draft for a QB, and RB. As well as current talent on their team now. I just dont get how... 3 draft picks = good draft Maybe they just grade on the talent that was picked and not the actual draft itself? So by that logic would Mike Ditka get an A+++ grade when he traded away everything for 1 player in Ricky Williams?
John from Riverside Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Because Mark Sanchez was the "shiny new toy" of the draft I watch a lot of USC games......I dont know that the kid is going to be a bust......I do know he is going to have the same rookie growing pains....... After the draft I felt much better about my team then going in.....
Gordio Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Because Mark Sanchez was the "shiny new toy" of the draft I watch a lot of USC games......I dont know that the kid is going to be a bust......I do know he is going to have the same rookie growing pains....... After the draft I felt much better about my team then going in..... I have watched alot of USC games also. This kid has got bust written all over him. Check out his numbers away from the colliseum. They are down right pedestrian.
Chef Jim Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 If there's ever been a collection of more meaningless and arbitrary data, I'd like to know what it is. I think you just clicked on it.
ax4782 Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Guessing they built that page before the draft, planning to come back through and update the links, but missed that one somehow. At least I HOPE that's what happened, because otherwise, that is pretty bad. This year's USAT link, which has the Bills at A- and the Fins at C: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...ft-grades_N.htm Great link Lori, but even in the USAT post there is a glaring error. They said that we traded back into the first round to select Eric Wood. Perhaps they missed that whole Jason Peters trade thing?
Recommended Posts