Jerry's drafts a review.

[FiniteMan!]

yes...lets live in the past some more

and cant say I agree with your assesments of some of the players either

David

Now that is just silly. Jerry will be drafting this year. Really, when you are in essence saying you don't want to hear about Jerry's drafting history, isn't that really because you are living in the past (the parcells era)?



And no one sees eye to eye on all players. You say that like my views are so clearly wrong in compairson to your always correct views. Silly. We aren't all NFL scouts. I'd bet neither one of us is even a bad NFL scout.

I am sure some fans see Willie Blade like I see Pete Hunter, good talent who wasn't developed. A coaching failure not to develop him and a personel failure to cut him. But I think the gist of the post is pretty obvious and accurate.

 

[FiniteMan!]

Why did this not start in 1994?

ummm....a brainfart. I should have started in 1994. I just brainlocked and started in 1995.

1994

No. Player Pos. School
1a Shante Carver DE Arizona State --- bust. Showed some passrushing skills at times, but not enough and was too small; a liability against the run.
1b No choice: Traded to San Francisco along with 2nd-round choice for 1st- and 7th-round choice
2a Larry Allen OL Sonoma State --- Jerry's best pick ever? Jerry should draft LBs or huge offensive linemen in the second round every year.
2b No choice: Traded to San Francisco along with 1st-round choice for 1st- and 7th-round choice
3a No choice: Traded to San Francisco along with 2nd-round choice in 1993 for Charles Haley
3b George Hegamin T North Carolina State
4a Willie Jackson WR Florida
4b Dewayne Dotson LB Mississippi
5 No choice: Traded to L.A. Raiders aong with 7th-round choice obtained from San Francisco for Elvis Patterson and L.A. Raiders 7th-round choice.
6a No choice: Traded to L.A. Rams for Jim Price
6b Darren Studstill DB West Virginia
7a Toddrick McIntosh DL Florida State
7b No choice: Traded to New England for Hugh Millen

likely yeild: late 1st, and late 2nd, + should yeild 1 good starter, 1-2 backups.

Yeild: 1 excellent starter (Allen), 2 backup types (Carver, Hegamin)

Rick Gosselin Grade: unavailable

My thoughts: This was classic jerry trying to outsmart everyone, but he hit the jackpot on Larry Allen, so it wasn't a total loss (although in retrospect, Larry Allen is probably why Jerry felt justified in gambling on every pick for so long). The drafting of small DEs in the first round was just an awful trend. Jerry can nab those types in the 4th and sometimes even later. Here's hoping we are done with that.

 

[FiniteMan!]

Well... that averages out to around a 1.75 gpa... not good...

Well, I think that is a problem with how fans view drafts. You have to look at the picks available in each draft. I have tried in this post to list what might be a reasonable "good return" based on the collection of picks available each season. I think in some ways Jerry has taken a bad rap LATELY because he had a few drafts without his top 3 picks. I think to be fair you either have to evaluate those drafts with the vets acquired or evaluate them looking at what most teams would yeild at best if they were limited to those picks.

If you are fair with what those drafts would return for most teams, Jerry looks downright respectable.

I think a good return on a first should bring a team a starter. A second might bring a starter, but at least should bring a good backup. A third might bring in a passable starter, but a solid backup is more along the lines of what should be expected in a successful pick.

Most teams don't land 3-4 good starters in each draft, so it is silly to torch Jerry for not being able to do it. Now I will touch on many other things Jerry seems to do regularly that hurt his players' development---and that does IMO hurt his draft results.

 

[FiniteMan!]

That's 1/3 of the voting...how do you account for the other 2/3's?

If you read what I posted about Flozell, I noted that some years he is solid and some years he isn't. He put himself on the pro bowl map with one really good year---even by my very critical standards--- but like latter day Eric Williams, I think his reputation and highlights mask a lot of mediocre play. When you figure in his salary and that he has had this team by the financial nuts for so many years....I am not a fan overall.

I think we know he developed it in college...like most of us...LOL

Well, I don't know. I clearly mispoke, inadvertantly implying he might have been born with a drug problem. I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Does anyone know for a fact when he started using?

 

[FiniteMan!]

If you look at that, you see about 5 players who actually ever really contributed to this team. That is honestly HORRID drafting.

No, that is a mistaken conclusion. It is a horrible job of evaluating, retaining, and training the talent once it got here. Feel free to lump that on Jerry the GM and Jerry the owner's caustic collection of coaches.

Gurode is a pro bowl center. He was a very highly regarded collegiate player and pre-draft prospect. Why did it take so long to get him to develop? Certainly some of that can go on the player, but I think a good position coach puts a player in a position where he can succeed and works with him to get there.

Antonio Bryant was showered with a ton of praise by variety of top retired NFL WRs and scouts. He was a stud in college, did solidly in the combine, and has been a #1 WR in the NFL for a handful of teams. Jerry's coach couldn't work with him, so he was traded for a guy the team cut. That has nothing to do with drafting.

If you look at other team's drafts over the years you will see that ours are not bad vs. most teams. They probably look worse than they should due to the constant changing of coaches and schemes. That has more to do with questionable leadership at the top than bad picks.

 

[Chrissyboy]

Guys,what gives?!

You seem to be giving Finite a hard time! We can all cross question every footballing opinion. I'm glad that the original post has sparked discussion, but I would have thought we would also have more appreciative posts too!

Finite clearly has spent some thought and time on this. Thanks again.

 

[FiniteMan!]

And now...the Parcells' drafts....

2003

No. Player Pos. School
1 Terence Newman CB Kansas State --- Good CB, but more of a #2 guy and kind of old.
2 Al Johnson C Wisconsin --- lack of size cost him an NFL starting position.
3 Jason Witten TE Tennessee --- star. I may be overstating, but could end up in the HOF if things go well.
4 Bradie James LB LSU --- Maybe a poor fit for the scheme, maybe just not good enough. Playmaker, but one with coverage problems.
5 No selection: Traded to New England along with 7th-round choice in 2002 obtained from Miami for 5th-round choice in 2002
6a B.J. Tucker DB Wisconsin
6b Zuriel Smith WR Hampton --- productive return guy.
7 Justin Bates G Colorado

likely yeild: early 1st, early 2nd, early 3rd + should yeild 1 borderline star, 1 good starter, 1-2 good backups.

Yeild: 1 very good starter (Witten), 1 good starter (Newman), 2 great backups/below average starters (Johnson, James), 1 backup (Smith)

Rick Gosselin Grade: C

My thoughts: I thought this was pretty good draft, but considering the draft position, it should have been. A very parcells draft. I thought Newman was a poor man's Aaron Glenn (ie. not as good), and I don't think I am wrong about that. Glenn made the pro bowl pretty early in his career, if memory serves, and made a few appearances. (I hope The Donkey Punch will set me straight if I am wrong there...) Newman still is yet to make a pro bowl, although he does seem to be nearing that level. I didn't like the idea of leaving franchise QBs on the table to take a guy would might be no more than a short careered very good #2 CB. Newman is attackably short for his position. Johnson lacked the bulk for his. Witten was a little light draft day if I recall and his blocking was suspect. James a little slow...Do you get what I mean when I say it is a very typical Parcells draft? All of the guys are good, effective players, but IMO, you should look a little more at top talent in the first round --- especially if you have the #5 pick. In some ways this is a really good draft and in others it isn't. There certainly are good contributors there, but Witten developed into an elite player, so can it really be considered great drafting? or good drafting feeding players who fit the scheme to coaches who develop them? Not sure. It is very solid though in that Parcells in his drafting philosophy hits for the bases in the early rounds. Parcells fills backup positions and specialist spots in the late rounds. All very different from Jerry's latter day philosophy of taking slightly safer risks in the early rounds and wildly swinging in the later rounds.


2004

Rd. No. Player Pos. School
1 No selection: Traded to Buffalo for 2nd- and 5th-round choices in 2004 and 1st-round choice in 2005
2a 43 Julius Jones RB Notre Dame --- a solid starting HB. Capable of delivering 1000 yard seasons. Just not great.
2b 52 Jacob Rogers OL Southern California
3 83 Stephen Peterman OL LSU
4 121 Bruce Thornton CB Georgia
5 144 Sean Ryan TE Boston College
7a 205 Nathan Jones CB Rutgers
7b 216 Patrick Crayton WR Northwestern Oklahoma State --- I am with Hate. I like this kid a lot.
7c 233 Jacques Reeves CB Purdue

likely yeild: 1 mid 2nd, 1 late 2nd, late 3rd + should yeild 1 starter, 1-2 backups.

Yeild: 1 solid starter (Jones), 1 backup type (Crayton)

Rick Gosselin Grade: C

My thoughts: Flat out a mediocre draft. I like Crayton, but I have a feeling he won't ever be given a shot in Dallas and then the draft will look even worse to people if he is cut or moved. I think the 2004 and 2005 drafts really show you how much of a role draft slot placement in the first 3 rounds have in making a team look like they can draft. This draft yeilded about what could be expected, but it looks like a really bad draft. We passed on Stephen Jackson. Ouch.

2005

Rd. No. Player Pos. School
1 11 Demarcus Ware DE Troy --- a real gem of a player.
1 20 Marcus Spears DE LSU
2 42 Kevin Burnett LB Tennessee
4 109 Marion Barber III RB Minnesota --- Doesn't look smooth enough to be a good, long-lasting, starting NFL runner, but very productive off the bench.
4 132 Chris Canty DE Virginia
6 208 Justin Beriault S Ball State
6 209 Rob Petitti OT Pittsburgh
7 224 Jay Ratliff DT Auburn

likely yeild: early 1st, mid 1st, mid 2nd, + should yeild 2 good starters (possibly 3) and 1-2 backups.

Yeild: 1 very good starter (ware), 1 very good backup -possbly weak starter- (Barber), 3 backup types (Spears, Canty, Ratliff)

Rick Gosselin Grade: A

My thoughts: As of today, this is a failed draft. With two picks in the top 20 and a third choice at 42, the team should have come out with at least 2 starters for this to be considered a good draft. Canty, Spears, and Ratliff are nice talents, but where is the production? If you buy the groceries, you should have some responsibility in preparing the meals shouldn't you? Was this a failure by the coaching staff? I'd say so, with a figer pointed more directly at Parcells. while all 3 players have the talent to be OL blocking fodder in Parcells' 3-4, they clearly aren't those type of players. I hope and expect that all three will have a lot more success in Phillip's 3-4 which does a lot to free up it's linemen to attack the passer. But they could just be cut. Barber is the current sweetheart of cowboy fans. I like him, but I am not sold that he is a feature back or that a Jones/Barber mix will be sufficient long term, but that is neither here nor there. He was a good pick in the 4th round. I think again you can see the Parcell's drafting style. With the exception of ware, none of these guys are exceptional, explosive talents.


2006

Rd. No. Player Pos. School
1 18 Bobby Carpenter LB Ohio State
2 53 Anthony Fasano TE Notre Dame
3 92 Jason Hatcher DE Grambling State
4 125 Skyler Green WR LSU
5 138 Pat Watkins FS Florida State --- Pressed into a starting role. has some potential, but not there yet.
6 182 Montavious Stanley DT Louisville
7 211 Pat McQuistan OT Weber State
7 224 E.J. Whitley C Texas Tech

likely yeild: mid 1st, late 2nd, late 3rd + should yeild 1 good starters, 1-2 backups.

Yeild: 1 weak starter (Watkins), 3 backup types (Hatcher, Fasano, & Carpenter)

Rick Gosselin Grade: C

My thoughts: Another bad draft, as of today. You can argue that Parcells has filled the cowboys roster with talent, but how true is that? Isn't "Prospect" just another way of saying you haven't done anything yet? It is fairly common that new coaching staffs clear out the old staff's prospects to bring in "their guys". How many of these guys will be on the roster on opening day? I hope many of them.

I don't mean to be gloomy about any of this. I fully feel that Wade Phillips' staff will be a ton more successful in devloping the young DLs and LBs parcells' drafted than Bill's staff was. That in turn will rehabilitate Parcells' Dallas drafting record, but as of today, if you look strictly at results, you have to agree with Jerry's statement at the Leonard Davis press conference (about 16 minutes in) that the team has sufferred in the last 3 drafts.

I hope I have cleared up some of the confusion about my looking forward to Jerry's draft now. I really believe he has become competent in drafting, if not slightly above average after taking a well deserved beating those first few years. It is everywhere else that I still have a bone to grind with him...

I hope he lands a fast FS or CB in the first round and nabs a couple of big linemen in the 2nd and 3rd. I look forward to the cowboys taking risks again on draft day, but I hope they will continue to be calculated risks in the first three rounds, as has been jerry's practice in his later drafts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the fact that you put credibility into Gosselin's grading system instantly discredited this whole thing IMO.

he ranks some 300 or 400 players and in theory you could get a value on each of your picks 10+ over where your picking and still get a D because you trade out of the first round. his gradeing is based on top 30 being an A etc not on how you drafted given your position. In short, its stupid.

Second your whole Jerry learned to not swing for the fences after his first few years is laughable. He was trading out of the first round and/or drafting a DE compulsively because he wanted to replace Haley and draft backups. Bjornson, Williams, Hannah, Scifres et al were intended as backsups. They just sucked but they were what they were.

 

[ENGCowboy]

1 Terence Newman CB Kansas State --- Good CB, but more of a #2 guy and kind of old.

Kind of harsh he came into a secondary that has seriously struggled since Woddson retired and with minimal pass rush. With better players around him he is starting to live up to his potential. Johnson got drafted to the wrong team needed to go to a faster more mobile line ie Denver got caught in the wrong situation, kinda hoping he gets a fresh start in the desert. Overall 4 solid players I think thats a pretty good draft.

2004

Rd. No. Player Pos. School
1 No selection: Traded to Buffalo for 2nd- and 5th-round choices in 2004 and 1st-round choice in 2005
2a 43 Julius Jones RB Notre Dame --- a solid starting HB. Capable of delivering 1000 yard seasons. Just not great.
2b 52 Jacob Rogers OL Southern California
3 83 Stephen Peterman OL LSU
4 121 Bruce Thornton CB Georgia
5 144 Sean Ryan TE Boston College
7a 205 Nathan Jones CB Rutgers
7b 216 Patrick Crayton WR Northwestern Oklahoma State --- I am with Hate. I like this kid a lot.
7c 233 Jacques Reeves CB Purdue

likely yeild: 1 mid 2nd, 1 late 2nd, late 3rd + should yeild 1 starter, 1-2 backups.

Yeild: 1 solid starter (Jones), 1 backup type (Crayton)

Rick Gosselin Grade: C

With the exception of Jones and Crayton JJ may has well have not turned up at NY for this draft, 2 busts from your first 3 picks will make any draft year look terrible. Did add some reasonable back ups/depth for the secondary with Reeve and Jones, who were never expected to start.

Its too early to evaluate 2005 properly but actually if you put down drops in performance this year to sophmore slumps and lack of imaginative defensive schemes Im expecting big things from this draft class next year in WP's defense. Expect Canty, Spears, Burnett and Ratcliff to up their performance this year. MB III put up a lot of TD's and will be an awesome 1-2 punch with JJ this year.Petitti is starting in NO and how is Justin Beriault doing, is he out of football from his knee or what they were pretty high on him in camp? Overall I reckon thats probably one of the strongest drafts youve evaluated.

2006 left me Why draft a TE with Witten on the roster so you can play 2TE sets so you can leave one on the line to help out instead of drafting OL to help on the OL? Hatcher similar thing I appreciate you need back ups but in the third round after youve just spent a 1st, 4th and 7th the year before on that exact position? Dont get me wrong I cant wait to see hatcher play this year but question the reasoning.

Thanks for the review Finite appreciate the work involved

 

[NinePointOh]

You've got quite a few inconsistencies here ...

1. Jerry gets praise for finding Ebenezer Ekuban in round 1 ... but Parcells gets criticized for Chris Canty in the 4th round.

2. Jerry gets praise for finding Mike Lucky, "a pretty decent cheap backup," in the 7th ... while Parcells gets criticized because 7th rounder Jay Ratliff is a "nice talent, but where is the production?"

3. Jerry gets praise for taking Roy and Gurode at #8 and #37 ... but the Newman-Witten picks are downplayed because "considering the draft position, it should have been" a good draft.

4. Jerry gets praise for "good gambles" than didn't pan out like Dwayne Goodrich and Kareem Larrimore in the 2nd and 4th ... but Parcells gets criticized for Kevin Burnett and Bradie James in the 2nd and 4th.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[mmillman]

Hopefully Jerruh has learned that he cannot manipulate the draft the way Johnson once did. Obviously he either didn't listen or had bad advice when evaluating talent. The drafts and free agency became noticeably better when he hired Parcells and Ireland. What a waste of the team of the 90's!

 

[ljs44]

You've got quite a few inconsistencies here ...

1. Jerry gets praise for finding Ebenezer Ekuban in round 1 ... but Parcells gets criticized for Chris Canty in the 4th round.

2. Jerry gets praise for finding Mike Lucky, "a pretty decent cheap backup," in the 7th ... while Parcells gets criticized because 7th rounder Jay Ratliff is a "nice talent, but where is the production?"

3. Jerry gets praise for taking Roy and Gurode at #8 and #37 ... but the Newman-Witten picks are downplayed because "considering the draft position, it should have been" a good draft.

4. Jerry gets praise for "good gambles" than didn't pan out like Dwayne Goodrich and Kareem Larrimore in the 2nd and 4th ... but Parcells gets criticized for Kevin Burnett and Bradie James in the 2nd and 4th.

etc. etc. etc.

I agree completely.

 

[burmafrd]

This is a joke thread. When your pick starts for you it is a good pick. As long as he does not stink (Petitti). If he is splitting time with the starter then he is not realy a backup (Barber). Quality play is quality play no matter when it happens. And Ware being not as good a player as Witten? Frankly, Ware has done more then witten in both his years. Gosselin is a joke.

 

[FiniteMan!]

the fact that you put credibility into Gosselin's grading system instantly discredited this whole thing IMO.

I have not anywhere in this post put any signifigance into Gosselin's rating system. The fact that you say that I have, suggests you are fishing for a reason not beleive what is in front of you. Gosselin's grades are made on draft day based on what most people thought of the players at that point. Why would I put any signifigance into them?

As I stated before I only included them because they were in the page I mined for the draft sequence. Using that as justification to not consider what I have presented is as ******** as the respondent who who quoted some obscure trade (which was only in the original article to show where the pick went) so he could ridicule one of the players involved. "I ridicule this scrub who's name appears in this post ---therefore your post has no meaning!!" Talk about a Chewbacca Defense.

he ranks some 300 or 400 players and in theory you could get a value on each of your picks 10+ over where your picking and still get a D because you trade out of the first round. his gradeing is based on top 30 being an A etc not on how you drafted given your position. In short, its stupid.

Well, in some ways we agree. A lot of the FAN perception that Jerry is an *** drafter comes from the fact that he routinely gets C grades or lower on draft day. Almost any team that doesn't have a first round pick is generally looking at a B or lower as their draft grade.

Second your whole Jerry learned to not swing for the fences after his first few years is laughable. He was trading out of the first round and/or drafting a DE compulsively because he wanted to replace Haley and draft backups. Bjornson, Williams, Hannah, Scifres et al were intended as backsups. They just sucked but they were what they were.

Well, we disagree. I think you can see Jerry's drafting philosophy changing significantly a fews years in. I think he still gambles on his picks, but he is a little more cautious in general on the guys he choses in the early round--- QC being the notable and publically aknowledged exception. He TOLD us QC was a gamble.

I can agree that his desire to find a Haley clone killed our drafts for a number of seasons and that his early drafts were all about finding backups and that also hurt. I think he beleives now (like I do) that you should draft hoping for starters and just allow backups will occur.

I suspect that the drafting of specialists and backups in later rounds was a significant source of annoyance for Jerry in the Parcells era.

 

[FiniteMan!]

Thanks for the review Finite appreciate the work involved

Thanks man! You make a lot of good points that weighed on me writing this. I know at times I come off like a Newman hater, but the guy is a good player. He was one of the safest picks you could land at the #5 spot, but the reality is he was a top 10-15 talent---not top 5. Unfortunately, until he pulls in 3+ pro bowls the question will remain. He's a good + CB, but is a shut down CB? No.

I hope what comes through in this thread is the importance of having a #1 pick on how a draft is evaluated on draft day --- generally what fans keep in their heads --- and how different that is from the practical results.

The thing about the last 3 drafts is that we have little concrete to show from them. There is a perception that we landed good talent and a hope that Phillip's schemeing will allow them to devlop, but the realities of a coaching change are that prospects are run out of town.

 

[dboyz]

Interesting work.

In general I think you are too easy on Jerry a little too tough on Parcells. There's a reason we were 5-11 for three years. And it's hard to really judge the past two drafts. We'll know soon and I think they'll be pretty good.

Bottom line, I hope our scouting has improved and that Jerry listens to the scouts.

 

[FiniteMan!]

NinePointOh, We have had run ins before. I suspect it is because you are a Jerry basher who hates anyone who posts anything positive about Jerry, while I think Jerry is good at some things, painfully bad at others and will only bash the man for things that I think he really screwed up. I think your criticisms here are really beneath you, but I'll answer them.

You've got quite a few inconsistencies here ...

1. Jerry gets praise for finding Ebenezer Ekuban in round 1 ... but Parcells gets criticized for Chris Canty in the 4th round.

Well, Ekuban did start in the NFL for a number of years with multiple teams. He was good vs. the run and a decent pass rusher for a starter. In other words, not a bust.

Canty is a prospect. If wade phillips doesn't like Canty, he's gone. Maybe someone looks at his talent and thinks they can develop him and they sign him. Maybe ala Pete Hunter, they don't.

The point is Canty is an unknown. I am not bagging on him, but I can't give any credit for an unknown. All I can credit him for is being a backup---which you will note, I did.

Ekuban had a lengthy career as a starting DE on some good units. Ekuban may not be a guy you liked --- he wasn't one of my favorites either --- but at the end of the day he represents a solid if unspectacular spending of a late #1.

2. Jerry gets praise for finding Mike Lucky, "a pretty decent cheap backup," in the 7th ... while Parcells gets criticized because 7th rounder Jay Ratliff is a "nice talent, but where is the production?"

I think perhaps you miss how these critiques were presented. If you go back and look again, I gave both Jerry and Bill the exact same credit for finding each of these backup players. (Look at the "yeild" line.)

3. Jerry gets praise for taking Roy and Gurode at #8 and #37 ... but the Newman-Witten picks are downplayed because "considering the draft position, it should have been" a good draft.

You should read what I said about Roy and Gurode again. "Praise" is defintely not the right term.

I called williams and gurode two good starters. I called Witten a very good starter and Newman a good starter. How exactly am I unfairly praising Jerry's draft over Bill's?

Regardless, you are clearly not reading the post with any kind of open mind, otherwise you would realize the number of starters yeilded vs. the expected yeild is IMO the key to evaluating drafts fairly.

4. Jerry gets praise for "good gambles" than didn't pan out like Dwayne Goodrich and Kareem Larrimore in the 2nd and 4th ... but Parcells gets criticized for Kevin Burnett and Bradie James in the 2nd and 4th.

etc. etc. etc.

Again... With the lack of a #1 and #3, it was destined to be a poor draft. Our cheif weakness was at CB. Strategically, with those picks and our weaknesses, I think Jerry was right to draft 3 CBs who all had 2nd round or higher grades at some point during the scouting process.

In terms of reviewing the draft, you will note on the yeild line that he only got credit from me for Edwards who was an average #2 CB.

Concerning James, I have been a James fan, but the reality is last year revealed the guy really struggles in coverage. He was a big part of our defensive trouble last season. I think calling him a playmaker with coverage trouble who may not be a good fit for his position or the scheme, I think is quite fair. I also think it is accurate to call him a good backup/weak starter at this point and credit bill with that. (I still am hoping James gets better. Maybe the new scheme will help cover his deficiencies.)

Concerning Burnett...I am not sure what to make of him. I haven't seen enough to credit him with being a backup even --- and not just a guy who hasn't been cut yet.

Dude. You are just hurting to be right on something.

My suggestion? Try a different thread.

 

[FiniteMan!]

Interesting work.

In general I think you are too easy on Jerry a little too tough on Parcells. There's a reason we were 5-11 for three years. And it's hard to really judge the past two drafts. We'll know soon and I think they'll be pretty good.

Bottom line, I hope our scouting has improved and that Jerry listens to the scouts.

I think Dallas is too tough on Jerry and North America is too soft on Parcells.

But I defintely agree that the draft improvement I percieve with Jerry is probably in large part due to him listening to his scouts more and counting on his gut less. Lets hope that continues.

 

[burmafrd]

With Lacewell gone the results got better. Might in the end the best legacy BP left us.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have not anywhere in this post put any signifigance into Gosselin's rating system. The fact that you say that I have, suggests you are fishing for a reason not beleive what is in front of you. Gosselin's grades are made on draft day based on what most people thought of the players at that point. Why would I put any signifigance into them?

As I stated before I only included them because they were in the page I mined for the draft sequence. Using that as justification to not consider what I have presented is as ******** as the respondent who who quoted some obscure trade (which was only in the original article to show where the pick went) so he could ridicule one of the players involved. "I ridicule this scrub who's name appears in this post ---therefore your post has no meaning!!" Talk about a Chewbacca Defense.

Well you thought enough of them to include them in your post. If you attach no signifigance then you wouldnt put them there. I in no way quantified your signigance but rather said you put some signifigance. You Putting ANY signifigance into them destroys your credibility.

To make matters worse it is also readily apparent that you have no idea about how those grades come to be. as you said you just put them there because you saw them. This has everything to do with how you prepared this 'review' despite your Chewbacca defense.

Now look at the silly monkey.

Well, in some ways we agree. A lot of the FAN perception that Jerry is an *** drafter comes from the fact that he routinely gets C grades or lower on draft day. Almost any team that doesn't have a first round pick is generally looking at a B or lower as their draft grade.

If a team wins the super bowl and the pick at the end of each round and the value that they get from that pick is 10 slots better than where they picked it, that team will get a lower grade than a team that finishes last drafts first and geta value of negative 5 positions worse for each slot they pick.

A team that gets 8 second tound picks for their first rounder will never get above a B because of the system he uses.

In short the grading system is horribly flawed and should never be considered.

Well, we disagree. I think you can see Jerry's drafting philosophy changing significantly a fews years in. I think he still gambles on his picks, but he is a little more cautious in general on the guys he choses in the early round--- QC being the notable and publically aknowledged exception. He TOLD us QC was a gamble.

I can agree that his desire to find a Haley clone killed our drafts for a number of seasons and that his early drafts were all about finding backups and that also hurt. I think he beleives now (like I do) that you should draft hoping for starters and just allow backups will occur.

I suspect that the drafting of specialists and backups in later rounds was a significant source of annoyance for Jerry in the Parcells era.

actually you can 'disagree' all you want but the fact you dont know about the whole darfting for backups philosophy completely annhilates any shred of credibility you had after the gosselin thing. it has been mentioned by Jones in his pressers it has been in print on the radio.

He wasnt gambling on Carver, Pittman, Ekuban. they were teh best DE on the board. He was reaching for a need. Big difference. When he wasnt drafting a DE first he was trading out of the first round and drafting players to backup his starters. Williams, Bjornson, Hegamin, Sualua, Hannah, Scifres et al were glaring examples of this.

That wasnt a gamble, it was a miscalculation.

What he would gamble on were his stupid trades where he would try and trade down and hope his guy would still be there. Thats how we got Pittman.