El Guapo
Cheesehead
In my draft evaluation I label picks purely as a success or failure. I think that we've gone through this in years past. My official definition is: "The terms "Success" and "Fail" refer to whether the draft pick was a successful evaluation of a player's talent. It takes neither draft position nor salary into account to determine success. In essence, did the player succeed for Green Bay as a starter, quality backup, or valuable role player?"
Taking TT's first draft as an example, I have the players ranked as such:
R1: Aaron Rodgers - Success (no brainer)
R2: Nick Collins - Success
R2: Terrence Murphy - Fail
R4: Brady Popinga - Success
R4: Marviel Underwood - Fail
R5: Junius Coston - Fail
R6: Craig Bragg - Fail
R6: Mike Montgomery - Success
R7: Kurt Campbell - Fail
R7: William Whitticker
Murphy was actually a good pick but never was able to really play due to the neck injury he suffered. Popinga was never great by any stretch, but he was a starter and situational LB for several years.
I could rank players on scale like some people, but it's just as easy to argue against those grades. It's all subjective. I'd like to think that no matter you methodology, as long as one is consistent you will get consistent results across the history of our GMs.
Below is a sample of the past 15 years (if it's readable on here). I'm sure people will have issues with some of it. To each their own:
Taking TT's first draft as an example, I have the players ranked as such:
R1: Aaron Rodgers - Success (no brainer)
R2: Nick Collins - Success
R2: Terrence Murphy - Fail
R4: Brady Popinga - Success
R4: Marviel Underwood - Fail
R5: Junius Coston - Fail
R6: Craig Bragg - Fail
R6: Mike Montgomery - Success
R7: Kurt Campbell - Fail
R7: William Whitticker
Murphy was actually a good pick but never was able to really play due to the neck injury he suffered. Popinga was never great by any stretch, but he was a starter and situational LB for several years.
I could rank players on scale like some people, but it's just as easy to argue against those grades. It's all subjective. I'd like to think that no matter you methodology, as long as one is consistent you will get consistent results across the history of our GMs.
Below is a sample of the past 15 years (if it's readable on here). I'm sure people will have issues with some of it. To each their own:
You must be logged in to see this image or video!