Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bobby Roberts" data-source="post: 113574" data-attributes="member: 260">You asked for a synopsis of the 2005 draft and said it was a complete waste.  I summerized that we currently have 4 contributers on the 53 man roster and 2 starters.  The third year of that draft (next year), which is typically considered the measuring stick for any draft class, we are likely to have 4 starters.  Of course that a prediction of the potential, but that's all that can be done with the draft class at this point.However you figure it, we have 2 solid starters from the draft, which is not a complete waste.  I never said it shows that to be a great draft, but it's far from a complete waste.  To think that if a draft doesn't produce 12 starters that it must be a complete waste takes the cake as the stupidest thing I'd seen or heard this week.BTW, please read my complete post last time.  I mentioned at the start that Rodgers cannot be judged good or bad yet and therefore doesn't count.  It doesn't matter anyway since IMO Sherman would have drafted Rodgers also.  As for Montgomery, I only have stated him to be a contributing backup, which is what he's doing now -- i.e. not potential but actual assessment of production!Ah, what's the point.  You see 2 starters (and likely to be 4 starters) as being a complete waste.  I see it as ok, but not great.</blockquote>

Total: 69 (members: 1, guests: 68)