Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 959557" data-attributes="member: 10086">I’m not sure it was that bad, but they needed much more help than we did. The Packers got 4-5 players that will contribute early imo. Also that includes STWalker, Wyatt, Watson, Whisky, Whatsup..  ok ok.. I completely fabricated the last couple guys to keep it light n airy in here. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" data-shortname=":)" />I don’t see more than 2-3 guys on that Dallas list who will possibly get early roles and substantial production. It looks like a bunch of guys who get backup roles and either have injuries or off field concerns (Dallas is gambling).One other thing I’d point out that has  absolutely nothing to do with your post, lol.  Is that where did these draft grades come from? Yours is probably more in line with reality. If the league mean is a “C”. How do 31 teams score above a C? I’m employing our draft professor for a rating curve as the average is clearly a B or B+ based on all the grades I’m being handed out.Either that or we are all possibly grading our own papers, which is really quite scary! I give the Packers an A+</blockquote>

Total: 997 (members: 1, guests: 996)