I saw your tweets about this a few days ago and read them without realizing the posts a year old - imagine my confusion when you were talking about Jones and Crosby as rookies.

-----

Thoughts on Adalius Thomas? Obviously it'll come down to $$ and if Belichick can't get any production out of him, it's hard to imagine anyone can, but I am intrigued by him, at least as camp competition.

They should be releasing the 07' draft grades today.

Also, I believe that ESPN takes an instant pole after the draft, and here's what they had to say in 08':

Most likely to bust: Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Chris Johnson, Derrick Harvey, Vernon Gholston.

Least likely to bust: Branden Albert, Glenn Dorsey, Mike Jenkins, Chris Long, Jake Long.

The fan-base always clamor for brand names and instant gratification. The majority of rookies don't contribute until year 2 and beyond. The irony every year: The graders (for the most part) say, "don't draft for need, that leads to a reach/mistake." Yet they grade each franchise on how they FILLED their needs.

Silly.....

The 2007 and 2008 draft should be graded this week.

Don't hold back, Aaron, tell us how you really feel. :)

Like all of the pre-Draft hype, post-Draft hype should be held to the same level of "got to fill a time slot". Makes for interesting viewing, but it is just that. BTW, I do like the Packs picks this year. Looks like they are busy in free agency also.

There are three and only three draft grades that a fan will accept:

If you're a TT hater - F------: Worst draft in the history of all drafts. Terrible picks all around. The man should resign.

If you're a hyper-optimist - A+++++: Best draft in the history of drafts (since last year's, at least). We'll surely be 19-0 because of this draft!

If you're a reasonable human being - Incomplete: (See blog post above.)

What can I say? I'm a simple-minded guy. I don't like draft grades as a whole, but I do enjoy pick grades.

What I do enjoy more is pick analysis, though...

And I'm well aware of how stupid it is to grade a draft, but I can't help it.

Being a Purdue grad, I like the Neal pick for DE. I also loved last year's Raji pick at NT. You could say I like the way TT picks his nose and his end.

Packers got an A+ this past draft, damn it!

There should be two grades given. Potential for immediate impact and another for actual results over a three year period. For the first grade, I give them a C. I don't see anyone in this draft class that looks like they're going set the world on fire this year. The second, we can talk about in three years.

Here's what "draft expert" Mel Kiper had to say after the Titans drafted Chris Johnson...

"Tennessee Titans: GRADE: C
Running back Chris Johnson is a good player, but I wasn’t expecting him to go to Tennessee, especially because the Titans need a wide receiver. (They should have looked at WR Devin Thomas in the first round.) They did get WR Lavelle Hawkins in the fourth round and Vince Young will like the former California wide receiver. Jason Jones can play DE or DT. I don’t have a problem with the player they drafted on Day 1, but the philosophy is skewed. It was the third straight year Tennessee drafted a running back in the first two rounds. "

It's just the easiest and most obvious recent example. The day I worry about what grade the team is getting, smack me in the face. The day an NFL GM worries about the grade they got, time to fire them.

I'll disagree with you, Aaron. Drafts are more objectively judged at the time they occur. Take the Terrence Murphy pick. That was a great pick. Dude was gonna be very special. But then he went down with a neck injury. No one could have predicted that. So now we look back and say that was a "bad pick," because he "didn't pan out." Well, you can't predict those types of scenarios.
Frankly I think all drafts grades are skewed once we know how players have performed over the next three years.
No GM can know what's going to happen in three years. What I want a guy who can go into a draft and get value picks according to what we know right now. I think the Packers did a f'n awesome job of that this past weekend. Detroit did a great job too.
And if none of the players pan out, I'll still think they were good drafts. Because based on what information we had available to us, those were excellent choices.

Of course it is virtually meaningless to "grade" a draft days later. At the same time, its a bit unfair to grade a draft three years later, with the benefit of perfect hindsight. Thompson and his staff have to pick players based on what they know today, so its only really fair to grade them based on what is known today. btw - In my grades for the 1984 NBA draft, I gave Portland a B- and a C to the Bulls.

Bulaga- It's weird, because when we first selected him, I wasn't overly excited, just kind of satisfied. Thinking about it a little more, it's great knowing that the future of our Offensive Line is all but settled, just need to find the right 5. The value was fantastic and I think Bulaga is the guy Ted has had his eye on all along. Like many others have said, the guy just looks like a Packer Offensive Lineman with his big blockhead. I said it the other day, in another thread but I don't want Bulaga playing anywhere but Tackle, and I think our coaching staff would agree after the whole Colledge experiment. My guess for his role this season as Clifton's immediate backup and the emergency guy at RT. In that role he's going to PLENTY of reps this offseason/Preseason and will probably start a couple of games during the Regular season as well.

Neal- I've heard many people consider this a reach, and I myself was a little surprised how early he went but doesn't it seem like everytime we label one of Ted's guys a reach, he ends up being a steal? Jennings, Collins, James Jones, etc, etc. I saw him play about 3 or 4 times this year and the one thing that stuck out to me was his strength at the POA, very rarely did he seem to be overwhelmed and pushed back, always held his ground. I think our pass rush soured late in the season partly because Raji, Pickett, Jolly and Jenkins seemed to be worn down and we were getting little to no interior pass rush/pressure up the middle. A deeper rotation will not only help keep those guys fresh, but allow us to use different looks out there in certain situations. I think we could see some Neal-Raji-Wynn looks at some point this year during passing situations to see if we can get a little more pass rush. Same goes for the addition of CJ Wilson, I think Wilson could be a PS guy and both guys protect us if by some chance Jolly and Jenkins both leave after this season when their contract is up.

Burnett- Love, love, love this pick. I was clamouring for him from about the middle of the 2nd Round on. I just loved his game, and how he could potentially fit into this Defense. He's a better athlete than Bigby and has great ball skills, seems to be able to hold his ground in coverage a bit better than Bigby as well. He was the 3rd best Safety in this class for me, so the fact that we were able to get him in the 3rd Round was great value and a steal. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see him starting opposite Nick Collins Week 1 in Philadelphia, and at the very least he should be 6th Defensive Back on the field when Capers trots out his Dime look. I think he has considerable upside and room for growth(just turned 21 in March) so the potential of a Collins-Burnett duo makes me pretty giddy.

Quarless- I liked Quarless, but I was a bit surprised that Ted went for a raw receiving TE. Not disappointed at all, just surprised, I don't think anyone would dislike having 2 Finley's out there. He doesn't quite have the upside that J-Mike has, but the raw skills to be a very good player are there. I think Ben McAdoo is underrated as a position coach, the transformation Finley made from Year 1 to Year 2 was awesome and he didn't get much credit for it. The potential of a Finley-Quarless 2-TE set has to make A-Rod very happy, talk about stretching the field. May need to grow up a bit before he can reach his full potential but wasn't Finley the same way coming out? I think we're happy with where he's at right now, great value with this pick IMO.

Newhouse- Used him in a couple of my mocks so I definately liked him. Think he adds some much needed depth at the Guard spots with the ability to play RT as well. Me thinks Lang/Newhouse are going to be our LG/RT of the future, just not sure who plays where. Like I said, I think Newhouse can definately play RT but I think Lang ends up there and Newhouse ends up at LG. I think he's ready to contribute from Day 1 for us much like Sitton was. He's going to be in the running with Spitz and Colledge at LG and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as the starter there. A more likely scenario would have Newhouse as the swing guy on gameday backing up both Guard spots and at RT. I think the future is certainly bright for Newhouse and he along with Bulaga should be one of our best 5 sooner rather than later.

Starks- I'll be honest, I didn't see much of this kid in college and didn't know much about him coming out. Gathering from what I've read in the past couple of days, he's a complete back and can bring a lot of versatility on gameday. Great out of the backfield, and seems to do most of his damage with the ball in his hands. His health scares me a bit but he should be fully recovered from the injury that caused him to miss all of his 2009 season. Starks should fill in immediately in our RB rotation and on STs, with an outside chance to take some carries from Grant and ease his load a bit. Seems to be a good fit for the ZBS and can definately be looked at as a potential starter for us at RB in the future.

I knew Bill Belichick was tough but I din't how tough until I read this article. Maybe we should see if this is something we want to do with our rookies.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bill-belichick-drops-off-recent-draft-p...