The two-day marathon that is the NFL draft has finally concluded, and naturally it’s time to dole out draft grades.
Of course, it is imperative to grade all 32 teams comprehensively before any of these prospects ever plays a down in the NFL. If resident draft gurus were to wait until, say, a few years after the draft before grading teams, they could actually watch the performance of the players and make a logical assessment based upon on-field performance. But who wants that?
Instead, we are overwhelmed with generic knee-jerk reactions from a sea of conforming prognosticators: Ki-Jana Carter was supposed to be a superstar, Randy Moss was knocked because he played subpar competition, and Ryan Leaf was pegged as franchise quarterback. Handing out draft grades on the morning after is like awarding final grades after the first week of class.
For those unfamiliar with the annual snooze-fest that is the NFL draft, the script reads something like this: Draft “experts” grade players based primarily on 40-yard dash times, height, weight and weight-lifting ability. Sounds like a recipe for analysis paralysis!
Teams then draft in a generally agreed-upon fashion. If a franchise deems Joseph Addai better than Reggie Bush, that team will trade down rather than break the mold. Only on rare occasions have teams been so bold to fly in the face of conventional wisdom by taking, say, Edgerrin James over Ricky Williams.
Should anyone be surprised that the team grades handed out on Monday simply mirror the perceptions all the draft experts had on Friday? If a team selected players an analyst liked, they received a good grade. Otherwise, said draft was regarded as a failure. The immediacy of the process is dictated by a market that demands real-time information and a need for instant feedback. But that doesn’t make the process any less comical.
History has proven time and time again that projecting players is no science, and that draft-day grading is a coin toss at best. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King wrote that the Chicago Bears’ Brian Urlacher might have been drafted too high, suggesting he might just be part “shoot-up-the-chart myth.” Now, Urlacher is arguably the best defensive player in the NFL. One famous scouting report on Michigan’s Tom Brady said, “Poor build, very skinny and narrow, lacks mobility and the ability to avoid the rush, lacks a really strong arm.” Even the Patriots were lucky with Brady ““ they were wavering between him and Louisiana Tech’s Tim Rattay. The team had already selected gridiron legends like Dave Stachelski and Jeff Marriott over the future Hall-of-Fame quarterback. Dave and Jeff who?
Yet all of this uncertainty hasn’t stopped the pundits from dishing out detailed grades like B “plus” or “minus,” 24 hours after the draft board is filled. One would think it would be more accurate ““ and beneficial, to fan bases and general managers ““ to perform a thorough draft review after a few years; grading the actual results instead of mere potential makes infinitely more sense.
Somewhere, ESPN’s Mel Kiper Jr. just fainted at the thought.
Take the 2003 draft. Kiper, the guru of draft professors, gave the coveted A-plus to Baltimore, primarily for trading a 2004 first-round pick to move up and select “star” quarterback Kyle Boller. Unfortunately, the Boller era has been about as productive as a summer session of Congress. Gems from that Ravens draft include Musa Smith, Jarret Johnson, Ovie Mughelli and Aubrayo Franklin. The “A” grade wasn’t enough, Kiper had to include “plus.” It must have been the exotic-name platter of Musa, Ovie and Aubrayo that sealed the perfect grade. So don’t feel too optimistic or pessimistic about your team’s grades. Class isn’t even in session yet.