Quote:
Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins
SmootSmack, I appreciate the homework but I'm puzzled by your conclusion. Based on the stats you quoted, here is a summary.
Patriots: 18 picks; 1 starter; 3 2nd on depth chart (12 cuts)
Colts: 16 picks; 4 starters; 2 backups (1 cut)
Giants: 13 picks; 4 starters; 2 backups (2 cuts)
Steelers: 15 picks; 2 starters, 2 backups (8 cuts)
Skins: 15 picks; 1 starter and 5 backups (5 cuts)
Other than the Patriots, I see more starters and I would argue, better quality backups. I respectively disagree with your conclusion. I love the Skins but I don't blindly go along with everything they do. The Skins have a problem with there depth. If you can't see that, you are looking through blinders.
|
Better quality backups I suppose is up for debate. For example, I think Montgomery and Golston (basically starters until this year) are quality backups. Others may think otherwise.
I don't think the Steelers have really had much more success than us in the mid to late rounds. We're just talking one more starter.
But anyway, I believe what you said was that they consistenly find quality starters that we do not. I guess I took that to mean that you thought a high percentage of those draft picks are starters. When in reality that doesn't seem to be the case. At the end of the day (it is what it is) I don't think we have performed significantly worse (or different) than the elite teams. In fact, I thought the complaint has always been "We draft well for the most part, why don't we keep more of our picks?"