![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
| View Poll Results: Grade the Redskins 2010 draft class | |||
| A |
|
14 | 8.14% |
| B |
|
97 | 56.40% |
| C |
|
54 | 31.40% |
| D |
|
4 | 2.33% |
| F |
|
3 | 1.74% |
| Voters: 172. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Redskins 2010 Draft Class with Analysis
I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.
We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA. We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot. I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
|