04-30-2017, 10:27 AM
(04-30-2017, 10:18 AM)Bengalbug Wrote: So after posting all of those "media analysis" I would agree that the bengals had a good draft... Knowing what we know. Unfortunately every single grade on a draft will change over time and it will take 2-3 years to full evaluate a draft.
The bengals added a lot of talent but will that equal success on the field? It is hard to tell.
2005 was a good draft immediately after and even after the first year. By 2006 the 2005 draft was basically useless with pollack out with a broken neck, and Thurman suspended basically the rest of his career for choosing drugs over football. By 2009 I wish the 2005 draft never happened, RIP Chris Henry.
That draft just goes to show how far on the spectrum you can go from an A+ draft to basically an incomplete or F in a matter of years.
Absolutely this. It always makes me laugh every year the media hype up the draft by saying so-and-so is a beast, will improve [insert team's] O-Line for the next 10 season etc etc.... yet if you right now look back at recent first round drafts, you'll see busts all over the place.
It's a total crapshoot. Every pick can be a total bust, or an injury case. Judging a draft that happened a couple of days ago is pointless. But it is fun and interesting to do.
On topic, I think the media are doing us a good service with this draft, I think we had a draft better than most teams and most of the media seem to agree.
