Instant Reaction Grade

[Luvnit2]

(04-28-2019, 08:15 AM)BengalChris Wrote: There has to be an upgrade in talent not just cheaper bodies, otherwise nothing improves. And we've seen such drafts.

I didn't really think about the number of players making the roster and possibly could have.

We really won't know how many new starters there will be the end of the year or after two or three years.

Presently I see two new starters this year, which is what you need to get from a draft just to stay even, hence a C for two new starters. There may end up being more.

Take 2015, as an example. There were zero real starters from that draft class and look at how much that set the team back. It was an F-.

I don't disagree, there may be more starters in 2 to 3 years, my draft grade though is on immediate starters (contribution) and why I include roster spots, the more that make the team, the better shot at more starters down the road.

Do you evaluate the Steeler's (or others) draft factoring A. Brown leaving since the Steeler's got draft picks for him? If so, do you rank them worse grabbing a rookie WR to replace AB's huge contract and production? I do use it so in my mind Steeler's had a very bad draft. I see one starter in Bush because like you I don't count the WR to replace the better Brown since it is a downgrade, not an upgrade.

I think many teams will not have 2 starters in 2019 from this draft. I don't see Browns with 2 starters or Falcons to name 2. It is not easy drafting 2 projected day 1 starters unless you have multiple 1st and or 2nd round picks. In my mind, by round 3 things can get dicey with starting NFL talent as rookies.