Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Originally posted by English:
But
Sorry but limiting it to that year appears to be your view not the writers, unless I miss something. And if a team had drafted Jerry Rice that year but not played him, do you not think that the long term impact of that pick would have been included? Of course it would.
The writer explicitly states as much when qualifying the drafts as poor using the metrics of the amount of primary starters drafted and total games played. Not sure what you're not following in the article.
The 2012 draft class has combined for just eight career NFL starts (no starts coming during their rookie seasons); no team's draft class outside of the 2014 draft has produced fewer total starts.
Judging it that way avoids taking drafting back in time into account. Anyway, he makes a point about career starts as opposed to rookie starts, and thus is not limiting it to one year.
A draft can only be assessed on the value added to the team. By players, draft picks, trades for picks, trades for players. No other method has any point.
I don't think you're following what I'm saying, which is he's basing the draft on the players drafted that year not just their contributions for one single year. The players Baalke drafted that year had basically zero impact on the team at any point after they were drafted, which is why the writer explains it was one of the worst drafts in the last ten years. Trades, etc. don't matter because the draft is dealing with players that were taken in 2012 and nothing else.
[ Edited by itlynstalyn on Jun 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM ]