What do you grade this draft?

[Harbingers]

8 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

What is your personal grade of this draft?

Legit question. I’ve been way too absorbed with hockey and basically didn’t pay attention to the draft at all besides us jumping up in the first.  What do you grade it?

Edited April 28, 2024 by Harbingers

[Basbear]

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

In the name of just entertaining the idea…

I’d go around B-/C+.   I wouldn’t say it was great vs what some did and it wasn’t bad.   We didn’t have a first rounder and unless you have a top pick it’s hard to feel like someone is going to have an immediate impact on things. 

It felt like this draft was for the 2025 season.

legette, brooks, sanders, wallace, and even smith -wade(NB) have a above 50% chance to start. Nothing much in the way, unless Morgan spends heavy in the areas of play/uses early pick there. 

Even Crumedy and Barratt could be ST starters

[Basbear]

11 minutes ago, CRA said:

Those top 3, I think really had a good draft on paper.  For whatever a good draft on paper is.  

I think outside of someone like Atlanta, I’d throw most teams in the same boat 

I really liked zona's draft too. It's a fair snap shot at a entertainment grade..

 

edit- raiders imo had a much better draft than the expert grade. I see lots of BPA and need filled. 

Edited April 28, 2024 by Basbear

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

Legit question. I’ve been way too absorbed with hockey and basically didn’t pay attention to the draft at all besides us jumping up in the first.  What do you grade it?

C.

[pantherclaw]

Are there tits? 

 

Then they all lose. 

 

Edited April 29, 2024 by pantherclaw

[hepcat]

C+ because I wasn't a fan of the Legette pick, but Brooks and Sanders could be staples of the Panthers offense for years to come, hence the +

[Newtcase]

I didn’t like this draft at all.

XL, our first pick had one good season out of five and doesn’t have burst off the line.  I wanted Ladd here because I think he’d have been a much better pairing for BY9s weak arm.  We need to be an excellent west coast style offense if Bryce is gonna shine.  A burner that takes 3 steps to get moving and doesn’t separate at the line is a bad choice IMO.

I don’t even want to talk about drafting a RB after having Foreman make us feel better about trading CMC only to send him packing and give Sanders top FA money last year to fall on his face.  We always try to get cute and find value.  The fact that we were the first team to take a RB (one recovering from a serious injury no less) tells you we didn’t get the memo 31 other teams got.  RB has a huge role in protection responsibility, it’s a huge reason some great backs are situational…they suck in protection.  A rookie RB helping protect BY doesn’t warm my heart.  We should have taken the top C on the board here IMO.

LB and yet another project TE that’ll probably just frustrate us all for how long he hangs around seemingly doing nothing.  Then a bunch of dice rolls that aren’t changing any fortune unless it’s a complete accident.

TLDR This whole draft looks like JAGs to me at best.  I don’t like the XL or JB picks at all.  Always happy to be wrong when I have a negative take.

[45catfan]

13 hours ago, Basbear said:

Crazy, 20 sports writers also gave us a 'C'.  Only a tic above Cleveland for next to last and third worst overall.  Yet, I'm the negative one.  I guess all those folks are just miserable S.O.Bs too.

[45catfan]

To expand more on the above graphic.  We were the ONLY team to get ZERO 'A's and tied with a few other teams with the most 'D's (only Atlanta had more).  Even the Falcons got one top mark with their 32nd ranked draft.

Again, we hit positions of need--kudos, but the players taken and WHEN they were take is my biggest gripe.  Thus a 'C'.

Edited April 29, 2024 by 45catfan

[BrianS]

Based solely on who we drafted and where, I gave it a B. We picked players who can compete for playing time this year, and largely got them where we should have.  The tipping point for me was taking Wallace at 72.  Most boards had him between 150 and 200.  A better choice in that round and I would have given it an A.

Getting a second rounder for next year should probably make it a B+ draft tbh.

[PanthersATL]

20 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Crazy, 20 sports writers also gave us a 'C'.  Only a tic above Cleveland for next to last and third worst overall.  Yet, I'm the negative one.  I guess all those folks are just miserable S.O.Bs too.

We have/had a lot of holes to fill. None of the reviews I read were that negative, other than "let's see" and "a lot hinges on whether these picks will actually help the team right now"

I think too many writers are hesitant to rate higher solely based on last year's situation

[45catfan]

7 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

We have/had a lot of holes to fill. None of the reviews I read were that negative, other than "let's see" and "a lot hinges on whether these picks will actually help the team right now"

I think too many writers are hesitant to rate higher solely based on last year's situation

Huh?  The Bears, Commandos and Cards got some of the best marks and were bad last year too.  Unless we purge the scouting department, our drafts are going to continue to be lackluster.  It's crazy to me that we keep firing coaching staffs and GMs, but largely keep the scouting department in tact.  Sure there's been some turnover, they go on the information provided by the scouts.  Coaches coach, scouts scout.   I simply think our scouting department blows.  That's the only conclusion I can come to as to why year after year, coaching staff after coaching staff and GM after GM, we still suck.

[mrcompletely11]

31 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

To expand more on the above graphic.  We were the ONLY team to get ZERO 'A's and tied with a few other teams with the most 'D's (only Atlanta had more).  Even the Falcons got one top mark with their 32nd ranked draft.

Again, we hit positions of need--kudos, but the players taken and WHEN they were take is my biggest gripe.  Thus a 'C'.

I more or less agee but getting a 2nd next year moves this up a grade.  But solely on the players and where they were draft C feels right

[45catfan]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I more or less agee but getting a 2nd next year moves this up a grade.  But solely on the players and where they were draft C feels right

Trades didn't factor into my grade.  Solely based on  players, need and value.  Of course I'm happy we got a 2nd rounder back next year.