Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Kiper's Draft Grades...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kiper's Draft Grades...

    Dallas, Philly, Baltimore earn top draft grades
    By Mel Kiper Jr.
    ESPN.com Insider
    Archive

    After two days and 255 NFL draft picks, now's the time to evaluate what each team accomplished in New York.

    The group of clear winners includes last year's NFC champions, the Philadelphia Eagles, as well as the Arizona Cardinals, Baltimore Ravens and Dallas Cowboys. Those smarting a little as they prepare for minicamp include the Denver Broncos, Green Bay Packers, Houston Texans and Kansas City Chiefs.

    How all this translates onto the field remains to be seen but for now the guessing and second-guessing are beginning.

    Arizona Cardinals: A
    The Cardinals had to have a corner and a running back in this draft and they got both in the first two rounds. Antrel Rolle was maybe the best defensive player on the board and J.J. Arrington is a productive back who was a good value in the second round. Eric Green adds depth at corner; linebacker Darryl Blackstock and guard Elton Brown were also nice values; and if linebacker Lance Mitchell reverts to his pre-injury form, he could become a decent player.

    Atlanta Falcons: C+
    Wide receiver Roddy White was a great pick in the first round for a team that needs to give quarterback Michael Vick more help, and defensive tackle Jonathan Babineaux fills a big need along the defensive line. Linebacker Jordan Beck might have been taken a bit early and end Chauncey Davis was a reach in the fourth round, while linebacker Michael Boley was a good selection in the fifth round. Running back DeAndra Cobb made sense as a situational guy and a return man.

    Baltimore Ravens: A
    Receiver Mark Clayton is a perfect fit and defensive end Dan Cody is a nice pass rusher who could be effective off the edge. Tackle Adam Terry is a good athlete and will team with center Jason Brown to add some depth along the offensive line, and the Ravens got the best fullback in the draft in Justin Green. The struggles and inconsistency of quarterback Derek Anderson have been well-documented but he has physical skills and could develop into a decent passer.

    Buffalo Bills: C+
    The Bills traded their 2005 first-round pick in the JP Losman deal but got a steal when receiver Roscoe Parrish fell to the late second round. Parrish will be a nice addition to the passing game and is also an effective returner, and his college teammate Kevin Everett could turn into a nice tight end. Center Raymond Preston was a reach in the fourth round, though, and Eric King will probably be a situational nickel back in the NFL.

    Carolina Panthers: B-
    Thomas Davis is a hard hitter and it will be interesting to see whether the Panthers leave him at safety, where he played in college, or move him to outside linebacker, where many project him at the next level. Running back Eric Shelton is an OK pick in the second round but is purely a straight-ahead, bruising runner. Guard Evan Mathis was quite a steal in the third round and quarterback Stefan LeFors should be a solid backup. Safety Ben Emanuel was a reach in the fourth round, as was guard Joe Berger in the sixth round, but end Jovan Haye was a good pickup in the sixth.

    Chicago Bears: A-
    Cedric Benson has all the makings of a star running back and Mark Bradley fills a need at wide receiver while also bringing excellent special-teams skills to the table. Getting Kyle Orton gives the Bears a nice backup who will fill in capably should quarterback Rex Grossman go down again. Receiver Airese Curry made sense in the fifth round and the late-round safeties could become contributors as well.

    Cincinnati Bengals: A-
    Defensive end David Pollack and linebacker Odell Thurman were teammates at Georgia and are immediate upgrades for the front seven on Marvin Lewis' defense. The Bengals helped the offensive line with another pair of teammates, center Eric Ghiaciuc and tackle Adam Kieft from Central Michigan, and thanks to his great physical attributes receiver Chris Henry is a good gamble in the third round despite some character questions. Fellow wideout Tab Perry was a sensible pick in the sixth.

    Cleveland Browns: B
    You can't argue with the Browns taking the best player available at No. 3 in Braylon Edwards even though they have other needs. If safety Brodney Pool gets back to the stellar form he showed as a sophomore he will pan out nicely; corner Antonio Perkins will be a nickel back who can also contribute in the return game; and quarterback Charlie Frye has the skills you want in a quarterback despite the fact that he throws a wobbly ball on occasion. Andrew Hoffman will be plugged in to fill a need at nose tackle.

    Dallas Cowboys: A
    One of the best hauls for any team thanks to a significant upgrade on the defensive front seven. Demarcus Ware is a terrific attack linebacker, end Marcus Spears is a great fit in a 3-4 scheme and linebacker Kevin Burnett is a solid, steady player. Running back Marion Barber III is bigger than current Dallas back Julius Jones and is a nice complement. Safety Justin Beriault was a steal in the sixth round and defensive tackle Jay Ratliff is versatile enough to play in a 3-4 or 4-3, depending on what the team needs.

    Denver Broncos: C
    A team that did a lot of reaching for cornerbacks. Darrent Williams was an OK second-rounder, but fellow corner Karl Paymah traded on his workouts and Domonique Foxworth did not have a notable season last year despite possessing tremendous recovery speed. Denver's selection of running back Maurice Clarett in the third round seems like quite a reach, but I'll defer to coach Mike Shanahan when it comes to fitting the right players into his system. Guard Chris Myers brings some flexibility to the offensive line.

    Detroit Lions: C+
    Give the Lions credit for going away from their biggest needs to take receiver Mike Williams, who was clearly the best player available at No. 10 overall, but you have to wonder if they got enough help for the defense. Williams gives Detroit perhaps the best young receiving corps in the league, but defensive linemen Shaun Cody (a versatile end-tackle combo) and end Bill Swancutt (a one-dimensional pass rusher) may not be enough of a boost up front. Coach Steve Mariucci has to hope he can develop some accuracy in tall quarterback Dan Orlovsky; corner Stanley Wilson is an average player; and end Jonathan Goddard will likely move to outside linebacker.

    Green Bay Packers: C
    The Packers had to take quarterback Aaron Rodgers in the first round. You just can't pass on the opportunity to get Brett Favre's heir apparent and give him some time to learn from one of the best passers ever, even though he won't help them win this year. Corner Nick Collins is a good athlete but very raw and was a reach in the second round. And while receiver Terrence Murphy is a nice player, Green Bay didn't need a receiver. Safety Marviel Underwood was a solid pickup in the fourth round but linebacker Brady Poppinga might not be a good fit in the Packers' scheme. I like receiver Craig Bragg in the sixth round but there is just not enough defensive help in this class.

    Houston Texans: C
    Defensive tackle Travis Johnson can plug the middle and is a perfect fit for Houston's defensive scheme, and despite a lack of ideal speed running back Vernand Morency has nice pure running skills. Receiver Jerome Mathis is a great fourth-round pickup if he can maintain his concentration. The rest of the group is nothing to write home about.

    Indianapolis Colts: C+
    Marlin Jackson is a nice upgrade at cornerback but second-rounder Kelvin Hayden moved to corner just last year and is still very raw. Defensive tackle Vincent Burns came off the board a bit early, while guard Dylan Gandy will lend some versatility to the offensive line and defensive end Jonathan Welsh did not always play to the level of his physical talents. Running back Anthony Davis could be a nice find in the seventh round if he stays healthy enough to remain in the mix.

    Jacksonville Jaguars: C+
    The Jaguars took wide receiver Matt Jones off the board much earlier than most expected him to go, and the former college quarterback is a projection and slight risk despite his amazing athleticism. Offensive tackle Khalif Barnes was a nice pickup in the second round, but taking cornerback Scott Starks in the third round was a bit of a reach despite his potential to contribute as a nickel back. Running back Alvin Pearman will be a nice backup to Fred Taylor and safety Gerald Sensabaugh is a good value in the fifth round.

    Kansas City Chiefs: C
    The Chiefs settled for outside linebacker Derrick Johnson when Thomas Davis went to Carolina, but that's not a bad consolation prize. Punter Dustin Colquitt was a reach in the third round because of his inconsistency and receiver Craphonso Thorpe needs to regain the form he showed before suffering a leg injury late in his career. James Grigsby should be OK as a backup linebacker but the Chiefs did not do enough to help the defense and took two questionable offensive players in the seventh round.

    Miami Dolphins: B-
    Running back Ronnie Brown is a complete prospect and you also have to like the intensity and toughness end Matt Roth will bring to the table. The biggest question is whether linebacker Channing Crowder will remain healthy enough long enough to be an impact pro, but new Miami coach Nick Saban obviously had no questions about cornerback Travis Daniels, who played under Saban at LSU and solidified his standing with a good 40 time. Offensive tackle Anthony Alabi is an average player and defensive tackle Kevin Vickerson came on as a senior but still needs some work.

    Minnesota Vikings: B+
    The Vikings targeted speed on their board and they definitely got it with wide receiver Troy Williamson, who wowed Minnesota enough that the Vikings passed on Mike Williams. Defensive end Erasmus James gives them much-needed help up front, guard-tackle Marcus Johnson will solidify the offensive line and running back Ciatrick Fason has the potential to be a terrific steal in the fourth round. Dustin Fox is a good cornerback and defensive tackle C.J. Mosley is a motivated overachiever.

    New England Patriots: C
    Guard Logan Mankins was a reach in the first round but the Patriots obviously like his size and nastiness, and he will help fill the void left by Joe Andruzzi's departure via free agency. Ellis Hobbs has good size but not enough skill to be more than a nickel back, and safety James Sanders was a teammate of Mankins at Fresno State and both were helped by the relationship between Patriots coach Bill Belichick and Fresno State coach Pat Hill. Tackle Nick Kaczur could play guard as well but came off the board a little early and Matt Cassel is a big project at quarterback.

    New Orleans Saints: C
    I like Jammal Brown as a power right tackle and safety Josh Bullocks is an OK pick providing he can refocus and get back some of the ball hawking skills he showed as a sophomore. Alfred Fincher is a productive linebacker who will also help the defense and receiver Chase Lyman could be a contributor if he stays healthy. I don't know about the Adrian McPherson pick, though, because the Saints had enough other needs that they probably couldn't afford to go after a developmental quarterback.

    New York Giants: C
    Cornerback Corey Webster was slowed by nagging injuries last season but is a tremendous cover man when healthy and had a top-10 grade after his junior season. Justin Tuck is an OK end in the third round but should have gone back to Notre Dame; Brandon Jacobs should carve a niche as a power back; and end Eric Moore is also an OK pick. The Giants just did not have enough selections to make a big impact on their football team.

    New York Jets: C
    Current Jets kicker Doug Brien is serviceable but the team obviously believed Mike Nugent's leg strength was top notch, since the second-rounder was their first pick this year. Cornerback Justin Miller made sense later in the round because of his big-play ability and awesome return abilities, but most of the rest of the draft is made up of reaches (Sione Puha and Kery Rhodes) and projects (Harry Williams).

    Oakland Raiders: C
    The Raiders went with speed at cornerback with Fabian Washington and Stanford Routt but sacrificed in terms of ball skills. If Andrew Walter fully recovers from a separated throwing shoulder he will get a chance to be the quarterback of the future, and if defensive tackle Anttaj Hawthorne stays focused he will be a great value after falling from a first-round grade all the way to the sixth round. End Ryan Riddle and offensive tackle Pete McMahon were good pickups in the sixth round and, all things considered, I like those last two picks better than Oakland's first two.

    Philadelphia Eagles: A
    Another very good group of players. Defensive tackle Mike Patterson is an exceptional player, Matt McCoy was one of the fastest-rising linebackers leading up to the draft, Ryan Moats provides good depth behind Brian Westbrook at running back and Sean Considine is a smart, tough safety. Todd Herremans is a developmental offensive tackle prospect out of the fourth round but the Eagles got five more potential contributors after taking him. A large class with no real downside.

    Pittsburgh Steelers: C+
    Heath Miller is a big-time upgrade at tight end and corner Bryan McFadden is the kind of tough, aggressive run supporter Steelers coach Bill Cowher likes. Offensive lineman Trai Essex was a reach, receiver Fred Gibson needs to bulk up a bit and linebacker Rian Wallace needs to get stronger. Noah Herron is a backup-type running back, but guard Chris Kemoeatu was a nice find in the sixth round and could even try to play nose tackle after logging some time there in college.

    San Diego Chargers: C
    I like end/linebacker Shawne Merriman as an addition to the pass rush, but the rest of the players the Chargers selected were taken a little early. Defensive tackle Luis Castillo did not have a first-round grade and receiver Vincent Jackson was a reach in the second round as the Chargers were desperate to add a receiver. Darren Sproles should be a nice situational back who can also return kicks, but the remainder of the players San Diego took were more toward the undrafted free-agent category.

    San Francisco 49ers: B
    A good first day but an average second day. There were no trade opportunities compelling enough that San Francisco wanted to give up the No. 1 overall pick, but quarterback Alex Smith is a player who's easy to like. Center David Baas will help the interior of the offensive line and Frank Gore might help take some pressure off Smith as they mature together, while guard Adam Snyder will lend a hand to Baas. It will be interesting to see whether former quarterback Rasheed Marshall can transition to wide receiver, with the rest of the group not looking like impact players.

    Seattle Seahawks: B
    Chris Spencer is able to play center and both guard positions and is a big help, but linebacker Lofa Tatupu, quarterback David Greene and linebacker Leroy Hill were all reaches. Offensive tackle Ray Willis was a good pick in the fourth round, end Jeb Huckeba is an overachiever and the remainder of Seattle's draftees look like backups or special teamers.

    St. Louis Rams: C
    Tackle Alex Barron has plenty of athletic gifts but is inconsistent in his effort, so the Rams may or may not have the right tackle they need. The next three picks were all reaches (corner Ronald Bartell Jr., safety Oshiomogho Atogwe and center Richie Incognito), but Dante Ridgeway made sense at receiver in the sixth round and I like quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick as a developmental project.

    Tampa Bay Buccaneers: C+
    Running back Carnell Williams is very good in traffic and fills a big need for the Bucs, while both safety/linebacker Barrett Ruud and tight end Alex Smith are good value picks. Offensive tackle Chris Colmer looks to have put his medical woes behind him but the third round is still a bit high. Guard Dan Buenning is a nice value selection in the fourth but there are questions after that. Safety Donte Nicholson has limitations in coverage, receiver Larry Brackins needs to mature, defensive tackle Anthony Bryant has some maturing to do and receiver Paris Warren does not have much in the way of speed.

    Tennessee Titans: B
    Corner Adam Jones fills a huge need for the Titans and Michael Roos is a very good tackle for Tennessee to add in the second round. Courtney Roby is an average receiver and Brandon Jones is OK, but I actually like fourth-round wideout Roydell Williams more than either Roby or Jones. Running back Damien Nash was a stretch in the fifth round but offensive tackle Daniel Loper is good in pass protection, and there is some question as to whether tight end Bo Scaife can stay healthy.

    Washington Redskins: C
    The Redskins had a lot of picks but still ended up with an average draft. Cornerback Carlos Rogers fills a big need but taking quarterback Jason Campbell with their second first-round pick is a head-scratcher. Campbell is a very good player and a very solid pro prospect thanks to his extreme accuracy, but coach Joe Gibbs wants to win right now and Campbell doesn't help him do that. Linebacker Robert McCune has a lot of ability and Manuel White is an OK running back, but the rest of the picks are average at best.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  • #2
    Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

    That's about what I expected for the Colts. I think Polian's drafts are hard to evalute because he seems to do a god job in the later rounds. The draft is a crap shoot anyway. A baseball scout once told me everyone has a good day on draft day.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

      I think we did fine....we could have done with a MLB though
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

        Originally posted by Suaveness
        I think we did fine....we could have done with a MLB though
        We're bringing back Morris anyway...
        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

          Actually I hate draft grades. Most of them are based off of names on a generic draft board (that no team had) and they seem to disappear in a year or two. We seem to have drafted players that fit in Dungy's mold, and I'll grade them after they've stepped foot on a NFL field once or twice...
          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

            Originally posted by btowncolt
            Me too.

            I like draft grades from classes three years ago much better.

            But I was bored, and needed a post-draft fix.
            Oh I eat this stuff up like candy, but I think it's all pretty much pointless.
            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

              Originally posted by btowncolt
              Because of Kstat, It was free...
              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kiper's Draft Grades...

                Originally posted by btowncolt

                The things he made me do.........
                That's what made the pot sweeter. I got free content and new picture to hang up in my room...

                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment

                Working...
                X