[QUOTE=papillon;559389]The worst part about the 2008 and 2009 drafts are that players from these drafts should be forming the core of the team moving forward and there aren't any players with which to form the core.
Each draft failure sets you back by 2-3 years IMO especially for a team who don't do much during FA...
Ravens too had few bad drafts but they hit gold in FA...Flacco and Rice draft was great for them..
Sometimes drafts lack the confidence of victory but team spirit works well to perform good and bag the win.
[QUOTE=papillon;559379]Ziggy Hood and David Johnson, that's it, that can't possibly be a good draft, can it? I've heard Hood rated as the 29th out of 32, 3-4 DEs and I don't know where you put Johnson. Difficult for me not to rate that as a bad draft.
Yes it is a good draft. Hood, Urbik, Wallace, Lewis and Johnson. All in the NFL. Most are starters. Urbik, cut; Wallace and Lewis, chose to leave. Still they selected five players that are either very good or solid NFL players. That is a better than average.
[QUOTE=Mister Pittsburgh;559377]I don't think anyone would argue we drafted well from 94 to around 04, or essentially the drafts that formed our Superbowl teams. It has been the last 8 or 9 years of that 19 year window that fans question, especially since Tomlin took over.[/QUOTE]
It is hard to believe GB closed the gap and took the lead from TS, who were #1 from 1991 to 2004.
I was looking for some info on prospect visits in the 2011 season and saw this article by Bouchette in the PG. The stats are compiled by draftmetrics.com.
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica]in determining a team's draft efficiency, he considered the number of players who became five-year starters, those who made the Pro Bowl at least once (he must be an original selection and not make it through another's injury) and the number of draftees who were All-Pros at least once. He included the drafts from 1991 through 2004.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica]You'll never guess which team came out on top. The Steelers earned a 17.6 rating in that system as the NFL's most efficient organization at drafting. They left second-place Green Bay far behind at 11.3. Other top teams were New England at 7.7, Indianapolis at 6.4 and Seattle at 5.8. All have been to one or more Super Bowls over the past 10 years. Bringing up the rear were San Diego at minus-9.5 and Detroit at minus-9.1.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Considering TS really drafted well in 05, 06, and 07 it is surprising GB took the lead. Of course, how ESPN got their results is not known. Obviously, a few sub-par years change things. But, that is all water under the bridge. This year the draft pools are said to be deep. Let's see what happens.
Oops! Forgot to hit the plain text thing.in determining a team's draft efficiency, he considered the number of players who became five-year starters, those who made the Pro Bowl at least once (he must be an original selection and not make it through another's injury) and the number of draftees who were All-Pros at least once. He included the drafts from 1991 through 2004.
You'll never guess which team came out on top. The Steelers earned a 17.6 rating in that system as the NFL's most efficient organization at drafting. They left second-place Green Bay far behind at 11.3. Other top teams were New England at 7.7, Indianapolis at 6.4 and Seattle at 5.8. All have been to one or more Super Bowls over the past 10 years. Bringing up the rear were San Diego at minus-9.5 and Detroit at minus-9.1.
Read more: [url]http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/steelers/looking-at-the-nfl-draft-history-by-the-numbers-294686/#ixzz2R0IS5CKS[/url]
Uhh, newsflash; both 2008 and 2009 were poor in talent[U] league-wide[/U]! Take a look at the entire class and see who is still on rosters. It happens...
[QUOTE=Oviedo;559366]How could that posibly be given Colbert and Tomlin are so bad at their jobs?[/QUOTE]
Kindly explain the influence that Tomlin had on the 1994 draft.
[QUOTE=flippy;559382]Since Mike T took over we have:
07 - 4 players
08 - 0
09 - 2
10 - 6
11 - 6
12 - 6
That's 6 years and only 2 guys that are really special in Timmy and Woodley. Might be a couple more players that develop. But all in all, we're not getting the stud players year in and year out like we did leading up to Tomlin's tenure.[/QUOTE]
The last first round picks of Cowher's tenure were:
Simmons was probably the worst of those due to the diabetes holding him back, but despite that, ended up as a starter for a number of years, including on a SB team.
The best first round picks of Tomlin's era were Timmons and Pouncey, but after that, you end up question marks and average to below-average starters. I'm not giving up on DD or Heyward, but at this point, they are still question marks.
From a talent perspective, Wallace and Lewis were both great picks in 2009. Even Urbik has contributed in the league as a starter. The problem is that they are no longer contributing for the Steelers.
The Steelers successful run was based on a combination of not missing on first rounders and hitting some home runs in the later rounds (Ward, Smith, Porter, Keisel, FWP, Harrison, Taylor, etc.). Now, the first rounders are not giving you what you need and the later round successes are fewer.
Drafting 3-4 DE in the first round is moronic.
The last first round picks of Cowher's tenure were:
Burress (Selected 8th)
Hampton (Selcted 19th)
Timmons (Selected 15th)
Troy (16th overall)
Ben (11th Overall)
Heath (13th pick)
Santonio (25th pick)
Way to go COWHER for picking STUDS with the 20th pick or lower. Last time I checked having a top 20 pick basically means you didnt go very far in the playoffs. Some I'm really glad Cowher had solid picks with some really high draft picks. Tomlin hasnt really had the joy of sucking this many years in a row to build up picks #20 or lower. I'm no expert but I do believe all the good players are gone when it comes to picks 31 and 32. LOL
Success is what decreases your odds of landing a good player guys. I mean lets keep it real here. This is why they allow the really bad teams to pick 1st every year. LOL