Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
Guys, of course i read the article... I'm married... selective exclusion!!

But, "middle of the bunch with all pro"... it's not "terrible", it's not great... it's average... and i wonder about the wording... "only 16 are have had fewer" means there were likely a handful of teams who were tied... for example, "tied for 10th" sound significantly different, doesn't it?

Anyway, the biggest point is they've drafted more starters than all teams in the NFL except one. that means they're drafting just fine...
Drafting starters doesn't mean they are drafting fine. Hood is a starter, Gay was a starter but neither should be. Worilds maybe the starter next year but if he sucks does that make him a good draft pick? The issue is that you can't take average players like Hood or Heyward in the 1st round. Just look at the past few drafts. There are few dominant players taken. Yes, they have taken a few "starters" but all teams have starters. Doesn't make them a good team. BTW that article had the pats* at #1 and listed Cassell as a great draft pick... what? Cassell? Yup, the guy that KC ran out on a rail. He was great for the pats* because they were able to rape KC in a bad trade. But he wasn't a good player.