A way to look at our 2004 draft class

[spanky1]

This from the Huddle Report:

Arizona Cardinals:Grade=A.....7.1 out of 8.0......2nd best overall.

Round: Player: Rating: Picked: +/-
#1 Fitzgerald #3 #3 0
#2 Dansby #30 #33 +3
#3 Dockett #32 #64 +32
#4 Steph/vich #97 #100 +3
#5 Smith #183 #135 -48
#6 Leckey #103 #167 +64
#7 Navarre #171 #202 +31

Comments: You plan to work.....you work a plan. They never paniced and let the draft come to them. They got real value and players that will improve the team. What a concept!

If Leckey adds 25 lbs. he'll be a star G.

 

[justAndy]

so

by those #'s, only Smith @ 5 is a reach...
I wonder what that report gave us the last couple years?

 

[joeshmo]

by those #'s, only Smith @ 5 is a reach...
I wonder what that report gave us the last couple years?

www.thehuddlereport.com

Click on the "3 Year Value Grades updated" link.

We are in 2nd.

 

[nationsrj]

Thanks for the info. Lots of statistical info.

 

[Walter Mitchell]

This is totally cool, Spanky. Thanks for the info!

 

[football karma]

Its interesting stuff, but its a bit misleading.

It is really a measure of when you took players vs where they were rated, rather than if that player is productive.

For example, the Colts got a C for their 2002 draft, in part because they took Dwight Freeney well higher than he was rated. Well, in retropect, Freeney has been a very productive player, and it was the Colt's rating that was more accurate than the Huddle report's.

Ironically, the Cards got a B, in part because they took Wendell Bryant where he was supposed to go.

Who has been more productive? Freeney, the supposed reach at #10, or Bryant, the supposed right pick at #12.

 

[azdad1978]

Good stuff

 

[vikesfan]

Its interesting stuff, but its a bit misleading.

It is really a measure of when you took players vs where they were rated, rather than if that player is productive.

For example, the Colts got a C for their 2002 draft, in part because they took Dwight Freeney well higher than he was rated. Well, in retropect, Freeney has been a very productive player, and it was the Colt's rating that was more accurate than the Huddle report's.

Ironically, the Cards got a B, in part because they took Wendell Bryant where he was supposed to go.

Who has been more productive? Freeney, the supposed reach at #10, or Bryant, the supposed right pick at #12.

Good point a player is a "reach" according to where publications rate him as going. If HOU or DET took Boldin instead of Rogers or Johnson that would have been a reach but if turns out to be the best WR of the lot then he was not a reach.

 

[Russ Smith]

Good point a player is a "reach" according to where publications rate him as going. If HOU or DET took Boldin instead of Rogers or Johnson that would have been a reach but if turns out to be the best WR of the lot then he was not a reach.

Yes and no. Part of a reach is the concept that you could have taken the guy later. Since we know for a fact that Boldin would have been there LONG after Rogers and Johnson were taken, taking him first would have been a reach since both teams could have taken him in round 2 if they had a 2nd rounder before #54.

But obviously Boldin was the better player last year although Rogers getting hurt cut his year short.


The only way it's not a reach to take him that high is if you KNOW he's going to turn out the way he did, and if you did, odds are most of the rest of the league would have known too.

 

[vikesfan]

Yes and no. Part of a reach is the concept that you could have taken the guy later. Since we know for a fact that Boldin would have been there LONG after Rogers and Johnson were taken, taking him first would have been a reach since both teams could have taken him in round 2 if they had a 2nd rounder before #54.

But obviously Boldin was the better player last year although Rogers getting hurt cut his year short.


The only way it's not a reach to take him that high is if you KNOW he's going to turn out the way he did, and if you did, odds are most of the rest of the league would have known too.

But the problem is you don't know if a guy will still be there when you get up to bat again to draft a player. Because you might have the guy rated highly someone else might as well.

This was the thing with Culpepper. People said DG could have taken Kearse and then taken Culpepper at the end of Round One but you don't know if he will last that long. This is why trade ups happen so much, teams want to make sure they get the guy. Remember teams are drafting by their own charts not by the publications. And each team's chart is a closely guarded secret. If you are sure about a player you have to grab him when you get the shot. No one was sure on Boldin not even the Cards they grabbed B Johnson ahead of him but they were surer then some other teams at least.

Like I said before if Pace gets 10 sacks last year then he was not a reach he was an astute pick and the Cards had him rightly pegged on their board. If he doesn't then they made a bad pick. Not saying he still would have been there in round 2 or round 3 to be drafted by them. The point is is to draft good players it doesn't matter where the magazines have them picked.

Some reaches this year in Round One Babin and Carroll and Watson. If they play great they were good picks if they suck they were bad picks.

 

[ajcardfan]

If they play great they were good picks if they suck they were bad picks.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[vikesfan]

You must be registered for see images attach

ROTFLMAO

Yeah what I was trying to say it doesn't matter if the guy is a reach or not. What matters is production. If you take a guy where he is expected to go but he sucks... The whole reach thing is silly.

 

[azdad1978]

You must be registered for see images attach