A Draft Grade, Five Years Later...

**Deadly_Diabetic** · 06-19-2006, 07:47 PM

Here's a pretty good article by writer Peter King evaluating the '01 draft:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html

Man that was a HORRIFIC draft for us...

1 27 Michael Bennett RB Wisconsin
2 57 Willie Howard DE Stanford
3 69 Eric Kelly CB Kentucky
4 130 Shawn Worthen NT Texas Christian
4 131 Cedric James WR Texas Christian
5 157 Patrick Chukwurah OLB Wyoming
6 189 Carey Scott CB Kentucky State
7 225 Brian Crawford T Western Oregon

-DD

**DarrinNelsonguy** · 06-19-2006, 08:06 PM

I agree we deserve an F but why is Seattle rated so low for taking Koren and Hutch they are great players but I guess they must have taken into accoun that they no longer play in Seattle.

**Deadly_Diabetic** · 06-19-2006, 08:24 PM

I was wondering the same thing AND notice that he says that there is only one player starting from their draft but we know that both Hutch and K Rob are starters for us. So, I'm assuming he is using last year's roster not the projected rosters for this year.

Prophet · 06-19-2006, 08:29 PM

I would like to see a breakdown of drafts for all 32 teams and what happened to the players. Yes, I'm too lazy to look that up, is there a site that already has this done?

**Ltrey33** · 06-19-2006, 08:36 PM

Yep...that one was a bust!

**BloodyHorns82** · 06-19-2006, 08:39 PM

Can't argue with the Vike's "F" grade. Yikes. I thought Denny was supposed to be a "Master of the Draft".

**twill** · 06-19-2006, 08:41 PM

to think about it, we were suppose to get deuce mccalister instead of michael bennett.. wonder where we would be with him as our RB.. Pepp as QB and Moss at WR. LoL.. wow..

Del Rio · 06-19-2006, 08:47 PM

This is as pointless as looking back five years ago and saying man I get an "F" for putting my money down on red 19, If I was smart I would have put it down on black 20.

They talk shit prior to the draft, are almost always wrong, then after the draft they pull up old drafts and give you a grade...LMAO. Where is their grade for the suggestions they gave?

**Zeus** · 06-19-2006, 10:54 PM

"DarrinNelsonguy" wrote:

I agree we deserve an F but why is Seattle rated so low for taking Koren and Hutch they are great players but I guess they must have taken into accoun that they no longer play in Seattle.

From the first page of the article:
"I graded teams based on three criteria, and in this order: how many of their 2001 draftees are still contributing players on the team; how many of the draftees are contributing players elsewhere; and how many second-day hits the team had."

Now - we feel that Koren will be a star. However, his performance last year was: Pro Bowl as a kick returner, which, while successful does not make someone a star (unless you have the kind of year Dante Hall had a couple years back) and mediocre performance as a receiver. And prior to last season, Koren had many issues with the Seahawks because of his alcohol problems.

Based on that, I can see where King would see the only real plus from that draft to Seattle being Hutchinson - and he's gone now.

=Z=

**triedandtruevikesfan** · 06-20-2006, 01:41 AM

"Del Rio" wrote:

This is as pointless as looking back five years ago and saying man I get an "F" for putting my money down on red 19, If I was smart I would have put it down on black 20.

They talk pooh prior to the draft, are almost always wrong, then after the draft they pull up old drafts and give you a grade...LMAO. Where is their grade for the suggestions they gave?

LMAO... no doubt, those morons definitely need to be graded by someone!