C+

[gryphon]

So. Scott gave his grade. Don't like the grade. Doesn't seem to consider next years picks or the fact that they got guys who could have gone in round 1 in round 2.

What do you all think?

[wicket]

To be honoust I would prolly give you lot a similar grade but i would have the most grades quite a bit lower. Given the scale on which he has been grading i think a B or B- would have been more fair

[AntoinCD]

I understand the logic in the grade given the fact that there were some perceived reaches and maybe no starters year one but it seems as though successful teams will find it harder to get a good grade then. In my opinion for the future the Patriots got at least 3 with as many as 8 possible starters from this draft. The three being Chung, Butler and Vollmer with Brace, Ohrnberger, Tate, McKenzie and Ingram all having a chance after free agency in the next year or two

[Don Vito]

Julian Edelman himself should pull it up to an A+.

[FlyingElvis]

I've never liked the idea of grading drafts.

Basically you apply the same pre-draft speculation and rank based on who agreed with those rankings.

That translates to a lower grade for a team that decided the draft class sucked and just dropped out of the 1st round, thus making it relatively difficult to attain a high post draft "grade."

[Bigburt63]

Plus it is all based on the speculation for the prospects going into the draft, while adding in "reach" effect. It is fun to do and analyze a draft, but it's impossible to accurately grade a draft until 2-3 years after (unless of course one is a monumental failure before then)

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by Don Vito

Julian Edelman himself should pull it up to an A+.

I was a little dissapointed at draft time in their top picks but in total i think you'll see several real contributors from this group. Don't have a problem with C+ but after the professor grades this one on the old curve i think it will be B+ to A-.