Since Michael has used his blog to evaluate the 2011 draft class and to grade the 2008 class.  I thought that I would use my available space to explain my views on the draft itself.  Michael and I have at times had very different views on what the definition of a successful draft is or isn't. 

I don't have any problem with grading players on either their potential (which is all guesswork) or their production (which is not).  I start having problems though with looking at the draft class as a whole and trying to give the team an overall grade.  In other words in this case I don't believe one bad apple (pacman) can ruin the whole lot.  It is in my opinion that the purpose of the draft is to improve your team.  If a team does that than I believe that draft was a success.

The draft is of course made up of multiple rounds and even more picks by each team.  I cannot think of a single team that has ever had an entire draft class that ended up making the team that season, let alone that stayed with the team three years or longer.  The three years is of course a number Michael and I agree on that you should start seeing value (I use value here because you don't have to be a starter to be of value to a team) from a drafted player. 

The main problem I have with the grading method of evaluating a draft is that for example you draft seven players in this years draft.  I will use the 4.0 grading method where an A is worth 4 points a B is 3 points a C is 2, D is 1, and an F is worth zero.  If out of that draft you get four starters (A) and three released (F) that would grade out as four A's (16) and three F's (0) which is a only a C (16/7) and that is getting four starters.  There is nothing wrong with getting a C,  I got plenty of them while I was in school (as everyone can tell from my writing).  I feel that adding four starters is an improvment to your team and improving your team should be better than a C.

Michael and I have also disagreed on the weighted value of players in the draft.  I understand that player salaries are directly related to the round in which they are selected.  Simply stated the earlier the round the higher the salary.  I also understand that the earlier round players take up more of a teams salary cap.  I also think it is absurd that a players income is based as much on his birthdate (because those salaries go up each year) as it is on his potential (which as I stated earier is guesswork).  At this point Michael and I really are arguing return on investment which I do understand.  However,  if that is the case than a later round player who pans out (ends up starting) may be a bigger return on investment than a first rounder who doesn't because you original investment is less.  The reason I say this is a first round bust can always be released which will let you cut your losses.  Its no different than signing a high dollar free agent for what Michael and I like to call stupid money and that player not living up to expectations.

To summerize my views on the NFL draft is to say I feel it is pass-fail.  If you improve your team you pass, if you don't you fail.  It really is as simple as that.  I do feel that sometimes you improve your team more that others, but the overall fact is if you are improving your team each year with each draft class.