Monday, April 28, 2003
First, a brief draft wrap up. A few insta-grades are in. We have Len Pasquerelli at ESPN.com giving the Pats an "A". (Mel Kiper does too, according to what I heard on the radio. To get Kiper's official grade, you have to pay for it.) ESPN's poll has most fans grading the Pats at A or B. I also heard John Clayton said the Pats had the second best draft weekend of all, giving them another "A". On to CBS... Pete Prisco gives them a B+. Finally, GIl Brandt at NFL.com, who has forgotten more about football than I'll ever hope to learn, makes a point of saying the Pats did a good job. The common themes in all of these national takes seem to be that 1) The Pats came out of this with 2 #1's and 2 #2's and 3 #4's in next years draft and 2) Next years draft is believed to be much deeper than 2003's. Plus, for what the Pats do, they got the players that they need. This is contrasted on the local pundit front. It does seem that the local media is a bit more down on the draft. This has to do with the "who are these guys" problem with an over-hyped event where everyone reads every pre-draft pub and then gets surprised when well written up players get passed over for relative unknowns. The worst offender is Nick Cafardo, and Ron Borges to some extent, of the Boston Globe. I won't even link to Cafardo, because when it comes to the Pats, he is ALWAYS taking a pessimistic angle, except when he wrote a book about the Superbowl win, that is...and there was some money to be made. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for more analysis as we go. As far as what I think? I'm smart enought to know that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Sure, I like the sexy picks too, but Bill B. and company have a bit more cache than yours truly.