Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck
Well, the problem with it is... how can you grade something when you don't know how good they are, yet? And the answer is that you're not grading how good they are, you're grading how good you think they're going to be.
I don't know if this makes sense, but while I don't see a problem in grading the players (it's kind of necessary if they're to be selected in any other manner than completely random), I have a problem in grading the drafts themselves.
Every front office selects the player that they believe will help their team the most (well, except maybe the Raiders), and by definition, the overall group selected is one the selecting team feels good about as a whole. Essentially by grading the entire thing as a C or D (or theoretically even a B), you're saying that you know more about both the players selected, as well as the team needs than the front office does.
There may be occasions where that's correct (cough, Casserly, cough), and there may be front offices who for one reason or another just aren't very good at what they do, so low grading them is always safe (see previous Raiders comment), but by and large, I'm not going to pay much attention to media members, analysts, or just guys in front of a computer telling me team 1 gets a B+, team 2 gets a C, and team 3 gets a D-. Again, grading the players is a necessity and that's obviously before the fact, but I don't really think there's anyone able to intelligently grade the draft as a whole. That's simply a matter of giving it time.