So I was looking at all the accolades we've been receiving based on this years "great" draft, and was getting excited, except that I started to remember that last year the Cardinals were said to have had a fantastic draft and the year before that, the Lions were said to have picked well. Both finished with horrible records the following years. So it got me to thinking, what relevance do these "draft grades" actually have on your team? This then begs the question, are the highest rated players actually making the most impact? Top 4 2005 Draft "winners" Arizona Cardinals (6/10) -> (5/11) Baltimore Ravens (9/7) -> (6/10) Dallas Cowboys (6/10) -> (9/7) Philadelphis Eagles (13/3) -> (6/10) Total wins previous (34), and post (26) Top 4 2004 Draft "winners" Detroit Lions (5/11) -> (6/10) San Francisco 49ers (7/9) -> (2/14) Arizona Cardinals (4/12) -> (6/10) Tennesse Titans (12/4) - > (5/11) Total wins previous (28), and post (19) Top 4 2003 Draft "winners" Baltimore (7/9) -> (10/6) Dallas (5/11) -> (10/6) New England (9/7) -> (14/2) Washington (7/9) -> (5/11) Total wins previous (28), and post (39) Top 4 2002 Draft "winners" San Diego (5/11) -> (8/8) Houston (N/A) -> (4/12) New Orleans (7/9) -> (9/7) Detroit (2-14) -> (3/13) Total wins previous (14), Total wins post (20) So what do all these useless stats mean? It seems like what the scouts at ESPN or SI or wherever deem to be the best players in the draft (and thus drafting BPA) isn't always the smartest solution. Look at the last two years, teams that had great drafts continually failed. I think the Texans draft will stand the test of time because we drafted according to need (for the most part). I still think we missed the #1 player for a very close #2, but lets not debate that here. The fact is, the other 6 rounds were great for us. I just hope all these accolades we are receiving now don't turn out to be false. Although, you can't really go anywhere from 2/14 but up, can you?