FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Not that I care to do the research, but the Chargers come to mind as a team that could compete.

Cleveland probably did the most with the least; The most 'best' players available at positions of need.

o you said 2006 lol

i thought about accepting this one.....i sincerely think the bears draft was better, but doubted that anyone would vote against Reggie Bush.

its new orleans... when you pick up reggie bush and marques colston in the same draft, that is one damn good year.

This is a tough thing for me to rate. I say that because the teams that traditionally draft the best, have the most depth- hence most draft picks don't get any real playing time for years. Look at teams like New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Indy and Baltimore- their 1st round picks are usually starters, but almost everybody else picked doesn't get playing time for a few years.

dude the bears have had really good drafts the last three years if you look at it they get killer players in the late rounds and saints did have a good draft with colston and bush but bears was better considering they didnt have a pick until the 2nd round. and still got 3 to 4 star players.

Bush was a given and fell into New Orleans lap- this was a pick they HAD to make. jahri evans was a great pick. Colston was a great pick- BUT the Saints picked 2 guys that busted out and 3 others that got limited playing time. Where as the Bears got 5 starters from one draft- 3 who are great... i gotta pick the Bears on this one...

I'm going to have to vote for playangryfan because a) i'm a bears fan. and b) the bears destroyed the saints in the NFC Championship game and the draftees had a lot to do with that.. The Bears had 3 key guys, 1 starter, 1 very important backup and one who became the best kick returner in the league. The rest are poised to get some playing time this season and are good prospects but suffered because of injury. Whereas on the Saints you've got reggie bush, but thats it marques colston proved good but he let a big fumble go in the NFC Championship game. and the rest ive quite frankly never heard of them.

The Bears have done well in the draft the past few years, that I will agree with. It all started with hiring Angelo (who I think is one of the best GM's in football and topped off with hiring Lovie) But they do not have the VERY long draft resumes the Steelers, Ravens, Colts, Eagles, and Pats have. The Bears will follow the same path as the 5 teams i listed, in a few years. They will have a ton of depth built up, from drafting well in numerous successive years- which leads to the picks you make now being with the team longer before they get substantial playing time. Quite simply, for me to rate a draft it takes 3 full seasons to properly gauge success or failure.

Mike: Uhh didn't you just tell me the other night the Bears lack depth and will fall off on Defense. If you think they will follow the path of the teams you listed they should probably play some good D ( other than the Colts). But I agree it takes at least three years to judge a draft or a GM. Which is why I think Holmgren got the raw deal in Seattle. He built that team up to a contender on the new GM gets the credit.

Maybe the Colts!

All those teams mentioned had great drafts, but I argued the Bears cause i know them and i believe better overall than the Saints. Obviously, Bush was the best pick but look at all the other players compared to the Bears. 3 impact players to 2 for the Saints, and Bears had better quality depth.

The year before, the Saints were 20th in YPG, and 14th in passing YPG. And heres the biggest difference. In, 2006 the Saints were 5th in scoring like i already said, the year before they wre 31st in the league. Only Cleveland scored 3 less points. I don't see Chicago having that big of an impact. they had 1 no doubt about it tho

the Saints had 3 impact players BTW not two. Jahri Evans started all 16

sorry about that, thanks for the correction. it should be 5 this year for the Bears.

Buckybadger- I never said anything about depth- go back and read my comments. I simply stated with the Bears losing 2 of the 3 DT's that got the most playing time, and with the possible hold out of Briggs combined with the MUCH tougher schedule, their D would not be a top 5 unit this year. Might Dvoracek and WIlliams be suitable replacements? Maybe, we have no idea- neither have ever played a single game in the NFL. I've blogged about it, and always held strong to my opinion, and NEVER once have I said anything about depth....

Umm...Ian Scott and Alfonso Boone didn't get the majority of playing time last year. They played so much at the end cause of the injury to Harris and suspension of Tank. Boone is 31 year old...who cares about him, he was worthless. He had 1 tackle in the entire SB! Scott doesn't fit the scheme very well, but will probably be decent with whatever team signed him. Those guys didn't see the field much when Tank and Tommie were in there.

5 my ****. Than Streif and Harper are also. Ninkovich has potenial. What about him? If is after 1 year not the career. I want to know who had the best draft after 1 season. Right now. Not the future. b/c the Saints would easily win

What do they say? You can't grade a draft until 3 years later. I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge.