CSN Bay Area: 5 Year Study of NFL Drafts

[Weganator]

Interesting article from CSN Bay Area ranking each teams draft success in the past five years.

Thought I would post it over here for discussion. The more I look back it really is disheartening how bad the past few drafts were.

http://www.csnbayarea.com/04/04/11/Maiocco-Five-year-study-of-NFL-drafts/landing_maiocco_v3.html?blockID=496960&feedID=5936

11. NEW YORK GIANTS

Number of picks: 37

Still on team: 24

Starters: 6

Best pick: RB Ahmad Bradshaw, 2007

Worst pick: CB Aaron Ross, 2007

Overall: The Giants have placed more offensive threats around quarterback Eli Manning with the selections of receivers Mario Manningham (third round, 2008) and Hakeem Nicks (No. 29 overall, 2009) and 1,200-yard rusher Ahmad Bradshaw, a seventh-rounder in 2006. The club got strong initial contributions from the 2007 draft class en route to a stunning Super Bowl run that season. Receiver Steve Smith and fullback Zak DeOssie have been to Pro Bowls, and tight end Kevin Boss' play made Jeremy Shockey expendable. Nose tackle Jay Alford had a sack in that win over the Patriots but was gone after the 2008 season. Ross, the 20th overall pick in '07, has not developed into a reliable corner. Receiver Sinorice Moss, chosen at No. 44 in 2006, was released after 4 1/2 non-productive seasons.

12. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES

Number of picks: 47

Still on team: 27

Starters: 8

Best pick: WR DeSean Jackson, 2008

Worst pick: DT Trevor Laws, 2008

Overall: The Eagles' top rusher (LeSean McCoy) and top five pass-catcher (McCoy, Jeremy Maclin, Jason Avant, Jackson and Brent Celek) were acquired through the past five drafts, but they've been less-successful finding standouts on their offensive and defensive lines. Their biggest risk paid off, as Andy Reid took a chance on Jackson with the No. 49 overall pick in 2008. Obviously, they've gotten a lot of return on that investment. But two picks earlier they selected Laws, placing a higher priority on a player who has yet to earn any significant playing time in three seasons.

28. DALLAS COWBOYS

Number of picks: 41

Still on team: 21

Starters: 3

Best pick: DE Anthony Spencer, 2007

Worst pick: LB Bobby Carpenter, 2006

Overall: No team in the league has netted fewer current starters out of the past five drafts than the Cowboys, who saw their record plunge to 6-10 in 2010. Cornerback Mike Jenkins was added to the Pro Bowl in his second season, but his play fell off dramatically in 2010. The only other Pro Bowl player chosen during this time was kicker Nick Folk, who has since been released. Spencer, chosen 26th in 2007, has been a solid player who has started the past two seasons. Receiver Dez Bryant caught 45 passes for 561 yards and six touchdowns as a rookie before spending final four games in injured reserve.

31. WASHINGTON REDSKINS

Number of picks: 33

Still on team: 16

Starters: 6

Best pick: DE Brian Orakpo, 2009

Worst pick: WR Devin Thomas, 2008

Overall: The Redskins have compiled one winning season during this time, yet fewer than 50 percent of their draft picks remain on the roster. Brian Orakpo, the 13th pick in 2009, has 19.5 sacks in two seasons and is clearly the best selection during this period. Safety LaRon Landry, No. 6 in 2007, has not lived up to his lofty draft status with four interceptions in four seasons. The Redskins picked receivers Thomas and Malcolm Kelly in the second round of '08, with zero results to show for it. Tackle Trent Williams had a rough rookie season, but it's much too early to write him off.

[elkabong82]

The past 5 drafts, the Redskins are the only team in the NFC East to undergo more than 1 coaching/regime change. Eagles and Giants have maintained their coaches and philosophies, hence they can retain more players.

I don't think it's a case of the Skins drafting poorly, because we have similar success rates, per pick per round, as other good teams do. Our problem, and this has been argued and shown on here many times, has more to do with trading too many picks away, especially rounds 2-5. Number of picks vs. still on team Skins are close to 50%, Dallas is at 50%, Philly is just over 50%, Giants are the best at 60+%. But the Skins aren't far off in retention rate, but they are lowest in number of picks. However, with less picks but roughly the same number of starters as Philly and Giants shows the Skins have been hitting on the early picks, but the lack of players still on the team due to coaching changeover and lack of sufficient picks after the 1st round, are what IMO is keeping the Skins player retention rate lower and it also hurts chemistry and depth. The Giants have the highest retention rate, and won a Superbowl a few years ago and are a perrenial playoff team.

It's also hard to give credence to the thought process/methods in the article when they claim Landry hasn't lived up to his draft status and use INTs as the evidence. He wasn't drafted to be a ballhawk, he was drafted to be an in-the-box SS. I also wouldn't describe Trent Williams' rookie season as rough, I think he played decently for a rookie LT given the competition he faced.

So I wouldn't say that the past few drafts were bad and it's saddening because they were bad. I would say it's saddening that we haven't had a lot of picks and that neither of the 2 WRs we took in the 2nd round stepped up (tho still holding out hope for Kelly but he's a long shot at this point).

Here's our past 5 drafts:

2010: 1 Trent Williams, 4 Perry Riley, 6 Dennis Morris, 7 Terrence Austin, 7 Erik Cook, 7 Selvish Capers

2009: Jarmon (supplemental, 3), 1 Orakpo, 3 Kevin Barnes, 5 Cody Glenn, 6 Robert Henson, 7 Eddie Williams, 7 Marko Mitchell

2008: 2 Devin Thomas, 2 Malcom Kelly, 2 Fred Davis, 3 Chad Rinehart, 4 Justin Tryon, 6 Durant Brooks, 6 Kareem Moore, 6 Colt Brennan, 7 Rob Jackson, 7 Chris Horton

2007: 1 Laron Landry, 5 Dallas Sartz, 6 HB Blades, 6 Jordan Palmer, 7 Tyler Ecker

2006: 2 Rocky McIntosh, 5 Anthony Montgomery, 6 Reed Doughty, 6 Kedric Golston, 7 Kili Lefotu, 7 Kevin Simon

2008 is the only glaringly bad draft, IMO, however, because we hit on Davis, Jackson, and Moore and Horton have been decent depth, and Tryon fits in Tampa 2 which we used to run so he's a hit under the old regime, same as Rocky in the old 4-3, all those hits in a draft where we had a lot of picks for once gave us some hits despite the misses. However, drafts like '07 where we have very few picks mean that though we hit on Landry and Blades has been decent depth, overall it's a lacking draft year. But looking at those drafts overall, I don't see justification for the OP's assertion that the past few drafts are disheartening because they were so bad. I wouldn't say they were bad, overall, rather I'd say overall it's been insufficient, due mainly to the lack of picks.

[derskinsfan]

I think it is fair and accurate to say that we have not used the draft well. Everyone focuses on misses at the top, but I'd say a major part of the problem is how poor we are in the middle rounds. That's a combination of trading away the picks and misjudging talent. The middle rounds are where you should be getting solid contributors (and even some stars) for your lines and amongst your role players. We get some so-so guys and complete misses.

Coaching changes are definitely a factor here, no doubt. But I think we've had some shaky scouting as well, and clearly poor decision making at the top. It's like we don't even know what to do with the draft... it's beyond our grasp of how to properly use the picks or value them.

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 04:51 PM ----------

I think it is fair and accurate to say that we have not used the draft well. Everyone focuses on misses at the top, but I'd say a major part of the problem is how poor we are in the middle rounds. That's a combination of trading away the picks and misjudging talent. The middle rounds are where you should be getting solid contributors (and even some stars) for your lines and amongst your role players. We get some so-so guys and complete misses.

Coaching changes are definitely a factor here, no doubt. But I think we've had some shaky scouting as well, and clearly poor decision making at the top. It's like we don't even know what to do with the draft... it's beyond our grasp of how to properly use the picks or value them.

[Darth Tater]

Given the fact that the Redskins have seen so much regime change over the period, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the data here is that it is important to keep your picks. In this data set, no significant difference can be found on the hit rate (especially once you factor in the regime change). Ability to spot and draft talent seems to be about equal here and the biggest difference seems to be in the number of trials each team had. For such a ranking as this, you would probably need to compare draft histories over the period against other teams with similar FO history. This would also confirm the hypothesis that you need to keep and grow what picks you have. That successful draft selection is more a product of a good "shotgun" approach vis a targeted approach is the hypothesis this data also seems to support.

[Walking Deadman]

Not surprised. Poor front office during most of that tenure. Tons of turnover on the coaching staffs. Also the Skins traded (pissed away is the better term) away tons of picks so the fail rate is much higher if a few guys fail in a small grouping. Although many of the Skins picks have been disappointing over the last 5 years

[wbar3383]

Like everything else in life , this is all perspective.

We got 6 starters in 5 years, the same as the giants.

The cowboys only managed 3 starters in 5 years of draft picks, with a whole lot more picks to choose from.

[The Tris]

The draft is almost more about volume than skill. It's a numbers game. We have had a below average amount of picks for years, so it should be no surprise that we have had a below average results.

Where we really get killed is not the starters, but the depth and developmental players we have not been able to acquire due to the lack of picks.

Hopefully MS will return to his historic average of 8.2 picks per season.

[Dirt]

The draft is almost more about volume than skill. It's a numbers game. We have had a below average amount of picks for years, so it should be no surprise that we have had a below average results.

Where we really get killed is not the starters, but the depth and developmental players we have not been able to acquire due to the lack of picks.

Hopefully MS will return to his historic average of 8.2 picks per season.

Your first sentence, I wanted to disagree. ie-you need that big time player; you fail big time when you bust on a Devin, or a Jason.

But the second sentence brought me back. Absolutely true. It was sickening how when a starter goes down, this team just throws its hands in the air like 'I dunno, we got nothin...we got Stephon Heyer.' We'll see just how long it takes to build quality depth. Hell, the Redskins are probably going to be a lesson to other teams rebuilding. The rest of the league, and young coaches coming up can all thank Vinny for showing them what NOT to do.

[Burgold]

What was great about last year's crop is that we got two starters who were undrafted rookies. Now, I don't think that they'll be counted using this formula, but finding AA, Banks, and several other diamonds in the ruff is important. You have to utilize it all... draft, udfa, fa, and even trades. Historically, we've been too risk averse wanting to get that veteran via free agency or trade. I don't know how much of it was about sex appeal... did Adam Archuletta really sell that many jersies? Or Jeff George! I think that the 'skins wanted to minimize risk and that's why they kept going after known quantities. It was one of Joe Gibbs few weeknesses. One he even had during the glory years. It just happened his trades paid off more often... Mike Oliphant for Earnest Byner anyone? Wilbur Marshall?

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I think it is fair and accurate to say that we have not used the draft well. Everyone focuses on misses at the top, but I'd say a major part of the problem is how poor we are in the middle rounds. That's a combination of trading away the picks and misjudging talent. The middle rounds are where you should be getting solid contributors (and even some stars) for your lines and amongst your role players. We get some so-so guys and complete misses.

Coaching changes are definitely a factor here, no doubt. But I think we've had some shaky scouting as well, and clearly poor decision making at the top. It's like we don't even know what to do with the draft... it's beyond our grasp of how to properly use the picks or value them.

.

I have been saying that all off-season. Everyone on here wants more 3rd, 4th round picks for guys on our team. But they dont realize that we cant make good picks in that area of the draft. How many mid-round picks have done anything for us? Only on i can think of is Horton. We almost always hit in the 1st, somtimes in the 2nd and almost never after that. IDK why other teams can find stars or even starters in the mid-rounds. Guess i can hope that with Bruce running the show we can start finding our guys there too.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I have been saying that all off-season. Everyone on here wants more 3rd, 4th round picks for guys on our team. But they dont realize that we cant make good picks in that area of the draft. How many mid-round picks have done anything for us? Only on i can think of is Horton. We almost always hit in the 1st, somtimes in the 2nd and almost never after that. IDK why other teams can find stars or even starters in the mid-rounds. Guess i can hope that with Bruce running the show we can start finding our guys there too.

I don't think Vinny was good at picking in the middle rd.

[Rocky21]

I'm sure there are still fools out there that think Malcomb Kelly will work out for us and think that Devin Thomas is going to be a big star in this league.

[scruffylookin]

It's also hard to give credence to the thought process/methods in the article when they claim Landry hasn't lived up to his draft status and use INTs as the evidence. He wasn't drafted to be a ballhawk, he was drafted to be an in-the-box SS.

Well then he was a poor draft pick, something I've been saying since day 1.

You don't draft "an in the box SS" that high in the draft. It was a horrible decision by the FO in 2007 to waste such a high pick on a limited safety.

So either way the article is accurate in critiquing the Landry selection. Either Landry has played poorly (which in my opinion he has for most of his career) or the Redskins made a poor choice in selecting this player at that spot because his skill set didn't warrent that high of a selection.

I feel both are true but either way, the drafting of Landry at #6 certainly belongs on the list of examples of poor drafting by the Redskins over the time period being discussed in the article.

[hitmandm]

It is funny that Es'ers clamor for the trade down. Pick up more later picks. Trade down trade down and trade down! Get more picks. The last time we did that and picked up 3 2nd rounders...we had the poorest draft.

Trade down is not always the answer.

[KDawg]

This is accurate, I believe. But not necessarily because we're bad at drafting. Moreso because we've had so few draft picks and our free agent trades/signings for the most part have busted.

That is has a correlation to our drafting ability due to the fact that we lack picks. That's our downfall here. And when considering all criteria, I think us being ranked 31 makes sense.

[hitmandm]

Well then he was a poor draft pick, something I've been saying since day 1.

You don't draft "an in the box SS" that high in the draft. It was a horrible decision by the FO in 2007 to waste such a high pick on a limited safety.

So either way the article is accurate in critiquing the Landry selection. Either Landry has played poorly (which in my opinion he has for most of his career) or the Redskins made a poor choice in selecting this player at that spot because his skill set didn't warrent that high of a selection.

I feel both are true but either way, the drafting of Landry at #6 certainly belongs on the list of examples of poor drafting by the Redskins over the time period being discussed in the article.

This draft was two things: Play along Sean Taylor. There would be synergy there and each Safety would have been better. I didnt like the pick either but I see the logic. Plus, before LL got hurt he was performing at a Pro Bowl level. PB players are what you want from a first round pick.

And the Clinton Portis effect. Really of the players we were looking at, Adrian Petersen was the only one who really panned out. But we couldnt really draft him because of CP. We were looking at Okoye, J. Andersen and Carriker because everyone was clamoring for DL help.

Obviously Willis and Revis would ahve been better selections.

[elkabong82]

Well then he was a poor draft pick, something I've been saying since day 1.

You don't draft "an in the box SS" that high in the draft. It was a horrible decision by the FO in 2007 to waste such a high pick on a limited safety.

So either way the article is accurate in critiquing the Landry selection. Either Landry has played poorly (which in my opinion he has for most of his career) or the Redskins made a poor choice in selecting this player at that spot because his skill set didn't warrent that high of a selection.

I feel both are true but either way, the drafting of Landry at #6 certainly belongs on the list of examples of poor drafting by the Redskins over the time period being discussed in the article.

I disagree with you completely. At the time of that draft we had CP coming back from injury and Betts had just put up a 1000+ rush yd season, so AP wouldn't have made sense. Willis might have been the better option, Revis was there but Springs was still doing well and we had just taken Rogers 2 drafts ago.

When ST was here nobody cold throw deep on us with him and Landry back there. It was a huge advantage. Landy at FS in Blache's conservative scheme was a fail, but this past season Landry had a resurgence in his return to SS, and was vying for DPOY and being mentioned as top tier like Polamalu.

So no, the article is not accurate "eitherway," especially not when you have to change the supporting evidence. INTs are a piss-poor, lazy way to measure Landry and you know it. Most think Clark is a good safety, he had 4 INTs total in his first 4 full seasons.

Landry has had 1 down season, where he was thrust into a role that took ST 4 seasons to fully grow in to. He goes back to SS and he gets mentioned in conversations with Polamalu. That level of play is what you expect from a top 10 pick. And every draft person had Landry as a consensus top 10 draft pick and considered the top safety in the draft and he filled a need, and since he's returned to his original role instead of playing out of position for half his current career, he lights it up. So again I completely disagree with you, and Landry's play in his original role his rookie season and his play back in that role this recent season, show he wasn't a bad pick by the Skins nor does he belong on any list of poor Skins draft picks. In just 9 games last season he had 66 tackles and 19 assists, 85 total, which is close to being a part of 10 takedowns on the ballcarrier each game, which is excellent production for his role.

[grego]

Like everything else in life , this is all perspective.

We got 6 starters in 5 years, the same as the giants.

The cowboys only managed 3 starters in 5 years of draft picks, with a whole lot more picks to choose from.

i was going to say the same thing. besides our lower # of picks from trading them all away, dallas' draft record looks much worse than ours.

look at jerry's drafts between jimmy johnson and parcells. awful drafts. and he still hasnt learned. that makes my heart all warm and fuzzy.

[The Tris]

Basing draft success solely on the number of starters acquired is the same flawed thinking that has produced a team with zero depth and few developmental starters.

It is the epitome of Vinny Cerrato team building.

[stwasm]

I have been saying that all off-season. Everyone on here wants more 3rd, 4th round picks for guys on our team. But they dont realize that we cant make good picks in that area of the draft. How many mid-round picks have done anything for us? Only on i can think of is Horton. We almost always hit in the 1st, somtimes in the 2nd and almost never after that. IDK why other teams can find stars or even starters in the mid-rounds. Guess i can hope that with Bruce running the show we can start finding our guys there too.

It all comes down to good scouting, and, sadly, it's just about the stars who can sell jerseys and put butts in seats than finding those role players who can be solid contributors.

[Darth Tater]

I disagree with you completely. At the time of that draft we had CP coming back from injury and Betts had just put up a 1000+ rush yd season, so AP wouldn't have made sense. Willis might have been the better option, Revis was there but Springs was still doing well and we had just taken Rogers 2 drafts ago.

When ST was here nobody cold throw deep on us with him and Landry back there. It was a huge advantage. Landy at FS in Blache's conservative scheme was a fail, but this past season Landry had a resurgence in his return to SS, and was vying for DPOY and being mentioned as top tier like Polamalu.

So no, the article is not accurate "eitherway," especially not when you have to change the supporting evidence. INTs are a piss-poor, lazy way to measure Landry and you know it. Most think Clark is a good safety, he had 4 INTs total in his first 4 full seasons.

Landry has had 1 down season, where he was thrust into a role that took ST 4 seasons to fully grow in to. He goes back to SS and he gets mentioned in conversations with Polamalu. That level of play is what you expect from a top 10 pick. And every draft person had Landry as a consensus top 10 draft pick and considered the top safety in the draft and he filled a need, and since he's returned to his original role instead of playing out of position for half his current career, he lights it up. So again I completely disagree with you, and Landry's play in his original role his rookie season and his play back in that role this recent season, show he wasn't a bad pick by the Skins nor does he belong on any list of poor Skins draft picks. In just 9 games last season he had 66 tackles and 19 assists, 85 total, which is close to being a part of 10 takedowns on the ballcarrier each game, which is excellent production for his role.

Given how how Grilliams ran his defense here, how the games played out in in 2006 and the fact that Gibbs was a targeter, you had to know that we were looking at a MLB or a S in the 2007 draft. Once Fletcher was signed, Safety was the obvious position.

[AKM311]

Basing draft success solely on the number of starters acquired is the same flawed thinking that has produced a team with zero depth and few developmental starters.

It is the epitome of Vinny Cerrato team building.

Agree 100%!!!

There is a different of having rookies turn into starters, yet still be 6-10 and having a team with rookies who start and going 11-5.

It isn't about numbers, its about results.

[elkabong82]

Given how how Grilliams ran his defense here, how the games played out in in 2006 and the fact that Gibbs was a targeter, you had to know that we were looking at a MLB or a S in the 2007 draft. Once Fletcher was signed, Safety was the obvious position.

Good point about Fletch, I forgot he came here in '07.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NFL_Draft

AP, Jamal Anderson, Tedd Ginn, Okoye, Willi, Lynch, Carriker, Revis were the next 8 picks, close enough to our pick to maybe justify taking one of them at 6 instead, but of that group Peterson didn't make sense at the time nor did Revis, I and others were high on Okoye though, but now that we're in a 3-4 it has really worked out best that we took Landry among that group, IMO. Hard to say Landry was a bad pick then given the few good players still avaialble we either didn't have a need for, they wouldn't fit now, or they didn't pan out.

*scratch that on Okoye, didn't realize he'd fallen off like that, thanks for pointing it out to me Tris

[The Tris]

I and others were high on Okoye though, but now that we're in a 3-4 it has really worked out best.

Even if the Texans were not converting to a 3-4 as well, Okoye was to be released.

Unfortunately, Amobi Okoye is a bust, regardless of the scheme. Could never turn youthful potential into onfield production.

Landry was the BPA. While he was not at a position of high value (SS), he was the BPA at the time we drafted him. The rational for picking him at the time was sound.

[GeneralStonewallTaylor]

Well then he was a poor draft pick, something I've been saying since day 1.

You don't draft "an in the box SS" that high in the draft. It was a horrible decision by the FO in 2007 to waste such a high pick on a limited safety.

So either way the article is accurate in critiquing the Landry selection. Either Landry has played poorly (which in my opinion he has for most of his career) or the Redskins made a poor choice in selecting this player at that spot because his skill set didn't warrent that high of a selection.

I feel both are true but either way, the drafting of Landry at #6 certainly belongs on the list of examples of poor drafting by the Redskins over the time period being discussed in the article.

In my opinion, your evaluation of talent and decision making are suspect. You don't draft "an in the box SS" that high in the draft? If memory serves, Polamalu was taken around 15th (early/middle first) and is regarded as the best strong safety in the game by many experts. Landry's physical skill-set is not very different from Polamalu's and given the fact that they expected Landry to complement arguably the games best free safety (21) on the back end of our already successful defense, a top-10 pick was warranted - especially with the hype Landry was getting coming out of LSU. And to be frank, saying he's underperformed is a popular sentiment, but one that I think is naive and ignores the totality of the circumstances surrounding his career. He was not drafted at 6th overall to carry our defense on his back, he was drafted to be the Robin to our Batman and help establish what looked to be one of the most promising and intimidating safety duos the NFL has ever seen. The potential for 10+ years of GAME-CHANGING DOMINATION by our secondary was just being tapped into.

Not only that, but Landry has gotten noticeably better since entering the league, physically and mentally. Does he still have work to do? Sure. Is he still the same person/player he was as a rookie? Hardly. That, IMO, is the sign of a good draft pick maturing and progressing towards possibly proving his worth, as opposed to regressing and coming off as bust. The following blurb from bleacherreport.com sums my thoughts up perfectly about where Laron is at:

"Injury cut short a dream season for Redskins' safety LaRon Landry in 2010.

The Redskins' 1st Round pick in 2007 thrived at his natural position of strong safety last year. Due to the tragic death of his teammate Sean Taylor, Landry had been forced to play free safety and struggled in it. With his switch back to strong safety, "Dirty-Thirty" dominated with 85 tackles, a forced fumble, 1.0 sacks, and a game-sealing interception in overtime off [super Bowl winner] Aaron Rodgers; all in just nine games. Landry still finished first in the Pro-Bowl voting even after sitting out for the last seven games of the season. With the signing of O.J. Atogwe, Landry is looking for a monster year in 2011." (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/627432-safety-first-the-top-10-nfl-safeties-heading-into-2011/page/7)

Please don't make me address the bolded part any further. And FWIW, I actually feel strongly on this one - I'm not just playing devil's advocate. It feels to me like you're selling Landry short when he's the motor that makes our secondary run and an asset most teams in the league wouldn't mind having. Our specific situation at the time of him being drafted makes it hard for me to say it was a bad pick, despite everything that's happened since then.

And besides, all you had to do to make your point that he was taken too early in 2007 was remind us that eight picks later the Jets drafted CB Darrelle Revis 14th overall. (Edit: or AP/Willis/Beason/etc. -- all later that same draft) Hindsight's always 20/20.

(Edit #2 - I forgot that the Jets traded up one slot ahead of the Pittsburgh Steelers to pick Revis. Rex Ryan...that's some gangster **** right there. Revis was born and raised in Pennsylvania, he played college ball at Pitt, and everything I've come to know about the Steelers D and the way Revis plays would have indicated there couldn't have been a more absolutely perfect fit for someone if you wrote a script for him. Haha...not on Rex's watch. My point though, is that Revis turned out to be an example of a perfectly orchestrated, carefully calculated risk working out in the team's favor. An incredible pick to say the least. One of the greatest of all time maybe, I mean, who knows how disgusting that Steelers defense would be with Revis? If Sean wasn't killed and he was still playing alongside Laron, I wholeheartedly feel we could have been saying the same thing about the #6 pick in '07.)