I have been accused of being bitter. I know, I know, it's hard to believe. People who know me, know that I am one of the most positive people around who always sees the glass as half full.
Okay, that's total BS. I moan as much as anyone. Seeing as I bitch the most about people that take one point of view blindly, I figured it was only right that I try to look past my growing anti-Ruskell bias and look at the last few drafts to see if I'm overstating things.
I took a very unscientific approach here. Embedded is a spreadsheet of all the Seahawks draft picks since 2000. Ruskell's first draft was in 2005. I am going to consider all previous draft picks those of Mike Holmgren since I don't believe that fat guy before Ruskell was anything but a donut boy.
I graded each draft pick based on their contribution to the team. I did not give higher grades for good value. In other words, I graded solely on the player's contributions to the Seahawks instead of a relative scale based on where they were picked. The scale I used was sorta like this:
A - Starter who made a significant contribution
B - Player who may be a mediocre starter or regularly contributing reserve
C - Reserve
D - Bad reserve
F - Totally useless
I then gave a gut feel overall grade for each draft.
Ruskell's grades were:
2005 - A
2006 - B
2007 - C
Holmgren's grades were:
2000 - B
2001 - A
2002 - D
2003 - A
2004 - A
In 4 of 5 Holmgren drafts, at least two players became significant starters for the team. The same could be said for 2 of 3 Ruskell drafts. Holmgren draft 5 players that have made the Pro Bowl. Ruskell has drafted...1.
Take a look for yourself, and if you would like access to the spreadsheet to add your own grades, drop me a comment and I can add you as an author.