View Single Post
Old
06-02-2008, 09:10 PM
  #13
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Ah, the 2003 draft...the bleeding scab that has yet to heal, and gets picked at every year at this time.
Naturally. Because those who panned that draft at the time and in the years subsequent were shouted down. They were told time and time and time again, "Don't you know ANYTHING???????????????????????????????????????? You have to wait FIVE YEARS before you can judge a draft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Very well. Five years have passed. Let us evaluate it under the criteria established and with the benfit of time. Let us not ***** that it's a beaten topic. Let us do exactly as we have been urged to do by those who once whined that it was being judged too quickly. In fact, they should be the FIRST to offer up their commentary - even though they seem to be first to call for an end to the discussion now by complaining that it's beating a dead horse.

So. Five years having passed, how was that draft for the Rangers? And like it or not, the feature of that draft, as all others, is the team's first round pick.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote