New Draft Strategy?

[MRMADD]

During the 80s, Bobby Beathard would trade all of our first-round picks -- in fact, from 1985 to 1990, we had no first round picks at all. This was successful not only because of the value he got in trade, but because he found some pretty successful guys deep in the draft. Guys like Raleigh McKenzie, Terry Orr, and Mark Schlereth were all found in the 10th or 11th round -- they'd be undrafted free agents today.

Recently, however (not to pick on CC or Snyder), the Skins have ONLY found value in the first and second rounds. If you look at the current roster, all of the starters came via the 1st or 2nd round or via trade/free agency (except Stephen Davis).

Current Roster:

6 first-rounders drafted by the Skins

3 second-rounders drafted by the Skins

2 third-rounders drafted by the Skins (both rookies)

2 fourth-rounders drafted by the Skins (Davis and Rosenfels)

8 picked by the Skins below the fourth round (incl. 4 rookies)

3 acquired by trade

57 acquired via free agency.

Considering that a lot of those late-round picks won't even make the final roster, it gets even more stark. The Skins haven't found jack after round two in recent years.

I think the reason for this is that there are very few surprises anymore, and expansion has diluted the talent pool anyway. So unlike the 80s, the really talented players all go in the first and second rounds and are locked up for the first 3-4 years of their careers.

Doesn't this call for a new draft strategy? I think the Skins should have a Day One draft strategy -- draft only in the first and second rounds, and trade the rest of the picks for a player that you know will make the roster. You won't get any superstars this way, but you could certainly package your late-round picks to grab a special teams star or decent lineman.

It's sort of reverse Beathardism. Instead of pathologically trading the first rounders, we could make it a point to get rid of everything below the second round.

[W&M]

I disagree whole heartedly with the premise that a team is unlikely to find Gems in the later rounds of the draft, simply because:

- there are no surprises anymore, and

- because the talent pool is diluted with 32 teams.

Hogwash. In an injury filled sport like football, where careers run short, salareis escalate quickly, and only young guys play special team, there is always room for low round draftees.

I simply don't think we can draw any generalizations from the Skins deplorable record in the later rounds. Rather, I think we should look in the mirror, and recognize that this screw-up has has everything to do with having 4 new coaches, upteen new D-Coordinators, and 4 new GM's over the last 4 seasons.

There is simply no continuity in our scouting, our coaching philosophy, personal demands, etc. As such, we've never been able to find any depth and role players ... because the "specific role" continues to change.

Russ Grim likes one type of lineman, and Marty likes another.

Marty likes Big WR's and Spurrier likes them small.

If we had drafted Gilesspi in round 5 this year, we'd all cheer what a great pick we made. But bring Marty back the following year, and Gillesspi doesnt' get invited to camp.

Look at the late round drafting success of teams with a little continuity in the front office ... like San Fran, Greenbay, Pittsburg, and Tampa Bay ... and you'll find your impressive draft records.

[Hoosierskin]

Originally posted by W&M

I disagree whole heartedly with the premise that a team is unlikely to find Gems in the later rounds of the draft, simply because:

- there are no surprises anymore, and

- because the talent pool is diluted with 32 teams.

Look at the late round drafting success of teams with a little continuity in the front office ... like San Fran, Greenbay, Pittsburg, and Tampa Bay ... and you'll find your impressive draft records.

I agree wholeheartedly with W&M! I think the Redskin's miss Bobby Beathard and to some extent Charley Casserly. Bobby did a great job bringing in kids to play their specific roles on the team. This team got away from drafting "role players" and our beloved Redskins learned the hard way, especially when we had an all-star line-up in 2000! We have missed having a strong GM really since Beathard left. Green Bay can thank Ron Wolf for finding the very good later round picks that would play "roles" on their team. I think our GM by committee has more drawbacks than pluses and I wish Snyder would realize this. Yes, we have had some real good picks like La Var and Samuels, but what we have been missing out on the later round picks that can really make or break a team. Our old Hall of Fame coach George Allen knew that you could not build a team with number one picks, and he was right!

[gatorpower]

Russ Grim likes one type of lineman, and Marty likes another. Marty likes Big WR's and Spurrier likes them small.

Spurrier likes them fast. For twelve years the formula that has worked in his offense have been recievers who are 1) super fast, 2) quick feet, 3) good hands, 4) good moves to get open. His offense isn't jump-ball. If the receiver has done his job, then the ball should float in his hands at a certain spot on the field.

This would be true if he's 5'-6" tall or 6'-5" tall. Obviously, the number of fast and tall receivers is pretty slim picking. Given the option, he choses speed over height, but that doesn't mean his system wouldn't work for tall receivers. Chris Doering was a star in his offense at 6'4", albeit he never beat DB's with speed. I think the last "star" receiver at Florida we had, who was shorter than 5'-10", was Travis McGriff back in '98. A year earlier it was 'Quezzy Green who ya'll have on the rooster now.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by MRMADD

During the 80s, Bobby Beathard would trade all of our first-round picks -- in fact, from 1985 to 1990, we had no first round picks at all. This was successful not only because of the value he got in trade

Excuse me? If you review the entire history of Beathard's trading our #1 picks, you will see that the "value he got in trade" was substantially less than the value given away. The strategy was a disaster.

We had a grand total of three #1 picks in the 11 years between 1980 and 1990. They were Art Monk (#18 in 1980), Mark May (#20 in 1981), and Darrell Green (#28 in 1983). This should show you the value we were *missing* in trading the other eight picks. Could you imagine eight more players like them?

Recently, however (not to pick on CC or Snyder), the Skins have ONLY found value in the first and second rounds. If you look at the current roster, all of the starters came via the 1st or 2nd round or via trade/free agency (except Stephen Davis).

Current Roster:

6 first-rounders drafted by the Skins

3 second-rounders drafted by the Skins

2 third-rounders drafted by the Skins (both rookies)

2 fourth-rounders drafted by the Skins (Davis and Rosenfels)

8 picked by the Skins below the fourth round (incl. 4 rookies)

3 acquired by trade

57 acquired via free agency.

Considering that a lot of those late-round picks won't even make the final roster, it gets even more stark. The Skins haven't found jack after round two in recent years.

I'll agree that Casserly was generally worse than Beathard, but you are overstating the case, misstating facts and drawing the wrong conclusions about late-round picks. Here's a sampling since 1991 of some late-round picks who played in the NFL for four or more years, or who stand an excellent chance of doing so:

2001/Round 5 - Darnerian McCants

2000/Round 6 - Todd Husak

2000/Round 7 - Delbert Cowsette

1998/Round 4 - Shawn Barber

1998/Round 5 - Mark Fischer

1998/Round 7 - David Terrell

1997/Round 3 - Derek Smith

1997/Round 4 - Albert Connell

1996/Round 4 - Stephen Davis

1995/Round 3 - Darryl Pounds

1995/Round 5 - Jamie Asher

1995/Round 5 - Rich Owens

1995/Round 7 - Scott Turner

1994/Round 3 - Joe Patton

1994/Round 7 - Gus Frerotte

1993/Round 6 - Frank Wycheck

1991/Round 12 - Keenan McCardell

And from the 2002 draft, we will probably get enduring contributions from:

Cliff Russell (#3)

Rashad Bauman (#3)

Andre Lott (#5)

Robert Royal (#5)

Rock Cartwright (#7)

... and the jury is still out on some others:

Reggie Coleman (#6)

Greg Scott (#7)

If anything, the problem during most of the 1990s was a toxic combination of brain-lock by Casserly with the top picks, combined with a stunning inability of the coaching staff (mainly Norv) to make good use of good players, thereby allowing those players to produce for other teams and not us. Casserly finally got better with the top picks (and pulled off some good trades), but by then it was too late to save his job.

You do need to be realistic about what you can expect from rounds 3 -7. Probably only half of the players picked in those rounds (at most) ever see significant playing time after their first year or two. Some will get cut in training camp. This is normal. If teams can screw up the #2 pick in the entire draft (Ryan Leaf), they can certainly screw up late round picks. So all you hope for from rounds 3 - 7 is to get two or three productive players and maybe one enduring, significant starter. The record will show that the team has achieved that -- though sometimes the players made their impact on other teams (notably McCardell and Wycheck).

[MRMADD]

Just a second, Atlanta: I think you proved my point for me. You listed 17 players selected in later rounds over 11 years that "have played" or can reasonably expect to do so. But your list is a little odd: you include guys like Todd Husak and Keenan McCardell who certainly didn't benefit the Skins in any real way.

Imagine if over those 11 years they'd traded all those late round picks each year for just one starter. That's 11 starters compared to the 4 or 5 real contributors on your list.

By the way, far less than half of the players selected in rounds 3-7 will see significant playing time... ever. And you're overly optimistic to expect all seven of the rookies you named to even make the team, much less make "enduring contributions."

I'm certainly not suggesting going back to the Beathard method. We DO get value from first- and second-round picks. But we could certainly get much better value from late round picks -- your list (and the current roster) demonstrates that we get almost none.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by MRMADD

Just a second, Atlanta: I think you proved my point for me. You listed 17 players selected in later rounds over 11 years that "have played" or can reasonably expect to do so. But your list is a little odd: you include guys like Todd Husak and Keenan McCardell who certainly didn't benefit the Skins in any real way.

Look, it's not my fault the team was stupid enough to cut one of the most productive receivers in the NFL for the last 10 years.

The discussion we're having is about the value of the later rounds, not how stupid our coaches are.

Imagine if over those 11 years they'd traded all those late round picks each year for just one starter. That's 11 starters compared to the 4 or 5 real contributors on your list.

First of all, just because you can trade all your picks for an upper-round pick doesn't mean that pick is going to work out for you. Check in the "NFL Busts" index for: Shuler, Heath; Johnson, Andre; Carter, Tom; Wilson, Bobby. Those guys are *all* Redskin busts from the first round in the 1990s.

Second, I have no idea what you mean by there being only "4 or 5 real contributors" on my list. All those guys played four years or more in the NFL. Four years is the average length of an NFL player's career, so they're all "real contributors". And some of them are true blue chippers, not just contributors: Stephen Davis, Frank Wycheck, Keenan McCardell.

And you're overly optimistic to expect all seven of the rookies you named to even make the team, much less make "enduring contributions."

I said five, not seven, would make enduring contributions.

I'm certainly not suggesting going back to the Beathard method. We DO get value from first- and second-round picks. But we could certainly get much better value from late round picks -- your list (and the current roster) demonstrates that we get almost none.

The only reason "we" have gotten almost no contribution from the lower rounds is because "we" persist in drafting good players, cutting them, and then watching them go on to perform for other teams. That's not a problem with the draft -- it's a problem with coaching.

I think we, ah, fixed that recently.