NFL Draft - Interesting article on why it may be wise to trade away draft picks

[Om]

The problem with following the Washington model is that it is based on paying out huge bonuses at one time. When you add up all the bonsuses from restructuring and from signing the free agents' date=' the total dollar amount might exceed a team like Cincy's profit margin.

I could easily be wrong, but I would think that in terms of real dollars, the Skins payroll has to be in the $125 - $150 million range this year. I'm not sure a team like Cincy or Buffalo or even a mid-level revenue team like Pittsburgh could do that if they wanted to.[/quote']

Not sure what you're saying here.

The league has set up its own salary rules. Every team is obliged to work within those rules. The idea is supposed to be to do everything in your power, within the structure and rules, to gain an advantage over your competition and try to win.

Are you suggesting Washington should not be as aggressive as it can within those parameters to try to succeed?

[TheLongshot]

The common perception that New England "built throught the draft" does not necessarily hold up to scrutiny, as the second article above notes. They didn't do it as splashy or as aggressively as Washington is, but the numbers don't lie.

New England's philosophy is a little different in that, they don't give out big contracts for free agents. They look for the less "splashy" players, and sign them to appropriate contracts, then they let guys go who they feel ask for too much money. So, actually, they do depend on the draft a bit more than we do. (Considering all the picks they have made the past few years.)

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Not sure what you're saying here.

The league has set up its own salary rules. Every team is obliged to work within those rules. The idea is supposed to be to do everything in your power, within the structure and rules, to gain an advantage over your competition and try to win.

Are you suggesting Washington should not be as aggressive as it can within those parameters to try to succeed?

No, I'm saying a team like Cincinatti and Buffalo probably couldn't follow the Washington model even if they wanted to, due to a lack of available funds for the number of signing bonuses the strategy requires.

So, if this approach succeeds, the only teams who may copy it are the Giants, Cowboys, and Patriots of the world.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

New England's philosophy is a little different in that, they don't give out big contracts for free agents. They look for the less "splashy" players, and sign them to appropriate contracts, then they let guys go who they feel ask for too much money. So, actually, they do depend on the draft a bit more than we do. (Considering all the picks they have made the past few years.)

Jason

The real key to New England is that they basically place a value on every position on their team and every player gets assigned that position. And they will not go outside those parameters.

They liked David Patten and David Givens. They probably could have afforded to keep one or both. They assigned a value to them, Washington and Tennessee greatly exceeed that value...and NE said "Fare thee well."

David Givens is a #2 Wide Receiver in their eyes and they will only pay #2 wide receiver money to him. David Patten is a #3 receiver. Same situation. Next year, they will pay Branch #1 receiver money because they have him pegged as such.

Pittsburgh does a similar thing, except they almost follow a college approach. Every four years, they expect to lose a few players and almost always draft with that idea in mind.

[Om]

New England's philosophy is a little different in that, they don't give out big contracts for free agents. They look for the less "splashy" players, and sign them to appropriate contracts, then they let guys go who they feel ask for too much money. So, actually, they do depend on the draft a bit more than we do. (Considering all the picks they have made the past few years.)

Jason

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

You'd need to define "splashy" first. Guys like Dillon and McGinest weren't "splashy," but guys like Griffin, Moss or Washington were?

Second, you'd need to support the argument that somehow NE sign's players to "appropriate contracts" and the Redskins don't. That stuff might play out in the world, but you're talking to US here. I know you've been reading all the talk around here about how the Skins have structured their contracts and how they stack in in terms of "real" dollars.

The overall statement that they "depend on the draft" more is a bit of a generalization, as well. We "depend" on draft picks, too ... we only choose to use them a bit differently. Using them to trade for players doesn't discount the picks, it just uses them non-traditionally.

We've strayed from the point, though. Point was, and remains, that Washington is definitely leading the charge on a new way of doing business. I happen to think, based on the results they are achieving on the field and the direction things seem to be heading, that it looks like they might not be alone for long.

If you build it, they will come.

[Om]

No' date=' I'm saying a team like Cincinatti and Buffalo probably couldn't follow the Washington model even if they wanted to, due to a lack of available funds for the number of signing bonuses the strategy requires.

So, if this approach succeeds, the only teams who may copy it are the Giants, Cowboys, and Patriots of the world.[/quote']

You're exaggerating in limiting it to so few teams, but I understand your larger point.

You know what I think? It's good to be king.

The rules are there. We're going to operate within them as effectively as we can. And I'm one Redskins fan who isn't going to feel the slightest bit guilty.

[Om]

By the way, on the subject of Pittsburgh and New England ... we DO all remember when it was that both of those teams separated from the pack to become championship-level teams, right?

Tom Brady.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Both drafted, by the way.

Which nicely brings us full circle back to the idea of the QB being the single biggest factor on a team with serious title pretentions.

The record will reflect that in April of 2005, the Washington Redskins drafted a young man they hope will be that man right here in river city.

[Drex]

By the way, on the subject of Pittsburgh and New England ... we DO all remember when it was that both of those teams separated from the pack to become championship-level teams, right?

Tom Brady.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Both drafted, by the way.

Which nicely brings us full circle back to the idea of the QB being the single biggest factor on a team with serious title pretentions.

The record will reflect that in April of 2005, the Washington Redskins drafted a young man they hope will be that man right here in river city.

The question is: will Campbell get that opportunity this season? Brady and Roethlisburger's emergence was anything but planned: both were the beneficiary of early season injuries to the starting qb's (Bledsoe and Maddox).

[Om]

The question is: will Campbell get that opportunity this season? Brady and Roethlisburger's emergence was anything but planned: both were the beneficiary of early season injuries to the starting qb's (Bledsoe and Maddox).

This is why they play the games.

[Peregrine]

I completely disagree with the notion the QB is the most important player on the field. As a Redskin fan, the first thing I consider is the fact that Joe Gibbs won all 3 superbowls with noname QBs. The hogs were famous, and so was the posse.

While I think a less than decent QB will keep a team from being succesful, I think a decent QB surrounded by good talent, is much more effective then a great QB surrounded by no talent. Without a solid offensive line to block, and good recievers to catch the ball, and a good running game, a QB is nothing. Conisder last seasons NFC playoffs. You had TB, Skins, Carolina, Chicago, NY and Seattle. Our QB wasnt even good enough to make the probowl in a very subpar QB conference. TB had Simms. Chicago had... Orton for almost the entire season. NY had Manning. That leaves 2 of the 6 having above average QBs in Delhomme and Hasselback, but Im sure a lot of people will agree, none of these QBs were special. Meanwhile, much praised QBs such as Favre, Culpepper, had miserable seasons with little to no talent around them.

Consider that the SB champs, Pitt, have Rothlisberger as QB. A man who is only in his second season, and rarely throws more than 18-20 passes in a game, yet has lost few games in his career to this point. You could fill in almost any QB in the league for Rothlisberger and Pitt still wins the SB(decent QBs dont turn the ball over a lot).

While yes, you can make the case than in these situations its the entire team that is good, and thus its not a single position, but multiple ones im putting against QB, im merely making the case that QB is no more valuable than any other position. Good QBs withou talent cannot make up for it, and decent QBs with talent around them are SB champs.

[Om]

I completely disagree with the notion the QB is the most important player on the field. As a Redskin fan, the first thing I consider is the fact that Joe Gibbs won all 3 superbowls with noname QBs. The hogs were famous, and so was the posse.

While I think a less than decent QB will keep a team from being succesful, I think a decent QB surrounded by good talent, is much more effective then a great QB surrounded by no talent. Without a solid offensive line to block, and good recievers to catch the ball, and a good running game, a QB is nothing. Conisder last seasons NFC playoffs. You had TB, Skins, Carolina, Chicago, NY and Seattle. Our QB wasnt even good enough to make the probowl in a very subpar QB conference. TB had Simms. Chicago had... Orton for almost the entire season. NY had Manning. That leaves 2 of the 6 having above average QBs in Delhomme and Hasselback, but Im sure a lot of people will agree, none of these QBs were special. Meanwhile, much praised QBs such as Favre, Culpepper, had miserable seasons with little to no talent around them.

Consider that the SB champs, Pitt, have Rothlisberger as QB. A man who is only in his second season, and rarely throws more than 18-20 passes in a game, yet has lost few games in his career to this point. You could fill in almost any QB in the league for Rothlisberger and Pitt still wins the SB(decent QBs dont turn the ball over a lot).

While yes, you can make the case than in these situations its the entire team that is good, and thus its not a single position, but multiple ones im putting against QB, im merely making the case that QB is no more valuable than any other position. Good QBs withou talent cannot make up for it, and decent QBs with talent around them are SB champs.

I understand the argument. I just don't agree.

Let me put it another way ... what position would YOU consider the most important?

[TheLongshot]

By the way, on the subject of Pittsburgh and New England ... we DO all remember when it was that both of those teams separated from the pack to become championship-level teams, right?

Tom Brady.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Both drafted, by the way.

Course, to go back to an earlier point, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick.

As for Ben, I don't think he's as much key for Pittsburgh. He succeeds because they don't ask all that much of him, and he has a great supporting cast.

Jason

[The Dark Horse]

Professors did a study of the NFL draft and claim the most valuable pick is the 43rd pick in the 2nd round! So take heart, we got the 53rd pick of the 2nd round. :laugh: :whoknows:

We don't do too bad with our 2nd round picks, when we have them.

Year RD # Player

---- -- -- ------

2003 2 44 Taylor Jacobs WR

2002 2 56 Ladell Betts RB

2001 2 45 Fred Smoot DB

1999 2 37 Jon Jansen OT

1998 2 48 Stephen Alexander TE

1997 2 51 Greg Jones LB

1995 2 37 Cory Raymer C

The only total and complete bust appears to be Taylor Jacobs, although it's probably too soon to say just yet.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Course, to go back to an earlier point, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick.

As for Ben, I don't think he's as much key for Pittsburgh. He succeeds because they don't ask all that much of him, and he has a great supporting cast.

Jason

As someone who lived in Pittsburgh during the Kordell Stewart era, I respectfully disagree.

They don't ask him to do much - except in the playoffs when they asked him to do a lot - but he does everything they ask exceptionally well.

Kordell was asked to do even less, and he regurlaryl screwed that up.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

We don't do too bad with our 2nd round picks, when we have them.

Year RD # Player

---- -- -- ------

2003 2 44 Taylor Jacobs WR

2002 2 56 Ladell Betts RB

2001 2 45 Fred Smoot DB

1999 2 37 Jon Jansen OT

1998 2 48 Stephen Alexander TE

1997 2 51 Greg Jones LB

1995 2 37 Cory Raymer C

The only total and complete bust appears to be Taylor Jacobs, although it's probably too soon to say just yet.

There should be more starters in that group. Two starters in the second round in 7 years is not a great percentage.

[Section106]

I'm late to the discussion and I haven't read the entire thread, sorry if this sounds like a repeat.

I think the value ascribed to players by the Profs is spot on. They make the case by mentioning the salary cap. With a limited amount of money, the less you spend for individual productive players the more productive players you can have on your team. I think it pretty simple really and I'm glad the 'Skins look at FA, trades, and undrafted players as well as the draft to improve the team.

[The Dark Horse]

There should be more starters in that group. Two starters in the second round in 7 years is not a great percentage.

Huh?

Greg Jones was a starter here for three years.

Smoot was a starter in his time here.

Jansen was a starter and continues to be.

Alexander was a starter - when he wasn't injured - and is still in the league with the Broncos.

[Peregrine]

I understand the argument. I just don't agree.

Let me put it another way ... what position would YOU consider the most important?

I understand your arguement as well. I tend to believe one position is no more important than another. If I had to pick one however, I would go with RB. One thing that sticks out to me is Sanders. Granted he was something special, but even with as horrific as his entire offense was, and Oline, he still managed to keep detroit semi-competitive. When you have a very poor Oline, it really hampers the QB because he cannot get time to throw, and he takes a beating. A RB on the other hand has 2 advantages. He already has the ball in his hands(as opposed to a reciever), and his whole job is going and taking blows, trying to get yards. Now of course, because I understand your side of the issue, one must also bring up Timmy Smith. Not exactly a big star at RB, yet he was wildly succesful in that big SB victory, though I would hold that as more of a one game aberation, then a decent back succeeding because of a great team(saying that you could plug in any back in his place that game). Its an issue that probobly will never have an answer because its impossible to place a real value on a position, but thats my stance.

[bubba9497]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2372386

this weeks tip sheet backs it up as well

click link for full article

As a whole, '02 draft class has underperformed

That's for sure. Harrington and Williams earned nearly $40 million between them in their four seasons with the Lions and the Bills, respectively, and never made it to a Pro Bowl. After four seasons, they should be cornerstones for the teams that chose them, but will be regrettably recalled as millstones instead. Their failures, though, are indicative of a first round that, in retrospect, was anything but memorable.

And of a draft that generally produced spotty results.

Scouts are quick to remind people (especially after bad drafts) that the process is an inexact science. But the 2002 draft was more like a laboratory experiment gone awry, one that blew up in a lot of teams' faces. And the first round, as the recent demises of Harrington and Williams reflect, was particularly dubious.

Of the 32 players chosen in the first round in 2002, only eight have been to the Pro Bowl, and just four have made the trip to Hawaii more than once. By the time Harrington and Washington quarterback Patrick Ramsey are either traded or released, eight of the 2002 first-rounders will have bombed with their initial franchises. Counting defensive tackle Wendell Bryant, chosen by Arizona and currently out of the game because of a repeat violation of the NFL substance abuse policy, three of the top dozen players can be deemed busts for now.

Four other first-round picks -- cornerback Phillip Buchanon (Oakland), linebackers Robert Thomas (St. Louis) and Napoleon Harris (Oakland), and offensive tackle Marc Colombo (Chicago) -- are now with teams other than the ones that drafted them. Of that group, only Colombo, who suffered a catastrophic leg injury as a rookie that nearly ended his career and required almost two full years of rigorous rehabilitation, can claim mitigating circumstances. The rest simply weren't very good, or, more benignly, perhaps, did not live up to their lofty expectations

[TheLongshot]

2002 was actually pretty good to us, for the most part. While Ramsey didn't turn out, we were able to collect more draft picks by trading down. (And Donte Stallworth, who reportedly was the guy we wanted in the draft, hasn't been all that.) We ended up with Ladell Betts, Andre Lott, Robert Royal and Rock Cartwright, along with Ramsey who have all started for us at one time or another. Not bad for a poor draft.

Jason

[gortiz]

The professorss ascribe "value" strictly on a cost basis. That doesn't strike me as entirely realistic given the varying impacts different players at different positions acutally have on teams. Yes, Eli Manning has cost the Giants a lot of scratch, but if he turns out to be a "franchise QB"---still the centerpiece of most successful clubs---that keeps New York in contention for the next decade, it will have been more than worth the "cost" to New York in any real-world sense.

Just a thought, but the odds are not very good when it comes to picking a QB in the 1st round,especially 1st overall? In other words, dedpending on what you consider benchmarks for a "successful" career, don't most QB's end up coming short of being that "franchise QB" With out looking at the numbers I would say yes, so that would, in my estimation make another argument to pass up the Eli's of the Draft. It is not a good gamble.

[HapHaszard]

Bumping this back to the first page. One great thread.

[inmate running the asylum]

Bumping this back to the first page. One great thread.

And I raise you a bump.

It would appear that trading away draft picks has been a Redskin tradition now for almost 30 years. George Allen was famous for trading away draft picks; Bobby Beathard followed him and was especially fond of trading away # 1 draft picks; and Joe Gibbs who worked with Beathard, has no reservations at all about trading away draft choices. Two of these men are in the Hall of Fame and Bobby Beathard was considered a huge success as a G.M.

George Allen was also fond of acquiring free agent players whenever he could (as we see below), just like Joe Gibbs is currently doing. Allen really did believe in his "future is now" philosophy and that you didn't have to undertake a 4 year rebuilding program, to transform a losing franchise into a winning franchise. Allen always turned around losing programs immediately, although conventional wisdom at the time in the NFL, believed that head coaches should be allowed 3 to4 years to develop a winner. George Allen disproved this time after time, by producing winners immediately.

Another reason Allen traded away future draft choices besides trying to win immediately, was Allen did not like to play rookies. He felt that they had to go through an apprenticeship and once said something to the effect: "Let them learn to play football on some other teams time, but not on my time."

So you guys that are always crying about the Skins trading away their draft picks -- quit worrying! Joe Gibbs knows what he is doing:D

I thought the old geezer, Bulldog -- who also lived back in the George Allen Jurassic Era -- might chime in here with his insight, but I guess he is either chasing cars down the street or this thread is too heavy for him.

Excerpts from: The Redskins Book - Washington Post

Chapter 3, Page 105

....... George Herbert Allen. . .Ranked 10th all-time in coaching victories at time of retirement. . .Had overall record of 118-54-5 . . .Adopted “Future is Now” theme, made 131 trades in his career. . .Never had a losing season in 12 years as NFL head coach. . . . Named Coach of the Year, 1967, 1971. . .

...... Halfway through the 1970s, the Redskins clearly were moving way beyond over the hill, and Allen had given away most of the team's draft choices. But because the league and its players' union still had not agreed to a new contract, there was an unusual window of opportunity after the 1975 season to acquire free-agent players whose contracts had expired. Allen took full advantage, signing New York Jets fullback John Riggins and adding two longtime Dallas nemeses — running back Calvin Hill and tight end Jean Fugett — to his 1976 roster. .........