MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 As it stands today, we draft somewhere from 8 to 12. 1. Bengals (2-13) 2. Lions (3-12) 3. Texans (4-11) 4. Bears (4-11) 5 - 7. Cardinals (5-10), Cowboys (5-10), Vikings (5-10) 8-12. Redskins (6-9), Rams (6-9), Seahawks (6-9), Panthers (6-9), Jags (6-9) 13 - 14. Ravens (7-8), Bills (7-8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 fyi, because of strength of schedule we lose all ties for draft position, but (and correct me if I'm wrong, we win all ties in draft position in round 2, which may end up being more valuable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 So if we win next week, we draft from 10-14. If we lose, we draft from 6-10. Nope, still can't root for the Cowboys. I'd have rather lost today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 actually, if we lose we draft between 8-12 and if we win, we draft from 12-14, so yeah, not a huge swing, easily worth beating Dallas. The key games next week for draft position will be Buffalo against Cinci and Baltimore against Pitt. Most likely Buffalo will win, in which case we can pick no lower than 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Draft Order through week 16 (excluding Mon Night TB v Pitt game) <STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE> 1. Bengals (2-13) 2. Lions (3-12) 3. Texans (4-11) <.513> 4. Bears (4-11) <.525> 5-6. Cardinals (5-10) & Cowboys (5-10) <.496> - same SOS 7. Vikings (5-10) <.504> 8-9. Panthers (6-9), Jags (6-9) <.500> - same SOS, but will be effected by Mon Night game between Pitt & TB 10. Seahawks (6-9) <.510> 11. Rams (6-9) <.515> 12. Redskins (6-9) <.538> 13. New England via Bills (7-8) <.475> 14. Ravens (7-8) <.500> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 one last point, we can pretty much give up the idea of trading our 1st for 2 lower #1s, New England will be drafting within a few spots of us (mid to high teens) with their Buffalo pick, and New Orleans, unless they go to the Super Bowl, will probably be in the low 20s as the last NFC seed at best. So any trade down scenarios would likely invlove a 1st and a 2nd rounder at best. Also keep in mind that 2nd rounder would probably be mid-late 2nd round, since we will be trading down with someone who had a pretty good record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 OK, one more point. Due to a lot of divisional matchups in the last week (NYG/PHIL, TENN/HOU, JAX/INDY, SF/StL), the lowest the Skins SOS can be is .523 and thats assuming they beat Dallas. If they lose to Dallas, the lowest the SOS can be is .531 The Redskins will more than likely lose all tiebreakers with teams that have the same record. Hence the range of possible picks is 8-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 The way I see it is Baltimore will lose at Pittsburgh; Carolina will lose at New Orleans; St. Louis will lose at home to San Francisco; Seattle will lose at San Diego; and Jacksonville will lose at Indianapolis. If the Redskins lose to Dallas, they will probably lose all SOS tie-breakers and draft 13th. If the Redskins beat Dallas, and lose all SOS tie-breakers, they will draft 14th. Thats assuming that Baltimore also loses in Pittsburgh. Either way the Skins wind up almost in the same draft position as last year. In which case they won't be able to draft the premier stud 300 lb. DT's with speed, unless they trade up. They probably will be able to draft Terrell Suggs however, an undersized DE in the Dwight Freeney mold. Suggs broke Freeney's sack record this year with 22 sacks, but only weighs 242 lbs, meaning he is a sack specialist and not a run stuffer. However, that might not be too bad as there is a place for small sack specialists in the game now, such as Leonard Little, Freeney, Gbaja-Biamila, etc. Of course we could always trade down again, and pick up some extra draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokieskin Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 I didn't know that Terrell Suggs was that small. 242 lbs? That is tiny for a DE. He is smaller than LA. We can't waste our first rounder on Suggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Better off going OG than messing around with Terrell Suggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 well, I would say there are potentially, if everyone comes out (someone get in Roy Williams's ear), 8 players at WR/DE/DT the Skins should look at with their #1 pick. WR - Rogers, R. Williams, A. Johnson DT - William Joseph, Kennedy, Wilfork DE - McDougle, Suggs The Skins should be able to land one of these guys, most likely A. Johnson or a DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.