SteveFromYellowstone Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I realize it might not be the smartest thing to trade a top draft pick for an older player, but some people are against trading picks period. Jared Allen. I see some people are against possibly trading picks for him. A 25 year old , proven pro bowl talent who excelled on a not so good defense. How isn't that worth it. Some people wan't to draft a corner in the first, but don't want to trade a first round pick for Deangelo Hall. Again, he is a 24 year old proven pro bowler, one of the fastest guys in the league. While I like keeping draft picks because we have gotten some great players lately like Cooley, Montgomery, Taylor, Landry, Golston, Alexander etc...., if a situation presented itself to trade for Jared Allen, or another top young player in a position of need for us, why wouldn't we take it? It's basically like drafting a player, but you already have seen what hes done. Again, I wouldn't be sending 3 picks to Miami for Jason Taylor to have him play for a season or two, that would be dumb. I'm talking young, proven players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayAction Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 "It's basically like drafting a player, but you already have seen what hes done. Again, I wouldn't be sending 3 picks to Miami for Jason Taylor to have him play for a season or two, that would be dumb. I'm talking young, proven players." Have you seen the number of sure fire free agents or trades that the Skins have done that DID NOT work out? Do you remember all the Jets that came over that one year? The proven return specialist, the proven kicker etc? What about the MLB from the Eagles? All of these guys were "proven" in someone else's system. Then when they came to the Skins their new teamates didn't have the same complementary skill sets and their production wasn't as expected. IMO the Skins win rate on trades and free agents is no better than in the draft (if not worse). But the draft picks are cheaper than the sure fire free agent. Moreover, the Skins can train the draft pick from day 1 in their system. I'm happy with no trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvarlo12000 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 you have to factor the cap. The pick in th first round will not command a huge salary. If a team can find some starters and some good back ups in the draft then they can have a managable cap year in and year out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midder15 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I just don't understand how you could consider draft picks overrated. What else would you have them do? You can't create a team out of Free Agency. I mean haven't the Skins proven that yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midder15 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I just don't understand how you could consider draft picks overrated. What else would you have them do? You can't create a team out of Free Agency. I mean haven't the Skins proven that yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Draft picks in the first ~5 picks are overvalued..... They end up costing more than proven starters on day one, so there is just as much risk as a FA acquisition. But players after that point end up being cheap talent......so no overall accept for the beginning of rd. 1. You could also make a case the draft value chart that is widely circulated over or under values players in certain rounds.....I imagine that every team has their own version of this that they don't circulate..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmandm Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I realize it might not be the smartest thing to trade a top draft pick for an older player, but some people are against trading picks period.Jared Allen. I see some people are against possibly trading picks for him. A 25 year old , proven pro bowl talent who excelled on a not so good defense. How isn't that worth it. Some people wan't to draft a corner in the first, but don't want to trade a first round pick for Deangelo Hall. Again, he is a 24 year old proven pro bowler, one of the fastest guys in the league. While I like keeping draft picks because we have gotten some great players lately like Cooley, Montgomery, Taylor, Landry, Golston, Alexander etc...., if a situation presented itself to trade for Jared Allen, or another top young player in a position of need for us, why wouldn't we take it? It's basically like drafting a player, but you already have seen what hes done. Again, I wouldn't be sending 3 picks to Miami for Jason Taylor to have him play for a season or two, that would be dumb. I'm talking young, proven players. I agree with you absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truant Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I think it makes sense to trade for a player when you (realistically) feel that you are one player away. Not only do you lose picks but you also pay a king's ransom in salary. If we wanted Hall why not sign Samuel. They'll cost about the same and you don't give up any picks. You know who was a great pick for us? Dockery. A 3rd round pick, he played a lot of snaps for us, developed into a fine player and left via FA. Now some people might say, "we lost him just when he got good!" which is true, but it looks like we're going to get a 3rd round pick for losing him. If you draft moderately well you can keep your team afloat longer. You can either re-sign your talent (Cooley), trade the player before their contract year, or lose them in FA yet still have a good chance of receiving compensation from the league. The other route, which we've been using, involves spending all the money we have to pay a premium for a "proven" player. Yet (as mentioned above) proven players have their troubles too. You don't know how they'll work in the system. How they'll like the city. How the huge contract will change their game. I think smart splurging in FA is fine, when you know exactly who and what you need. Trading for players AND paying through the nose seems short-sighted and reeks of the instant gratification that has plagued the franchise for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Never underestimate how giving someone their F-you money can change them. Show me a team that has won a SB recently that hasn't drafted well or built primarily through the draft? Show me a team that has won a SB recently, that is built primarily through FA? You can't because there isn't one. It is about building a team--not plugging in 5 or 6 superstars. How about we draft a few DEs over the next few years, and DEVELOP a pro bowl DE of our own? The guy you know personally because you work with him day to day, and therefore know he fits your system, and feel comfortable giving millions when the time to extend or resign comes. Then maybe other players see you take care of your own, hard work is rewarded, etc., and something called chemistry develops. Chemistry without a death of a superstar to motivate, or the need for a 6 game run just to make the playoffs. . .When you are constantly bringing in high-priced FAs that produce nothing, and showing your own hard-working talent the door, you end up with what we've had since Snyder bought the team. If we had depth everywhere, had just completed a deep playoff run, and a player or two would make us a contender, and we had a culture where team is emphasized that had been in place long term, then maybe. We need 10-15 players to be a contender. Anything who thinks otherwise, take another hit. We have no young QB behind Campbell, the most underachieving receivers in the NFL, no red zone production, an ancient OL that can't stay healthy with NO depth save Hey, and little depth at S, LB, DT, DE, to say nothing of starters at CB, DE, etc. Why on EARTH would you trade multiple picks for just a few players? This philosophy has been failing us for a decade. How much longer do you need to see it for that to sink in? Our FA bonanzas left us the ONLY team in NFL significantly over the cap, and by converting every major players contract to a signing bonus, we have perpetuated this problem. Cutting any older players will entail STEEP cap hits. Did you see the Giants? They rotated 3-5 guys at DE/OLB. They DRAFTED them, spending 1st day picks over successive years to build a dominant pass rush. A number of front 7 contributers were low-round picks also. Did you ever see Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, or even Darrell Green act like a hole about money the way many modern FAs do? That tells you something doesn't it. What is this guy going to do in 2 years when he feels underpaid--act like a hole again. NO single stud is the answer. A general improvemet of overall talent through multiple years of successful drafting is the answer. Period. This isn't Madden, this is the real NFL. Balanced TEAMS win championships, not 5 superstars with dinosaurs or mediocrity everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 "Have you seen the number of sure fire free agents or trades that the Skins have done that DID NOT work out? Do you remember all the Jets that came over that one year? The proven return specialist, the proven kicker etc? What about the MLB from the Eagles? That's a ridiculous statement! We have had great success with Gibbs and FA. A. Archuletta and B. Lloyd are the only true busts. We had many great FA acquisitions. Let's discuss how many draft busts there are every year! Drafting is a much greater crap shoot. A good balance of FA and drafting could make any team go from 5-11 to 10-6. Both are needed as the draft fills roster spots at economical prices and lots of upside and FA delivers mostly proven players which create stability. I would trade a draft pick for a young proven player 100% of the time as long as it makes good financial sense and the player has been honestly evaluated at the compensation level required to bring him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Because you never worry about disrupting chemistry when you use draft picks in April. If you use them in March on other team's players you can hurt the chemistry of the football team. See: 2006 Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digger Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Draft picks are like lottery tickets. Most aren't worth what you paid to get them, but sometimes you get lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborob132 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I just don't understand how you could consider draft picks overrated. What else would you have them do? You can't create a team out of Free Agency. I mean haven't the Skins proven that yet? Not overrated.. OVERVALUED... Yes they are.. Look at the % of actual VALUED and Rated players that actually were what they were suppose to be? LOW. There needs to be a minimum $$ amount to rookies according to draft position. Let them play for 2 years and earn their money.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Let them play for 2 years and earn their money.. Head of nail, meet hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PorkSkins Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The draft pick itself is not overvalued, the salary that commensurates with the picks are. The best thing about drafting a college player is you are getting someone YOUNG that can be coached into a team player. I've always been in favor of building a team by the draft, however being a lifelong Redskin fan that theory doesn't apply. Trading draft picks for FA's is just as risky as the draft. You can pick up players with bad habits, bad locker room personalities, and just plain bad work ethics. Either way, you are paying a player more than they are worth. It's all about the potential. We have the potential of making the playoffs next year if we plug in a couple of great players from the draft. I'm glad I'm not paying these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Head of nail, meet hammer. Yup, completely agree. And to be honest, considering how absolutely ridiculous top draft picks' contracts are getting, I think it will come eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Definitions! Overvalued is a very vague term. In order to get any worthwhile response, you would have to define who the subject who is valuing is(Fans, GM's, media personel?). Just because fans overvalue picks doesnt mean the important people(GM's do). You also failed to define "value" when it comes to draft picks. What is a draft picks value? You can't "overvalue" something without defining its value. I personally would define value as it pertains to draft picks, as the right to draft unproven talent in the hope they will work out in the NFL. This value changes per round, as talent drafted in late rounds is either drafted in the hope it becomes depth, or is a hidden gem. In this case, I think you are speaking about 1st round draft picks. The value of a first round pick is a good chance at a future NFL star. So I think your question is, do fans on here(though that in and of itself is general, ES is a collection of individuals, not one giant entity that agrees with itself all the time) tend to overvalue 1st round draft picks. I believe they do. I also believe GM's dont. Getting a player like Jared Allen for a 1st and 3rd round pick would be highway robbery. The upside to early draft picks is you get a young player with a lot of talent and potential. The downside is they may be a complete dud, or maybe just an average NFL player. When you have a proven player of a really young age, there is no debate, trade that 1st for that player in a heartbeat. Some people unfortunately have seen what happened here in the past, and have gone to the complete other extreme, the one that doesnt ever want to trade draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_RedskinsFan Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Not overrated.. OVERVALUED... Yes they are.. Look at the % of actual VALUED and Rated players that actually were what they were suppose to be? LOW. There needs to be a minimum $$ amount to rookies according to draft position. Let them play for 2 years and earn their money.. You nailed it. It is bull that they can hold a team hostage by holding out of camp for the money they think they are worth, and never played a NFL game before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.