BMahoney Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 I know, everyone likes to beleive in BPA, but sometimes BPA is just not the smartest decision for the team. For example if a good rb falls to us in the first round it cant be reasonable to draft the rb, considering what we have invested in Portis. So I was just thinking about approaching the draft through a type of process of elimination, by taking a poll of what player position you wouldn't draft of the reasonable possibilities for the redskins. -I personally don't think we should draft a WR in the first rd because I feel we can address the WR issue in later rounds of the draft, possibly picking up one in the 3rd and one in the 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smackedHugo Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 i chose DE because i dont like the 1st round DE talent this year other than obvious top 5 choices long and gholston. id rather take a gamble on some prospects in rounds 3-7. a perfect 1st and 2nd round imo would be brandon albert OG and dre moore/ trevor laws DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted March 24, 2008 Author Share Posted March 24, 2008 Sounds pretty perfect to me too, hope it happens, this anticipation for draft day is driving me nuts. Pretty weird for a skins fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Of the choices you listed i would have to say OT, i think our pressing need on the lines is LG. I think Jansen is fine and watching game film from the fins game he seemed to look really good in his brief time in there. I think Jansen has still alot to offer and i would thikn if he doesn't suffer another freak injury, we should be seeing jansen play all 16 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 You don't have Best Player Available as a choice. Or, more specifically, best player available among the listed choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 The only postitions that are really off the board as far not using a 1st round pick on are QB, RB and TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted March 24, 2008 Author Share Posted March 24, 2008 The only postitions that are really off the board as far not using a 1st round pick on are QB, RB and TE. -I guess I just didn't feel there was any first round talent at; FB, C. The rest of the positions I said were very possible, thats why they were listed in the poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted March 24, 2008 Author Share Posted March 24, 2008 You don't have Best Player Available as a choice. Or, more specifically, best player available among the listed choices. -The question is which player wouldn't you draft, BPA isn't very logical for a possible response. I was trying to find what draft would make the least people upset; currently that is DT which has no votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 WR Check the link in my sig. The WRs taken in the bottom half of the first round (where we are picking this year) have overall been busts since 2002. With an estimated success rate of just 27%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsmith2003 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 I chose OT, we have Tackle depth behind Samuels and Jansen with Heyer, Wade, Fabini. And 2-3 players signed from PS and early off-season additions. No need for OT in the DRAFT at ALL!!! G - yes, C - yes... T - NO NO NO!! I don't want a WR in 1st either, unless it's James Hardy. And we don't need a LB in first, maybe 3rd or after, but not first or second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Khan Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 I say we shouldn't draft a WR in the first just cause I don't like the top rated recievers all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 I disagree, if a super sweet RB heads and shoulders above everyone else is all that's left (doubtful), you take him, as long as you aren't high enough in draft to commit major dollars. Behind Portis, what do we really have? You draft BPA every year, until you are loaded with talent. Betts has been less than impressive, Cartwright can't be trusted to hold onto the ball, unless you see something in Mason, if a RB was FAR & AWAY BPA, you draft him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#21Taylor4Ever Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Since we dont need a DT, I chose that position. I think some people underestimate what Montgomery and Golston have already shown. Cornelius has some years left in the tank, and Daniels will move to DT as a depth guy when Wilson's ready. We do not need a DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoth Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Let's take a not so clever example of this. The Dolphins. They want down out of 1st pick, but can't trade pick. McFadden seems to be the only consensus elite player. In other years, there are 3-10, this year only 1. Why not just draft McFadden, and trade him? Talk to someone like Dallas, and just say, I'll draft McFadden, you take the player I want at 22, give me a third rounder to boot, AND you pay McFadden #1 money, and I'll pay my guy #22 money. Or just draft McFadden, call every team, and say, "who wants him?" The Dolphins need 40 guys. Why not pick the one elite player you think will be a pro bowler? Realize there are problems with this, but. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harwich Hog Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I could concievable see logic in drafting every position if the player represented the best value (with exception of K,P). This year though I would only be looking at OL,DL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I wouldnt take a DT (unless by some miracle Ellis or Dorsey drop), LB, OT(unless said player can also play G), or S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Forget safety The Redskins just addressed safety with the #6 pick overall last season. The Redskins need to start drafting some big ugglies for a change. We seem to be the only team that avoids making OL and DL top draft choices. Instead we sign free agents to big contracts and then look for 35 year old retreads to be the backups. We need to find 22 or 23 year old guys up front to start replacing the Todd Wades and Jason Fabinis - guys with the upside to one day take over for a Samuels, Jansen, Thomas or Rabach. Other than Stephon Heyer what other younger players with some skill to do we have? Perhaps Lorenzo Alexander has some upside on the OL, if he is allowed to play there full-time, but I remember Bugel saying in an interview that Alexander has a short reach and seems better suited to DL than OL. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Looks like most members will be happy as long as we don't draft a; WR, LB, S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujuskinsfan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I would not draft a LB because we don't need any. I would go after a DE or OG, then CB, then WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Out of the positions we need depth in I would definitely NOT draft a CB in round 1. If we needed a starter there yes, but we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.