Oh No Dey Didn't (Suppose no OL/DL in the Draft?)

[Laxpunk2006]

I think if we addressed any position other than OL/DL and possibly OLB with our first pick this board and most of the fan base would explode. Fan cards would be turned in, countless redundant threads would be started. Vinny's head would be called for and an angry mob would form outside of Redskins' Park.

That being said if we could truly draft a RB with the talent of AP or a WR that takes over games like Larry Fitzgerald we would be a much better team than if we drafted a mediocre DL or OL. Of course an OL or DL of that tier of player would do wonders.

The problem here is that we wouldn't KNOW how good of a player we've drafted untill at least a few games into the season. Untill then we'd have a bunch of armchair GM's crying about how in madden their rookie DT had 12 sacks and was Super Bowl MVP.

I'm not sure what the exact question here is, but if we see a rare talent at a position that isn't a need we may have to pull the trigger. Arizona had Anquan Boldin when they took Fitzgerald at the #3(?) spot rather than reaching on an OL(their true need). Minnesota took AP after Chester Taylor had a career year.

My point is that if BPA greatly outweighs need then sometimes that's what you have to do to build a successful franchise. It might not be the right pick for that season, but it is the right pick for the longterm goals of the franchise.

[Reaganaut]

If you're wrong, your "I'm an idiot" apology thread ought to be fun. But then again, maybe you're Vinny C., and you definitely know the 'skins aren't getting linemen.

Vinnie C has stated for the RECORD that he does not draft linemen period in the top three rounds. Period. He says we can get them in lower rounds. This is a philosophy that has been shared out loud by people like Michael Wilbon in the past too. I'm not advocate of this philosophy. Benchmark off of the best teams and make incremental improvements. I'm really don't care about the thread being fun at all. This board used to be a lot better when it started before the riff raff got here. I am like Clint Eastwood in Grand Torino.

[ucfSKINS]

Valuing a QB even over one of the best safeties ever is 'falling' as a fan how?

BTW, Big Ben may have STATISTICALLY had only one great season but here he is, in his third AFC Title game and this time, without Bettis or a healthy enough running back corps and an offensive line that has really suffered from the loss of Faneca (as well as poor play.) And he's won a SB. It's not all on him, of course but there's a reason he has been the starter there since almost day one.

One can only imagine if he hadn't gotten into that motorcycle accident, though he seems "Ok" now, I guess.

And he's done it with one of the best defenses and arguably the second best if not the best Saftey in football.

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.

[SonnyJ]

I'm actually kind of hoping that the Redskins don't draft OL or DL in the first - just to see the epic meltdown on this board. All the wanna-be GMs having a collective fit - priceless. :laugh:

The only glaring personnel weakness on the team, IMO, is a pocket-collapsing DT. I KNOW such a player does not exist on the roster. I can't say that for certain about any other position on the team. Nor can any other poster (well, they can say they know for certain, but they're full of :pooh: for saying so).

Adding such a DT (or two) will do wonders for the pass rush. If you can't add a player of this type at #13 (assuming that this player is, at least, close to BPA), then first TRY to trade down, but take BPA if a trade-down isn't plausible.

There are no sure-fires in the draft. Reaching for a player just because he plays a position you covet makes it even more of a crapshoot.

However, if they draft a TE...:cuss:

[Warpath11]

I agree that BPA is the way to go. However using BPA as your draft strategy doesn't preclude addressing glaring needs as we have in the OL. How? Well, the obvious answer is to trade down and take one of the 2nd tier OTs a bit later. However if there's no trade down partner I wouldn't have a problem with taking the BPA at that slot and then trading up into the 2nd round to get an OT.

I like this strategy if one of the big "cant miss" tackles (for this year) are still on the board at 13 grab them no questions asked. Are those 4 "cant miss" tackles going to be there at 13 I doubt it. If they are gone I am for trading down getting extra picks and picking one of the second tier tackles towards the end of the first round/second round (Loadholt, Britten, Black etc...) where those guys will be vaule picks rather than reaches at 13.

Having said that I think it will be hard to move the 13th pick unless we get someone that covets one of the tops LBs or DBs. If we cannot move the 13th pick I say we take BPA (which Id assume would be Aaron Kelly or Mualaga or BJ Raji) pending on how Vinny sets his board.

[Mursilis]

I agree that BPA is the way to go. However using BPA as your draft strategy doesn't preclude addressing glaring needs as we have in the OL. How? Well, the obvious answer is to trade down and take one of the 2nd tier OTs a bit later. However if there's no trade down partner I wouldn't have a problem with taking the BPA at that slot and then trading up into the 2nd round to get an OT.

So you're endorsing a BPA approach . . .

Again, what I'm looking for is evidence that we're capable of making the adult decision and that we've learned our lesson about the value of the lines to the success of the team. The problem is that if you can't do so, you'll find yourself distracted over and over again with the skill position guys and before you know it you've gone 10 years without spending any high draft picks on lineman.

. . . but you still want the line issues addressed. But what if the BPA every time your team's pick comes up is some pass-catcher, not a lineman? Are you still going to go with BPA or need?

BPA is dumb. The "best" in best player available is fairly subjective anyway, so you've got to look at need.

[TheLongshot]

Valuing a QB even over one of the best safeties ever is 'falling' as a fan how?

Valuing a QB who has been fairly average with just one great season on a team with a great supporting cast over a guy no one has any doubt was becoming a great safety does leave me scratching my head. I had no problem when we made the pick and I have no regrets now. When I see what Ed Reed does for the Ravens and knowing that Taylor could have been doing the same things, it makes me very comfortable with the choice, even tho he is no longer with us.

BTW, Big Ben may have STATISTICALLY had only one great season but here he is, in his third AFC Title game and this time, without Bettis or a healthy enough running back corps and an offensive line that has really suffered from the loss of Faneca (as well as poor play.) And he's won a SB. It's not all on him, of course but there's a reason he has been the starter there since almost day one.

One can only imagine if he hadn't gotten into that motorcycle accident, though he seems "Ok" now, I guess.

I've seen a lot of Pittsburgh's game, and he's been pretty darn mediocre without Willie Parker in the lineup. Pittsburgh is still a team that needs the running game to win games on a regular basis. in the 5 games Parker missed, Pittsburgh lost 2 and 2 others were very tight game. The only game they clearly dominated in that time was against the lowly Bengals. The only good games he had in there was against Jags and the Bengals.

Against us, he was pretty awful. We had the bad luck of knocking him out of the game or else maybe we are able to pull that one out, because we certainly had his number.

[Oldfan]

BPA is dumb. The "best" in best player available is fairly subjective anyway, so you've got to look at need.

"Need" isn't subjective?

Need not only is subjective, it adds a factor that has nothing to do with the player's worth.

[Mursilis]

"Need" isn't subjective?

Need not only is subjective, it adds a factor that has nothing to do with the player's worth.

Need is in part defined by the rules of the game - you can't send all 10 guys (minus the QB) out on pass patterns, for example, so you know you're required to have down linemen. Hence, it makes no sense to sign 10 absolutely elite WRs if your line is a bunch of turnstiles. Likewise, most teams only have one QB on the field at a time, so constantly spending high draft picks on QBs isn't helping your team, even if a QB is the best player available every time your draft slot comes up.

[e16bball]

Need is in part defined by the rules of the game - you can't send all 10 guys (minus the QB) out on pass patterns, for example, so you know you're required to have down linemen. Hence, it makes no sense to sign 10 absolutely elite WRs if your line is a bunch of turnstiles. Likewise, most teams only have one QB on the field at a time, so constantly spending high draft picks on QBs isn't helping your team, even if a QB is the best player available every time your draft slot comes up.

That's true, but no one is proposing having "10 absolutely elite WRs" or drafting 5-6 QBs. It's more effective to argue against the arguments people ARE making instead of fantastical ones they AREN'T, even though it may not be as easy. Perhaps you should reformulate your argument to address a realistic BPA proposition. As I (and many) have said time and again on this forum, a BPA approach need not necessarily consist of solely looking at the top name on your position-independent board and rushing his card to the podium.

The way I look at it is something like this:

Positional Need/Player Fit x Positional Importance x Player Rating = Pick Value of a Certain Player

Consider the player's talent, consider the position he plays, and consider the role you envision him playing on your team, now and in the future. These are the important factors in deciding which player you draft, all of which should be considered, IMO.

This approach will properly value superbly talented players even at a position of less need, and it will properly value positional priorities between two prospects of similar talent. If you rely on this idea, you'll get the Adrian Petersons and Larry Fitzgeralds, simply because their sublime talent will supercede positional priority, but you'll also avoid situations where you flatly ignore needs.

Honestly, it's pretty straightforward...I find that rarely is a "pure" version of one system the best. By combining the positive facets of BOTH approaches, you can weigh need against pure talent, both of which should be factors.

[Oldfan]

Need is in part defined by the rules of the game - you can't send all 10 guys (minus the QB) out on pass patterns, for example, so you know you're required to have down linemen. Hence, it makes no sense to sign 10 absolutely elite WRs if your line is a bunch of turnstiles. Likewise, most teams only have one QB on the field at a time, so constantly spending high draft picks on QBs isn't helping your team, even if a QB is the best player available every time your draft slot comes up.

A surplus at one position isn't a problem. If the BPA is a QB every year, I'd happily take him and trade the vet QB for high draft picks in a future draft. That would be ideal for a team good at picking QBs.

[Oldfan]

The way I look at it is something like this:

Positional Need/Player Fit x Positional Importance x Player Rating = Pick Value of a Certain Player

That's it.

Now, all you need to do is to weight those three factors. If you give each equal value, you end up with one grade. If you give it something like...

Player rating 50%

Need 30%

Position value 20%

...you'll get a different grade.

[Mursilis]

That's true, but no one is proposing having "10 absolutely elite WRs" or drafting 5-6 QBs. It's more effective to argue against the arguments people ARE making instead of fantastical ones they AREN'T, even though it may not be as easy. Perhaps you should reformulate your argument to address a realistic BPA proposition. As I (and many) have said time and again on this forum, a BPA approach need not necessarily consist of solely looking at the top name on your position-independent board and rushing his card to the podium.

Then it's not BPA, is it? And some people in this thread are actually arguing a "pure" BPA approach (call this the Millen Method, and look what a disaster it's been). My post was addressing them.

The way I look at it is something like this:

Positional Need/Player Fit x Positional Importance x Player Rating = Pick Value of a Certain Player

Consider the player's talent, consider the position he plays, and consider the role you envision him playing on your team, now and in the future. These are the important factors in deciding which player you draft, all of which should be considered, IMO.

This approach will properly value superbly talented players even at a position of less need, and it will properly value positional priorities between two prospects of similar talent. If you rely on this idea, you'll get the Adrian Petersons and Larry Fitzgeralds, simply because their sublime talent will supercede positional priority, but you'll also avoid situations where you flatly ignore needs.

Honestly, it's pretty straightforward...I find that rarely is a "pure" version of one system the best. By combining the positive facets of BOTH approaches, you can weigh need against pure talent, both of which should be factors.

I have no problem with this approach as far as it goes; the only problem is pretending you can easily quantify "superbly talented". Clearly, you can't, and we both know that. Every 'skins fan is unfortunately aware how easily 1 and 2 round picks can go bust. Sure, you can have some indication based on college production, but still, that only goes so far. But it's somewhat easier to quantify need - even casual fans can figure out what key parts need to be upgraded. So my view of the draft is, first a team should outline needs, which for most teams are at multiple positions, since in the age of the salary cap and parity, no team has elite talent across the board. Then, when it's time to select, a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches). Lower rounds can be used for depth, but rounds 1 and 2 should yield starters.

[Mursilis]

A surplus at one position isn't a problem. If the BPA is a QB every year, I'd happily take him and trade the vet QB for high draft picks in a future draft. That would be ideal for a team good at picking QBs.

Assuming you can find a taker, of course, and that you can get good value. Those aren't always certain. What'd we get for 1st rounder Ramsey? Or for Taylor Jacobs? Or for Rod Gardner? Certainly no value in any of those deals, given what we paid for the player and what we ended up getting.

[TheLongshot]

Assuming you can find a taker, of course, and that you can get good value. Those aren't always certain. What'd we get for 1st rounder Ramsey? Or for Taylor Jacobs? Or for Rod Gardner? Certainly no value in any of those deals, given what we paid for the player and what we ended up getting.

That is, of course, after all the value got squeezed out of them. There were times when teams would fork over a lot for Ramsey.

Personally, tho, I think it is easier to trade the rookie (or use the threat of drafting a rookie to garner a trade.)

[Oldfan]

Mursilis: This is the scenario you first offered:

Likewise, most teams only have one QB on the field at a time, so constantly spending high draft picks on QBs isn't helping your team, even if a QB is the best player available every time your draft slot comes up.

To counter your point, I showed you that a surplus at the QB position would be no problem for a team good at picking QBs. Then you countered with:

Assuming you can find a taker, of course, and that you can get good value. Those aren't always certain. What'd we get for 1st rounder Ramsey? Or for Taylor Jacobs? Or for Rod Gardner? Certainly no value in any of those deals, given what we paid for the player and what we ended up getting.

If you want to assume the team can't draft well, there is no draft strategy worth discussing. So, let's assume the team can draft well and discuss the relative merits of BPA v. Need.

[e16bball]

Then it's not BPA, is it? And some people in this thread are actually arguing a "pure" BPA approach (call this the Millen Method, and look what a disaster it's been). My post was addressing them.

Understood. I find that most reasonable people don't suggest such an approach, so I gloss over such posts...

I have no problem with this approach as far as it goes; the only problem is pretending you can easily quantify "superbly talented". Clearly, you can't, and we both know that. Every 'skins fan is unfortunately aware how easily 1 and 2 round picks can go bust. Sure, you can have some indication based on college production, but still, that only goes so far. But it's somewhat easier to quantify need - even casual fans can figure out what key parts need to be upgraded. So my view of the draft is, first a team should outline needs, which for most teams are at multiple positions, since in the age of the salary cap and parity, no team has elite talent across the board. Then, when it's time to select, a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches). Lower rounds can be used for depth, but rounds 1 and 2 should yield starters.

I think you're definitely right here, and the trick is certainly in how you go about quantifying the various factors.

Positional Importance: I think this should generally be determined ahead of time, regardless of the state of the team. If a QB is of high importance in our offense, it should be rated an 85. If a LG is not viewed to be of great importance, perhaps they rate it a 40. This would seem to be a decision made by the coaching staff, in looking solely at their scheme.

Positional Need: Also determined by the coaching staff, in my opinion. How big a hole is this position for our team? Do we really need a starter for now and the foreseeable future? Maybe you give that position a 90. Are we looking for a guy who will initially be a reserve with potential to develop into a starter? Maybe that's a 45. Are we set, with quality starters and youthful, talented backups? Maybe it's a 10.

Player Talent: Should be determined by the college scouting staff, in my opinion. This is what they're paid for, after all. Players are routinely graded on a 1-100 scale, and that should be the basis in this simplified version of the system. There should be no consideration for team need or position here; simply as accurate a representation of the player's talent level. For example, Andre Smith may be a 98, Eben Britton may be an 88, and Ryan Stanchek may be a 65.

Player Fit: This should be the only substantial collaboration between the two staffs in my opinion. They sit down and fudge the talent rating by a few points in one direction or another based on how well the player's skill set translates to our scheme and need. For example, a WR who runs precise routes might receive a small boost for our WCO, while an OT with great feet who struggles in the run game might get a negative for us, given that we need a RT.

That's it.

Now, all you need to do is to weight those three factors. If you give each equal value, you end up with one grade. If you give it something like...

Player rating 50%

Need 30%

Position value 20%

...you'll get a different grade.

Most definitely. And I don't think each should be weighted equally. When I get home, I can check on the thesis paper I wrote in college to see how I decided to quantify it.

Not that this would be any meaningful or authoritative information for the thread, but it WOULD be one guy's suggestion.

[Oldfan]

...some people in this thread are actually arguing a "pure" BPA approach......a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches).

This question is a matter of emphasis. Saying that "a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches)" is just playing with words.

You favor an emphasis on need; I favor an emphasis on picking the BPA and so do the Redskins.

[Mursilis]

This question is a matter of emphasis. Saying that "a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches)" is just playing with words.

We agree on that.

You favor an emphasis on need; I favor an emphasis on picking the BPA and so do the Redskins.

It doesn't help your case to cite the Redskins as endorsing your approach. They're my team and I love 'em, but they're not known for being consistent draft geniuses. :doh:

[Oldfan]

Most definitely. And I don't think each should be weighted equally. When I get home, I can check on the thesis paper I wrote in college to see how I decided to quantify it.

Not that this would be any meaningful or authoritative information for the thread, but it WOULD be one guy's suggestion.

I'd like to see what you have.

I came up with a value of each position based on the median salaries in the NFL some time ago (I'll see if I can find it). I used a scale of nine to rank them. I recall the left OT was ranked at eight, right below the QB. So, if we could find a stud OT in this draft, considering the need, we would add huge value to the team.

Your comments reminded me, though, that scheme and need are related factors and this will vary team to team.

[WARPATH '82]

This question is a matter of emphasis. Saying that "a team should pick the BPA who fills one of those needs (a version of both approaches)" is just playing with words.

You favor an emphasis on need; I favor an emphasis on picking the BPA and so do the Redskins.

Oldfan,

I ask you respectfully....Where has that train of thinking got us?? Other teams (Good teams mind you) will have a stockpile of draft choices this year and we have four! If this was a real business (in the sense of not being a game) people would have gotten fired long ago because of this way of thinking.

[Oldfan]

It doesn't help your case to cite the Redskins as endorsing your approach. They're my team and I love 'em, but they're not known for being consistent draft geniuses. :doh:

I was simply stating a fact: the Skins are emphasizing BPA.

Fact is, that in 2004-2006, They were routinely trading up to fill positions of need -- compound errors in my book.

[SkinsAllDay34]

If we make a splash and sign like Haynesworth to help the D line and signing Gross or another T to replace Jansen, i dont know what we should do.

Cutting Taylor, M. Wash., Griff, Springs, Daniels saves us 20+ million. I think we should severely try to reduce Taylor's salary. Someone said like vet minimum plus incentives. He might be willing knowing he said he wasnt worth the money he is making and it is probably his last year and wants to win. Him freeing up 8 million in cap space alone would help.

If we do that, we can get a deal with Hall done, sign Haynesworth, sign Gross (I know he is a LT but he can make the switch). Carey for Miami is only a year younger so i will take Gross.

I also think ARE could be traded (600K cap hit) for a mid round pick (4th or 5th). Some team will be looking for a gadget guy/slot guy

At other positions at 13, there are certain players at positions that we dont need that i would not mind taking or could not pass up. Example: if crabtree ever fell to our pick i would take him in an instant. But if we did my FA plan, a trade down might be better, picking up Duke and an LB later.

[Skins21!]

If we got Rey Maualuga I would still be estatic, but thats probably it. We must address Oline or Dline at 13. I have a good feeling we will be able to trade out of 13 and get a pick in the 20's plus a 2nd rounder. This is definately best case sernario.

I think Rey would be a great fit into our strongside linebacker slot until London retires, then he could move over to middle. At the end of the day though we have a lot of great talent to pick from. I think these are the most realistic players at 13.

Michael Oher

Eugene Monroe

Jason Smith (one of the 3 tackles will fall to 13)

B.J Raji

Everette Brown(My Fav)

If we trade back:

Duke Robinson

B.J Raji

Peria Jerry(I like Raji a lot more)

Greg Hardy

Ciron Black

I agree that best case scenerio is that we trade back. If we had to pick at 13, don't forget about Rey Maualuga, Aaron Curry, and Michael Johnson.

Trade back and add Brian Cushing, Alex Mack, ? Unger, and Eben Britton to the list.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan' date='

I ask you respectfully....Where has that train of thinking got us?? Other teams (Good teams mind you) will have a stockpile of draft choices this year and we have four! If this was a real business (in the sense of not being a game) people would have gotten fired long ago because of this way of thinking.[/quote']

We are still paying for past mistakes. There were mistakes made in building the roster before Joe Gibbs came back and he made the situation worse by trading too many draft picks away and filling our roster with overpaid players of average ability.

After the 2006 season (5-11), the front office has been doing fairly well, in my opinion. They are trying to get younger and stronger.

The trade for Jason Taylor bothered me, and the rumored trade for Chad Johnson was worrisome, but otherwise, I'm okay with the direction.