Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[Oldfan]

This thread is not about the drafting history of the Redskins. This is about draft strategy in general.

This is an argument, supported by a quick draft study, which opposes the idea that it is a good strategy to build the trenches first. I propose that it can't be done even if it was a good idea because the draft talent from year to year varies in quality overall and by position.

This argument also supports the strategy of drafting the best player available. A team should not reach for a player they have graded at the B level to fill a need if it means passing up a grade A rated player to do it.

We learn from experience by looking at the past with hindsight. With the benefit of hindsight, I have examined the first round selections from 1983 to 2002. I am assuming that later rounds over that time span would produce lesser player quality but the percentages at each position would remain about the same.

In most years over that span, a perennial all-pro player or two was available in picks #13 to #32.

If we were picking #13 every year in the 20 year period from 1983 to 2002, we might have taken an all-pro lineman 50% of the time. That's 10 linemen in 20 years.

If the 2009 draft turns out like the 1983 draft, we will have to pass on three HOFers like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Darrel Green to draft a decent lineman at #13.

Luck has a good deal to do with it. If 2009 compares to 1989, which began a 10-year stretch of lean draft years for linemen, building in the trenches first would be a disaster. If the next ten years are like those ten, we will garner four good linemen but pass up some perennial all-pro players who could have been had at #13, players like Steve A****er, Emmitt Smith, Dale Carter, Derrick Brooks, Ty Law, Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrision, Tony Gonzales and Randy Moss.

Let's suppose that the 2009 draft shapes up like the 1997 draft. You can pick a lineman like Trevor Pryce or Reynaldo Wynn at #13 but you'd have to pass on a TE like Tony Gonzales. Sure we already have Fred Davis and Chris Cooley, but how can we pass on another Gonzales? In hindsight, we can't.

Should the decision change because foresight never equals hindsight? It should not for an NFL team.

You see, the only reason that fans can argue that teams should draft the trenches first or draft to fill needs is that they can't trust their player evaluations; and my position is that an NFL team has no choice but to trust their evaluations. It would be slightly stupid for them to draft on need a player they have given a B grade to and pass on a grade A guy.

[chrisxcore]

Excellent points Oldfan. While the idea of starting with the trenches and working your way out is certainly a good one, consider me fully in the BPA corner. With the amount of money being thrown at top 15 picks, or all 1st rounders for that matter, it's hard for me to pass on a playmaker when it's our turn on the clock in order to solidify the lines. Look around the NFL. How many Pro-Bowl caliber offensive/defensive lineman were drafted in round #1? Look no further that the Giants offensive line. Good and even great players are found later in the draft regularly. When drafting early in round 1, you almost have to get the best bang for your buck, so to speak.

[rellascout]

This thread is not about the drafting history of the Redskins. This is about draft strategy in general.

This is an argument, supported by a quick draft study, which opposes the idea that it is a good strategy to build the trenches first. I propose that it can't be done even if it was a good idea because the draft talent from year to year varies in quality overall and by position.

This argument also supports the strategy of drafting the best player available. A team should not reach for a player they have graded at the B level to fill a need if it means passing up a grade A rated player to do it.

We learn from experience by looking at the past with hindsight. With the benefit of hindsight, I have examined the first round selections from 1983 to 2002. I am assuming that later rounds over that time span would produce lesser player quality but the percentages at each position would remain about the same.

In most years over that span, a perennial all-pro player or two was available in picks #13 to #32.

If we were picking #13 every year in the 20 year period from 1983 to 2002, we might have taken an all-pro lineman 50% of the time. That's 10 linemen in 20 years.

If the 2009 draft turns out like the 1983 draft, we will have to pass on three HOFers like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Darrel Green to draft a decent lineman at #13.

Luck has a good deal to do with it. If 2009 compares to 1989, which began a 10-year stretch of lean draft years for linemen, building in the trenches first would be a disaster. If the next ten years are like those ten, we will garner four good linemen but pass up some perennial all-pro players who could have been had at #13, players like Steve A****er, Emmitt Smith, Dale Carter, Derrick Brooks, Ty Law, Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrision, Tony Gonzales and Randy Moss.

Let's suppose that the 2009 draft shapes up like the 1997 draft. You can pick a lineman like Trevor Pryce or Reynaldo Wynn at #13 but you'd have to pass on a TE like Tony Gonzales. Sure we already have Fred Davis and Chris Cooley, but how can we pass on another Gonzales? In hindsight, we can't.

Should the decision change because foresight never equals hindsight? It should not for an NFL team.

You see, the only reason that fans can argue that teams should draft the trenches first or draft to fill needs is that they can't trust their player evaluations; and my position is that an NFL team has no choice but to trust their evaluations. It would be slightly stupid for them to draft on need a player they have given a B grade to and pass on a grade A guy.

Please go away your post makes way to much sense....... :applause:

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think a lot of the original post is a LOT of hindsight though.

Sure we passed on _____________, but who knew how they were going to turn out?

Do you think as many people would have passed on Horton, Colston, etc?

[PROSCOUT]

This thread is not about the drafting history of the Redskins. This is about draft strategy in general.

This argument also supports the strategy of drafting the best player available. A team should not reach for a player they have graded at the B level to fill a need if it means passing up a grade A rated player to do it.

Let's suppose that the 2009 draft shapes up like the 1997 draft. You can pick a lineman like Trevor Pryce or Reynaldo Wynn at #13 but you'd have to pass on a TE like Tony Gonzales. Sure we already have Fred Davis and Chris Cooley, but how can we pass on another Gonzales? In hindsight, we can't.

It would be slightly stupid for them to draft on need a player they have given a B grade to and pass on a grade A guy.

So according to you, if when we get to #13, a Tony Gonzalez all pro tight end is available and the best player on the board, we should go ahead and draft yet another tight end. Thats what you are saying.

Thats stupid, and thats pretty much what we did last year. You can see how well THAT worked out.

Throwing in an example like Renaldo Wynn is ludicrous. Why not throw in an example like Michael Strahan who was drafted in the 2nd round.

Why not take Michael Strahan in the 1st round over a Renaldo Wynn. You obviously think that taking Renaldo Wynn with a first round pick would be smarter simply because he is rated higher.

Oh..whats that you say...hindsight is 20/20? The draft is a crapshoot regardless of how you rate players, because those ratings are just numbers on a piece of paper. Your team is about POSITIONS and PLAYERS...and filling those positions with players.

The Skins are defensive line and offensive line deficient and they would have served themselves better by taking the Fred Davis pick and drafting an offensive guard or defensive end or defensive tackle.

Ratings you say? Fred Davis was rated higher than any lineman? Actually he was rated higher than Horton as well, but look who had a more productive season. So in the end, you draft for POSITION and not for chart ratings. Your judgement is flawed, but don't feel bad, because you're at least not alone. Vinnie is in there with you.

[Ernie5]

Great job. That's the whole point: you draft players, not positions. For instance, if our three second rounders from 2008 live up to their promise, our offense will be lethal and multi-faceted. A team drafts those guys b/c it believes that those are the players -- at the draft position picked -- who have the best potential to live up their promise, regardless of position on the field.

What's the use of drafting Defensive End A if the team feels he's less likely to succeed than Wide Receiver B? That seems like a risk not worth taking to me.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Great job. That's the whole point: you draft players, not positions. For instance, if our three second rounders from 2008 live up to their promise, our offense will be lethal and multi-faceted. A team drafts those guys b/c it believes that those are the players -- at the draft position picked -- who have the best potential to live up their promise, regardless of position on the field.

What's the use of drafting Defensive End A if the team feels he's less likely to succeed than Wide Receiver B? That seems like a risk not worth taking to me.

So Crabtree and Eugene Monroe both fall to us, who do you take?

[Skins PR]

I don't think we need to draft linemen in the early rounds every year but it would be nice to do it occasionally at least. We better do it this year for sure.

WE HAVE NO LINEMEN

[icbmayday]

Draft o line in the first round please mr. Snyder

[Ernie5]

So according to you, if when we get to #13, a Tony Gonzalez all pro tight end is available and the best player on the board, we should go ahead and draft yet another tight end. Thats what you are saying.

Absolutely you should. You can get a transcendent talent or a player just to fill a position? Take the talent! It's not even a tough call. This is how New England has built from the draft, often taking players at positions it didn't NEED. Then 1 or 2 years later, surprise: the need arises and you have a stud. That's how teams look ahead. Drafting for position is not looking ahead.

You take Wynn over Strahan b/c you think he's the better player coming out of college. What else can you go by? It never means you're always going to be right, but if you go BPA, you're simply saying, "we'll add as much young talent to the team as we can right now." It's no less a crapshoot to pick by position, so go with the talent. ALWAYS.

You're not alone Oldfan, New England and Pittsburgh agree with you.

[ttr77]

Oldfan...I am beginning to think you just start these types of threads to see what kind of rise you get.

If not, I'm sure you'd agree that a team with a GLARING need, such as this one, might need to do what it takes to fix it, even if it means stretching a bit to grab it.

[Ernie5]

So Crabtree and Eugene Monroe both fall to us, who do you take?

This is a great question b/c it highlights the central dilemma. In this case, I take Monroe b/c of Crabtree's injury concerns and the fact that he's 2-3 inches shorter than the Texas Tech media guide says.

If you have Crabtree as the more likely success story than Monroe, you take Crabtree. Period. If you have two players graded out essentially equally, you can then focus on position, but, by then, you've already completed your BPA analysis.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Valid points as always OF, but I'd beg to differ that building the trenches through the draft "can't be done."

If, for arguments sake, your already stacked at the skill positions, and comfortable with what you have; yet your glaring areas of need to complete your roster in to a serious challenger are on the lines, you'd be foolish to not attend to what your needs are.

Applying that to us, for example; unless Seattle passed on Crabtree, whom we'd be foolish to turn down, given his talent, as you stated, there's no great skill player out there who overrides our glaring need on the lines and at LB.

That's what we badly need, and that's what we should focus on.

How you approach a draft is all relative to the state of your roster at the time. And while I agree with you that certain players are just too good to turn down, even if they wern't your intended target, I disagree that, in the main, drafting for need is a bad policy. (With the exceptions being a serious dirth of talent in your particular area of need the year your drafting there of course.).

Hail.

[kuraitengai]

so using your tony gonzales example when we already have cooley and davis. so we draft a tony gonzales with our pick and ignore the lines. do you really think he will end up as a HOF with us? he wont. he would be highly unlikely to supplant cooley as the starter and how much playing time would he get having to share with davis? so while some other team may draft gonzales and he could become a HOFer with them. he wouldnt with us. youre making the assumption that all those HOFers we 'passed' on in the past would have also been a HOFer with us. who is to say that if we drafted marino or kelly that they would have been any good with us? its not just about the player its about their supporting cast.

so i agree that if all we have left at pick 13 is a player we have graded as a B, dont pick him. but dont take the BPA if its not a need. trade down if possible to a pick where that grade B player wont be a reach in addition to picking up an extra pick or two. ONLY if we cant find a trade down partner should we take the BPA if its not a position of need.

[Ernie5]

Oldfan...I am beginning to think you just start these types of threads to see what kind of rise you get.

If not, I'm sure you'd agree that a team with a GLARING need, such as this one, might need to do what it takes to fix it, even if it means stretching a bit to grab it.

Depends how much you have to reach. Remember: it's not BPA or position, it's BPA THEN position. If there's a large disparity between the player you don't need and the one you do, you choose the guy you don't need. OR you trade down, which is always going to be my first choice (and was apparently Cerrato's last season).

[D'Pablo]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, we should not draft for lineman because there is a risk involved. As far as I'm concerned, a team can draft for need. However, when drafting for need, a team needs to not be overly concerned with projected rounds and supposed 'value'. 'Value' is getting a guy that will produce. Go and get your guy if you are 100% sure that player will succeed in your system. It's exactly what the Giants have been doing (see Kevin Boss, Steve Smith, Justin Tuck), what the Colts did (see Anthony Gonzalez), and the Patriots have done (see Logan Mankins, Steve Gostkowski).

[REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE]

Excellent points Oldfan. While the idea of starting with the trenches and working your way out is certainly a good one, consider me fully in the BPA corner. With the amount of money being thrown at top 15 picks, or all 1st rounders for that matter, it's hard for me to pass on a playmaker when it's our turn on the clock in order to solidify the lines. Look around the NFL. How many Pro-Bowl caliber offensive/defensive lineman were drafted in round #1? Look no further that the Giants offensive line. Good and even great players are found later in the draft regularly. When drafting early in round 1, you almost have to get the best bang for your buck, so to speak.

I totally agree.....

[Pounds]

Great post, Oldfan!

It is my reasoning that the first two rounds are skill position rounds and that's where teams, typically, find greatest value.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying as much, but, for the most part, I agree with Vinny's draft philosophy: draft talented skill players at higher picks and interchangeable linemen at lower picks.

Skill positions enable scheme whereas linemen fill said scheme out, so to speak, but obviously to varying degrees of worth.

[Skinz4Life12]

i still think we need to draft a beast o-lineman with our 1st round pick.

[rellascout]

I think a lot of the original post is a LOT of hindsight though.

Sure we passed on _____________, but who knew how they were going to turn out?

Do you think as many people would have passed on Horton, Colston, etc?

With Colston you have an arguement.

Horton is good because he knows our scheme. He was taught it in college. Any other team who drafted him would have seen less production. We were gifted that pick by his DB coach at UCLA who is a former Skins assistant...

In every draft you have to choose but too many teams stretch when they are drafting for need or position. To me the best player on the board approach is always best.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

BPA makes sense and all but when you end up with a Fred Davis when you already have Cooley on the roster, an argument can be made for 'reaching' just a little.

Championship teams ARE built from the trenches out, now that may not necessarily mean you have to draft linemen, but you do need a solid line on both sides or you won't go far.

[Skinsinparadise]

People are likely going to go to the extreme and infer that this means the lines aren't important but I don't think anyone would argue that.

Lets look apples to apples. I was on the board every day before the draft two seasons ago. I remember the names Jamal Anderson -- he's the guy to bring us a pass rush! Carriker, Jarvis Moss, etc. Oops like idiots, we drafted a safety instead. Darn we should have drafted Anderson, so far a bust. Carriker OK. Okoye has been OK, Moss a bust.

Who would take Anderson over Landry now? That's my issue with the lines or else crowds. Yeah I do believe the trenches matter and matter big. But the draft is more complicated than its your turn at your pick and you have equal players at every position and you just decide OK time for an O lineman here.

Last season, when they traded down, the big surprise was Duane Brown being picked in the first. He was projected by most a 2nd or 3rd rounder, and I recall reading the Skins having their eye on him. Merling was picked right before them. It just didn't flow. I don't get why people don't believe context matters.

When the Skins picked in the 2nd round, what O or D lineman should they have picked? To me that's the operative question, not that they should have picked one -- its who is the guy they should have picked. In the 2nd round NO TEAM, picked an Offensive tackle for example.

IMO Charley Casserly had it right after the draft, when asked about it, he said Vinny wanted to upgrade the lines but it didn't unfold that way, and you have to play the draft the way it unfolds. I am far from in love with Vinny but when he says you don't take a 3rd round ranked D lineman in the first round, just to make a point that you care about that position -- I agree with that

[Destino]

How many great OT's are found in the later rounds regularly? People forget that "lineman" don't all rank the same way. You can find guards, centers, and run stuffing defensive lineman in later rounds all the time. Elite pass rushers, monster defensive tackles, and starting offensive tackles however are more often found in round one.

[Skinsinparadise]

How many great OT's are found in the later rounds regularly? People forget that "lineman" don't all rank the same way. You can find guards, centers, and run stuffing defensive lineman in later rounds all the time. Elite pass rushers, monster defensive tackles, and starting offensive tackles however are more often found in round one.

Osi, Strahan, Tuck, Cole weren't first rounders. Heck neither was Jason Taylor or arguably the best in the game right now, Jared Allen. A lot of D lineman busts in the first round. I agree with your point though about offensive tackles

[rellascout]

How many great OT's are found in the later rounds regularly? People forget that "lineman" don't all rank the same way. You can find guards, centers, and run stuffing defensive lineman in later rounds all the time. Elite pass rushers, monster defensive tackles, and starting offensive tackles however are more often found in round one.

This is true but unless you are looking at an elite player which we are not at pick #13 I personally think drafting Oline or Dline will be a stretch....

If we were at #1 or #2 its a totally different story. When you are in that spot you draft like the Dolphins did last year... You take the LOT and forget about it for the next 5 years.

Too often mid and late round OL and DL end up like this.... Andre T. Johnson, offensive lineman from Penn State University, 1996 draft, first round 30th pick, cut in camp, never played a down with Washington.