Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[Going Commando]

The change I am begging for is that we draft offensive lineman as our first pick in the draft this year. It hasn't been done since 2000 and that needs to change

What if Oher, Monroe, Smith, and Smith are all gone and we can't trade down? Or we do trade down and Mack, Britton, and Beatty are also gone.

It wouldn't make sense at all to go OL then. We can't be so rigid.

[Pwyl]

That's a false statement because who in this world knows how guys are going to play in the NFL in the draft? You tell me how we will be sure to not pick duds and pick all studs when we pick every time and I'll tell you that you are correct. But you can't, no one knows until well after the fact how a players going to play in the league. The idea that you "reach" for a player is wrong and some mel kipper mock crap. Show me one mock draft that has all of the best players in that class ranked correctly a year after the draft and I'll put one ounce of importance in it. Until then its all bs

Since the draft is completely unknown the best strategy that works is to draft for your team needs. If you draft for your teams game plan you will find more players like Chris Horton who played in a similar system in college and who exceled in it. You would actually "reach" less going for areas of team need because if you know you need help at a position then you are giving yourself help at that position. If your bleeding from a cut on your arm, you don't put the band aid on your leg to fix it, that doesn't work.

It's ridiculous to say that the draft is a complete unknown, and then talk about grading players to fill a need. Either it's possible to grade players with some semblance of accuracy or it's not. If it's not, you might as well use the dart-board method of drafting. If it is possible, then it would be stupid to draft someone who you have graded as being worth a 3rd round pick in the first round, passing up a player at a non "omg we need one of these" position who you have rated for the first round.

And saying you can't "reach" on drafting a player is similarly ridiculous. To use our current situation, since we need OT help, and someone like Heyer is available this year who this team and most/all other teams rates as an UDFA, would it not be a reach to draft him, especially in the first round?

Why worry about the team in 3 years if you've got the oldest offensive line in the league today? Why look at drafting players who won't help your current areas of need unless there is a reason to today? Is the draft going away? Each year you address the team needs and adjust them each year and you are good to go

Are you seriously asking why we should worry about the team in 3 years?? That kind of thinking is why this team has been mired in mediocrity for years. And even if you do draft only to fill needs for the upcoming season, the bulk of your picks won't see much of the field in the first year anyway.

What we need is a shift in philosophy to one where we're looking out for not just squeezing one more win into the next year to get to 9-7, but trying to build a high level of talent that is maintainable for years to come with solid drafting and decision making.

[Oldfan]

addicted: Your also saying that if we picked for need instead of BPA that we wouldn't be 50-50 but I see no reason to think that. The draft is a complete crap shoot. For every Probowler in a draft there are 50 that aren't. If taking the BPA gives you 50-50 results then I believe taking for need gives you the same. And if that gives you the same results then with the drafting for need strategy you are doing what you can to address the needs of the team which is not a bad thing.

When most people say that the "draft is a complete crap shoot," I always take it as an exaggeration because it obviously isn't. There is skill involved. It's not a skill that allows a high hit rate, but there's plently of skill nevertheless.

If you don't understand why an organization with a 50% hit rate would have a lower hit rate if they began selecting lower-graded players due to need, then there isn't any way that I could explain it to you.

[Going Commando]

Are you seriously asking why we should worry about the team in 3 years?? That kind of thinking is why this team has been mired in mediocrity for years. And even if you do draft only to fill needs for the upcoming season, the bulk of your picks won't see much of the field in the first year anyway.

What we need is a shift in philosophy to one where we're looking out for not just squeezing one more win into the next year to get to 9-7, but trying to build a high level of talent that is maintainable for years to come with solid drafting and decision making.

Sir you make far too much sense to be posting around here. I agree with you that we need to draft with long term strategy in mind. The problem is, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, and Devin Thomas could turn out to be Pro-bowlers in 3 or 4 more seasons. But if Cerrato turns in another two drafts or so like the last one, where there is virtually no immediate production, he could and probably would get fired, never enjoying the benefits of being right about his picks. The pressure to win immediately is intense. People look at what Eddie Royal and and DeSean Jackson have done in their rookie seasons and they think that it is the norm rather than the rare instance of an exceptionally talented and prepared rookie landing the perfect setting.

[Oldfan]

How can one simultaneously answer a question then duck it?

You can't. You didn't answer the question asked. You answered one that wasn't asked.

[addicted]

What if Oher, Monroe, Smith, and Smith are all gone and we can't trade down? Or we do trade down and Mack, Britton, and Beatty are also gone.

It wouldn't make sense at all to go OL then. We can't be so rigid.

Do you hold a crystal ball or something? Can you tell the future? No you can't, no one can. Why do people think they can do this? Seriously with comments like this you'd think we should be named Ms. Cleo or something :doh:

[Skinsinparadise]

okoye has been good, he gets good push up the middle, which has in turn helped mario williams be a monster. notice how williams was invisible until okoye showed up, then he turned into a 14 and 12 sack guy two seasons in a row.

plus landry hasnt been a probowler. i think our scheme limits what hes truly capable of, but hes not doing anything that crazy for this team...that said, id still have rather had okoye. hes younger as well so he can play for that much longer. anderson, definitely not. looks more like a run stopper only.

If I recall weren't you one of the people before the draft talking up Jamal Anderson? If not, sorry, but if it wasn't you it was a Brandon Lloyd something else attached to the name that wasn't Christmas. Cool either way.

I'll go look for it, but I recall reading towards the end of the season an

article where a scout said that he liked him at first but thinks now Okoye is heading towards being an average player, nothing special. He had something about his hands and wingspan. But will see. He clearly at the moment isn't being talked about as an elite DT.

I recall the drum beat for all those DE's that year, Anderson, Adams, Carriker, Jarvis Moss, etc. Adams has been OK but is there a guy in that bunch who would take this D to the next level IMO, no. And I really doubt any of these teams would not TRADE those players for Landry.

I am all for getting a better pash rush and protecting the QB. But I just don't see how we can have a conversation without getting into specifics. You tend to get specific, and that's good. But most of the time this subject turns into a theoritical debate and personally I don't see how its a theoritical.

To me its real specific. IMO its not D line and O line versus this position or that. Is the draft really that simple?

To me its should we have taken Jamal Anderson or Okoye with our first two years ago or Laron Landry

Last season which OT or DE did we pass over in the 2nd round that we all love? I can't think of a stud D lineman or O lineman that we passed over.

Obviously, I'd take Ware over Rogers in 05.

But to me that's the real conversation, how can we talk draft with the idea that every player is interchangeable. OK its the 13th pick so that means there is an equal stud at every position -- so Vinny goes ok take the DE! Imagine how boring and for that matter easy the draft would be if it truly worked that way.

Or is it: We can choose Orkapo or bite the bullet and take the chance on Oher or go with Maualuga, etc. What if we trade down and Oher is gone, and we have Ray Maualuga staring at us? I guess Vinny should pass him over and take a 2nd round OT talent, like Loadhart to prove the point that he believes in the lines?

IMO, this is all about the draft in terms of questioning their approach to the lines. When it comes to FA and trades, they clearly do believe in the lines whether you like their acquistions or not: Thomas, Rabach, C. Girffin, A. Carter, Philip Daniels, J. Taylor, etc. It's arguably the prime position they focus on in FA.

Now they are talking about Haynsworth and keeping Taylor. So somehow that all adds up to Vinny needs to smell the coffee and start caring about the lines?

[ttr77]

You can't. You didn't answer the question asked. You answered one that wasn't asked.

You said:

Originally Posted by Oldfan

Let's assume that an NFL team has an overall hit rate of 50% in the draft when they select the highest graded player on their board. If they should then switch to drafting with an emphasis on need, thus taking lower graded players, their hit rate is guaranteed to go down.

Do you disagree?

I replied:

I do. The Skins desperately need linemen. A Grade B lineman might contribute to this particular team more than Grade A tight end.

Perhaps it is not I that is the confused one, as you so eloquently stated before.

[Shilsu]

To me its should we have taken Jamal Anderson or Okoye with our first two years ago or Laron Landry

I personally think a D-Line is more important than a secondary. At the same time, I realize that player ratings are not equal and that you need to evaluate how much of a contribution a player can give to the team.

So I'm okay with taking a safety over a defensive lineman... Especially since we had a hole at the safety position. Heck, I'm okay with the drafting of Devin Thomas... Maybe even the drafting of Malcolm Kelly. We did have a hole at the WR position.

What I'm not okay with is drafting Fred Davis... Did we have a glaring hole at the TE position (though some people will claim we did)? No. Did we have a hole at the H-Back position in 2005 when we took Manuel White? No. Did we have a hole at the RB position when we traded two draft picks for TJ Duckett in 2006 even after Clinton Portis went down? No.

[addicted]

It's ridiculous to say that the draft is a complete unknown, and then talk about grading players to fill a need. Either it's possible to grade players with some semblance of accuracy or it's not. If it's not, you might as well use the dart-board method of drafting.

Dart board? Please. You guys around here, you arm chair QB's think with all of the mocks that you know who the best players in the draft are all the time and I find that laughable. Seriously please tell me that you know the future so I can play the lottery and make money off you :doh:

Like OMG, so and so is still availible, we have to get him!!!!

Gimmie a freaking break

If it is possible, then it would be stupid to draft someone who you have graded as being worth a 3rd round pick in the first round, passing up a player at a non "omg we need one of these" position who you have rated for the first round.

The problem with doing that is these mocks do not take into consideration the type of ball that we play here. They simply say "this guys good...blah blah blah".

Not every player we know fits into every system. The Redskins best fitting players shouldn't look like other teams list of best players. We have our system and our needs. How in the hell would we know that a guy is slated to go in the 3rd round? That makes no sense.

We need to look at what's out there, what we need, and then based off that rank the players and then take the BPA at our position of need. We have the 13th pick in the draft and those other 12 teams aren't going to take all 13 players off our list.

And saying you can't "reach" on drafting a player is similarly ridiculous. To use our current situation, since we need OT help, and someone like Heyer is available this year who this team and most/all other teams rates as an UDFA, would it not be a reach to draft him, especially in the first round?

First of all Heyer hasn't shown me anything to make him starter worthy so your example makes no sense. If Heyer was starting caliber then we wouldn't have this need would we? :doh:

Why in the hell would you draft Heyer in the 1st round when there are other better guys you can have? Most of your post doesn't make sense

Are you seriously asking why we should worry about the team in 3 years?? That kind of thinking is why this team has been mired in mediocrity for years. And even if you do draft only to fill needs for the upcoming season, the bulk of your picks won't see much of the field in the first year anyway.

Most teams actually draft people that they plan to use, not simply stick them on the bench and pay them millions. And you missed the point completely yet again. What I said was if we constantly draft for what we need the most and improve the team that way we will get to a point when we can look out 3 years and draft for then. Right now in a rebuilding mode we should look at who will help us now, not who will help us in three years

What we need is a shift in philosophy to one where we're looking out for not just squeezing one more win into the next year to get to 9-7, but trying to build a high level of talent that is maintainable for years to come with solid drafting and decision making.

If we don't fix the offensive line this year we will be 4-12 next year, there isn't a 9-7 year in our current line.

[TheLongshot]

Do you hold a crystal ball or something? Can you tell the future? No you can't, no one can. Why do people think they can do this? Seriously with comments like this you'd think we should be named Ms. Cleo or something :doh:

It isn't about predicting the future. It is the very realistic idea that the top 4 tackles could be off the board when we pick. Then what? Do we reach for Ebon Britton, who is probably going to be the next lineman off the board? Do we do that over BJ Raji, Rey Maualuga or Brian Orakpo, if any of those players are there? I don't think so, because those players are probably better overall than Britton.

If anything, LB is probably the biggest need of all right now because we don't really have a guy who can play the Mike position now.

[Oldfan]

Originally Posted by ttr77

The Skins desperately need linemen. A Grade B lineman might contribute to this particular team more than Grade A tight end.

I'm saving this quote. One of these days, you will complain about Dan's win-now approach that produces mediocrity and I'll hammer you with it.

Obviously the grade A player has more value for the organization. Drafting the BPA is a long-term, dynasty building method. Personally, I don't think that, done right, it would not take long to break from the mediocre pack.

[Shilsu]

If anything, LB is probably the biggest need of all right now because we don't really have a guy who can play the Mike position now.

WHAT!? We still have London Fletcher on the roster...

I mean, we can't expect London Fletcher to be an ironman forever, but we have plenty of bigger needs on the team, at least for now before free agency.

[Oldfan]

addicted: Dart board? Please. You guys around here, you arm chair QB's think with all of the mocks that you know who the best players in the draft are all the time and I find that laughable. Seriously please tell me that you know the future so I can play the lottery and make money off you

I know almost squat about the players available. I pay no attention to the mocks. I'm critical about the front office on some things, but I have to trust their judgment about the upcoming draft.

[addicted]

When most people say that the "draft is a complete crap shoot," I always take it as an exaggeration because it obviously isn't. There is skill involved. It's not a skill that allows a high hit rate, but there's plently of skill nevertheless.

The draft is a complete crap shoot for several reasons. Yes you are right, there are skills involved.

However not every player can adapt to different schemes and systems. What does it really matter how high a guy can jump and how much weight he can push up if he's not used to a similar system we use? Look at last years steal Chris Horton.

Here's a guy who we drafted late but was by far our most impactful rookie of the class. Why was that? Horton knew the system we used. Now look at the three guys we drafted in round 2. None of them make an impact for us. Why? Well they weren't used to the NFL and what system we ran here.

When you take a guy who's shown expirence doing well in similiar systems in college and plug him in you have immediate success. When you take a guy who's new to a system and throw him in anywhere because he has the natural ability to jump high and run fast you introduce a learning curve that takes time to adjust to. The second is like pushing a square into a round hole. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Finally if you don't think its a crap shoot then tell me why year after year we see one list of the best players and then after one season and its redone we see something totally different?

If you don't understand why an organization with a 50% hit rate would have a lower hit rate if they began selecting lower-graded players due to need, then there isn't any way that I could explain it to you.

Lower grade players? You don't get it OldFan. Let me try one more time. You rank the top 20 players based on your grade and post them for us. Then in 12 months we will see how you did. If 5 of the guys are still on the list that you listed then you got 25% right. If you have 10 outta 20, you get 50%. I'd bet $ you wouldn't get anywhere near 50%. Stop thinking that grades have any truth to them, they are bs

[ttr77]

I'm saving this quote. One of these days, you will complain about Dan's win-now approach that produces mediocrity and I'll hammer you with it.

I'd expect nothing less from you.

Perhaps I'll save the 'Signs point to optimism', 'NFL Coaches improve in Year 2', 'Ball Control offense is better', 'Draft picks are always better with experience' quotes from you, amongst others.

Nah...on second thought, its not worth my time. I grew out of playing the 'I told you so' game back in high school.

[addicted]

It isn't about predicting the future. It is the very realistic idea that the top 4 tackles could be off the board when we pick. Then what? Do we reach for Ebon Britton, who is probably going to be the next lineman off the board? Do we do that over BJ Raji, Rey Maualuga or Brian Orakpo, if any of those players are there? I don't think so, because those players are probably better overall than Britton.

If anything, LB is probably the biggest need of all right now because we don't really have a guy who can play the Mike position now.

Longshot you are discussing players that are playing at our "need" position. Since we do need lineman and DL help your points valid and I have no arguement with taking those players. If we are drafting positions of need then we should do what you say.

My arguement with Oldfan is his belief that its a better idea to draft a guy regardless of the position he plays or the expected impact we could get from him that upcoming year simply because he is rated high. Your post is in line with my way of thinking. I'm just not convinced that the 4 tackels will be gone, and if they aren't I want one

[addicted]

I know almost squat about the players available. I pay no attention to the mocks. I'm critical about the front office on some things, but I have to trust their judgment about the upcoming draft.

Don't we all? Really what choice do we have other then quit watching. My names addicted for a reason brother, Im not going anywhere

[Skinsinparadise]

What I'm not okay with is drafting Fred Davis... Did we have a glaring hole at the TE position (though some people will claim we did)? No. Did we have a hole at the H-Back position in 2005 when we took Manuel White? No. Did we have a hole at the RB position when we traded two draft picks for TJ Duckett in 2006 even after Clinton Portis went down? No.

I am not cool with the team trading draft picks for veterans, most of those deals burned us. Don't take any of my point as a general defending of Vinny. I think he's a so so at best GM. I am just looking at this drill as a whole.

And if you look at it that way, they tend to like signing D and O line FA's, and they don't look at the draft as much for those positions. But then when you start exploring it more closely, IMO you have to look at the specific decisions when they were made.

I wasn't happy at the time with the Fred Davis signing. But I know we weren't passing on some obvious O line or D line stud. Calais Campbell, maybe. So far Calais hasn't amounted to much.

I recall reading at the time how they liked Duane Brown, but he was a surprise pick in the 1st. Casserly later said that Vinny wanted to go and draft the lines but the draft didn't flow that way to him. So he played it they way he should have and not force picks. And yeah personally I don't want him to force a pick just to make a point. Some say he did reach in the 3rd when he took Rinehart.

I just don't get the chorus about Vinny not caring about the lines like it carries to this day. How much more evidence do people want? Vinny flat out said that his biggest priorities are to upgrade the lines this off season. They are keeping Taylor, interested in Haynsworth. Now I read they might pursue Dockery. How does that all add up to Vinny being poised to ignore the lines?

[TheLongshot]

WHAT!? We still have London Fletcher on the roster...

I mean, we can't expect London Fletcher to be an ironman forever, but we have plenty of bigger needs on the team, at least for now before free agency.

Sorry, I ment to say Sam, not Mike...

[Shilsu]

Sorry, I ment to say Sam, not Mike...

Whew! I disagree it is our biggest need, but it is definitely a huge one. If say Aaron Curry fell that far I wouldn't be against taking him, unless there is a reason that he fell that far.

[TheLongshot]

Longshot you are discussing players that are playing at our "need" position. Since we do need lineman and DL help your points valid and I have no arguement with taking those players. If we are drafting positions of need then we should do what you say.

My arguement with Oldfan is his belief that its a better idea to draft a guy regardless of the position he plays or the expected impact we could get from him that upcoming year simply because he is rated high. Your post is in line with my way of thinking. I'm just not convinced that the 4 tackels will be gone, and if they aren't I want one

Not really, tho maybe you are closer to Oldfan than you think, because the draft board probably does take need into consideration. I don't think anyone drafts purely on BPA unless the guy on the board is considered just so much better than anyone else available.

Oldfan's point is that you shouldn't just get locked into drafting one position. If you don't think that the guys available at a position of need are worth taking where you are picking, you shouldn't force the issue. You should go to your other needs on your team and try to fill those and see if you can find a guy later in the draft.

Now, one place where I do disagree with Oldfan is about trading up. He doesn't believe that you should ever trade up to get a player of need, while I do believe that there are situations that warrant it if you think the player is that good.

[Shilsu]

I wasn't happy at the time with the Fred Davis signing. But I know we weren't passing on some obvious O line or D line stud. Calais Campbell, maybe. So far Calais hasn't amounted to much.

We may not have passed on any obvious stud, but we did pass on players that we could have reasonably expected to contribute a lot more. For example, Calais Campbell or Jason Jones or Mike Pollak. Heck, even DeSean Jackson as a punt returner... Though that is kind of a stretch.

[Oldfan]

addicted: Finally if you don't think its a crap shoot then tell me why year after year we see one list of the best players and then after one season and its redone we see something totally different?

Because there is a high degree of difficulty in the selection process and sometimes one season doesn't tell the whole story. But, the mere fact that teams draft with a success rate near 50% is evidence on its face that the draft isn't a crapshoot.

Lower grade players? You don't get it OldFan. Let me try one more time. You rank the top 20 players based on your grade and post them for us. Then in 12 months we will see how you did. If 5 of the guys are still on the list that you listed then you got 25% right. If you have 10 outta 20, you get 50%. I'd bet $ you wouldn't get anywhere near 50%. Stop thinking that grades have any truth to them, they are bs.

You're the one missing the point. Let's stick with the example I gave you previously: If you don't understand why an organization with a 50% hit rate would have a lower hit rate if they began selecting lower-graded players due to need, then there isn't any way that I could explain it to you.

Don't switch to me or my ability to pick players. We have an NFL team that drafts on the BPA plan with a hit rate of 50%. Now, you become their GM and you want to draft for need. In order to do that, you have to be willing to take players that have lower grades than others on your board.

Your hit rate has to drop. The only question is how much. There's no getting around it.

[Pwyl]

Dart board? Please. You guys around here, you arm chair QB's think with all of the mocks that you know who the best players in the draft are all the time and I find that laughable. Seriously please tell me that you know the future so I can play the lottery and make money off you :doh:

Mocks? who the hell is talking about mocks? You think that NFL scouting and talent evaluation has anything to do with mocks? You're the king of the strawman today. And Arm chair QB's?? Now you're saying that QBs are picking the draft? Maybe that's your problem. Here's one of these for you::doh:

I don't have any idea who the best player to pick is. But then I'm not being paid by an NFL team to evaluate talent either.

And way to dodge the point by the way.

The problem with doing that is these mocks do not take into consideration the type of ball that we play here. They simply say "this guys good...blah blah blah".

Here you go with the mocks again.

Not every player we know fits into every system. The Redskins best fitting players shouldn't look like other teams list of best players. We have our system and our needs. How in the hell would we know that a guy is slated to go in the 3rd round? That makes no sense.

What other teams have a guy rated at is important because that sets the market value for him. If you can draft a guy in the third round because the rest of the league has him rated there, then why would you use your first rounder on him just because he's your highest rated player at your highest rated position of need, and then have to pay him a first round contract.

Obviously it's impossible to KNOW when a player will be taken, but most teams have a pretty good sense of it based on their research.

First of all Heyer hasn't shown me anything to make him starter worthy so your example makes no sense. If Heyer was starting caliber then we wouldn't have this need would we? :doh:

Why in the hell would you draft Heyer in the 1st round when there are other better guys you can have? Most of your post doesn't make sense

The coaches of this team obviously disagreed with you at the start of the season.

Most teams actually draft people that they plan to use, not simply stick them on the bench and pay them millions.

Yep, that's why the Giants continued to draft defensive ends even when they had all-pros at those positions.

And you missed the point completely yet again. What I said was if we constantly draft for what we need the most and improve the team that way we will get to a point when we can look out 3 years and draft for then. Right now in a rebuilding mode we should look at who will help us now, not who will help us in three years

I'm missing the point?

Maybe you missed the part of the OP where he was talking about passing on superior talent (based on the team's grading scheme, which, shockingly enough should include "fit in system") to draft lesser talent because of a need at that position.

If we don't fix the offensive line this year we will be 4-12 next year, there isn't a 9-7 year in our current line.

How are you going to get someone who can start if it's impossible to tell pre-draft if they are starter material?