Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[JMUGator19]

yeaaaa...riiiight. the Skins aint broke. the record since 1992 certainly supports that conclusion.

btw.....the argument being advanced is too simplistic. THE EXECUTION OF ANY SCHEME REQUIRES SOME MINIMAL LEVEL OF TALENT TO SUCCEED. don't tell anyone...but other teams have good athletes. part of the Skins problems surfaced when the insider spitballing happened two years ago when players were anominously quotedas stating that the Skins' talent level really isn't broad enough to compete with the best teams through a full season and on into the playoffs.

Way to read what I wrote... I implied even if it ISNT broken, fix the damn thing. Thats how progress happens.

PS I am arguing to maximize the talent and change the scheme, not vice versa. Really, try reading sometime.

[Oldfan]

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.

I think trade ups should be rare and not too costly. If you outlined some exceptional scenarios, I'd probably agree.

[Ernie5]

I think trade ups should be rare and not too costly. If you outlined some exceptional scenarios, I'd probably agree.

Agreed 1000%. They rarely work out and are always extremely expensive. I'd never say never, but close. I want to trade down every year.

[KevinthePRF]

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.

The title of this thread should of been, drafting for need is stupid, and it is.

But building a team, trenches first is a must. You can have a ton of skill players, even HOF skill players, and they aren't going to win a championship without decent trench players.(see: New Orleans Saints) On the otherhand, a team can win with quality trench players even though they may not have skill players who put up gawdy statistics.(see: Tennessee Titans)

Now ideally, you want both. But leaning towards drafting/trading for/signing quality skill players is much more damaging to a team than leaning towards drafting/trading for/signing quality trench players.

[Pwyl]

Agreed 1000%. They rarely work out and are always extremely expensive. I'd never say never, but close. I want to trade down every year.

Here's an interesting thought for you:

I would trade forward every year if it meant more picks. Meaning I would always trade this year's first for a first and _____ (third or higher probably) next year.

[addicted]

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.

You musta missed Oldfan posting over and over again that he believed that BPA was the right way to go and used Tony Gonzalez as an example of a guy he'd draft in round one regardless of the fact TE is not a need for the team.

Sometimes all of these posts run together but that's what he was saying he would do. My disagreement is that we need to draft for our team needs rather then care who's rated higher

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.

But that doesn't fall at all into what he has been saying. I would like you to read this thread and see his posts about drafting BPA. Specifically look at his Tony Gonzo examples, they doesn't jive with what your saying here.

As far as what you are saying I agree, we should draft needs. I think our biggest need this year is offensive line so I would go there peroid. Your saying that you'd draft needy positions but open that up more to potentially draft a different need then lineman but you want to draft needs and thats where we agree

[KDawg]

Of course not but its all I could find on offensive linemen. If you want to dig deeper to prove me wrong then go for it. Its not out there though so you might not want to waste your time. The averages don't support your arguement since after the second round most players are signed for less then a mill a year and you've got to factor in all 7 rounds of the draft when figuring it out.

2008:

Damien Woody, G, NYJ

31 years old

5 years, $25.5 Mil

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=nfl&id=1897

Paid alot of money, but a proven player. Had weight issues. Not much more expensive than a top rookie.

Keydrick Vincent, G, CAR

30 years old

2 years, $1.95 Mil

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFl&id=663

Young enough to help, cheap as dirt, started for Carolina at Guard.

Casey Wiegmann, C, DEN

35 years old

2 years, $1.975 Mil

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1342

Old as dirt, but cheap as dirt. Wouldn’t have bad to have as depth, although I doubt he would have signed for depth.

Justin Hartwig, C, PIT

30 years old

2 years, $3.725 Mil

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=218

Started all season for Pittsburgh’s offensive line. Would have been a major help to the Redskins.

Jake Scott, G, TEN

27 years old

4 years, $19.5 Mil

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=2846

Proven, young, started for a Tennessee team with a tremendous rushing attack and a solid passing attack. Semi-cheap for a guy that had his credentials.

None of these guys could help us? Fact is, you can't look to spend nothing on guys that are going to help you. If you are spending chump change and the guy has a great year, he's going to hold out for more money. You need to spend a decent amount (Note: Decent, not too much) to solidify your OL.

I'm sure I could find more guys, and if I went through 2007 I'd probably find more.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot : 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.

addicted: You musta missed Oldfan posting over and over again that he believed that BPA was the right way to go and used Tony Gonzalez as an example of a guy he'd draft in round one regardless of the fact TE is not a need for the team.

There is no difference in those two positions. Gonzo was a grade A player. Can't pass on him for a grade B lineman.

I have also said that I'd compromise to fill a need with two players fairly close in grade; so I'm not purely BPA.

[Oldfan]

Here's an interesting thought for you:

I would trade forward every year if it meant more picks. Meaning I would always trade this year's first for a first and _____ (third or higher probably) next year.

I would too.

In short, I'd want to trade with all the win-now front offices. Trade down in the draft, trade for future picks, trade vets for picks, etc.

[Oldfan]

kevin: But building a team, trenches first is a must.

Even if you were right, it's an unrealistic approach because the sources of talent aren't like Home Depot. You can't expect to get what you're shopping for. The process is more about recognizing and seizing opportunities as they present themselves.

[Pwyl]

I would too.

In short, I'd want to trade with all the win-now front offices. Trade down in the draft, trade for future picks, trade vets for picks, etc.

The problem with that strat and the "mostly bpa" strat comes in transitioning to them, and the mistaken thought that the 2009 season is more important than the 2010 season.

[TheLongshot]

You musta missed Oldfan posting over and over again that he believed that BPA was the right way to go and used Tony Gonzalez as an example of a guy he'd draft in round one regardless of the fact TE is not a need for the team.

Sometimes all of these posts run together but that's what he was saying he would do. My disagreement is that we need to draft for our team needs rather then care who's rated higher

Well, that would be the extreme case that you've found someone head-and-shoulders better than anyone else. I don't think the example he provided was very good, considering that Gonzo isn't THAT much better than Cooley IMO. Course, having such a player available can have one decide that you can part with your incumbent. You often do see that with teams that select a player at a position which they seemed to be set (NO selecting Deuce McAllister a couple years after drafting Ricky Williams, for example.)

But, often enough you will have a group of players that are close enough rated where you'd be fine taking them where you are picking. In that group, you probably will have a player who fits a need.

As far as what you are saying I agree, we should draft needs. I think our biggest need this year is offensive line so I would go there peroid. Your saying that you'd draft needy positions but open that up more to potentially draft a different need then lineman but you want to draft needs and thats where we agree

My point is that the players likely available where we pick will be able to address a need on this team. You shouldn't put the blinders on and just focus on one position.

[elkabong82]

landry is only a good pick in hindsight due to the death of taylor. amobi okoye was the better pick there and we decided against it. many mocks had us taking okoye and we passed on him, and hes done very well in texas. hes also insanely young which is something we lack as well.

and i tie our lack of picks into all of this, our front office straps itself because we squander picks away. but our first rounders have been spent on DBs and QBs since 2001. and rod gardner.

whoa whoa whoa. Now I won't argue Landry over Okoye because at this point it's still debatable, and I even remember at draft time then that Anderson or Okoye were whom I wanted. HOWEVER, Landry was the BPA on all charts at that time, and when Landry and Taylor were back there together in '07, nobody could throw deep on us succesfully. Heck, ST had 2 picks against Favre when he tried, and almost had 2 others in that game. Yes, in hindsight Landry was a good pick because of ST's passing, but that isn't the SOLE reason. Don't sell short just how dynamic those 2 were playing together.

[ttr77]

In short, I'd want to trade with all the win-now front offices. .

Unfortunately, the Skins are usually considered to be a win-now front office.

[Oldfan]

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?

ttr77: I do. The Skins desperately need linemen. A Grade B lineman might contribute to this particular team more than Grade A tight end.

Okay, I see what you are driving at. I missed it because you used the Redskins as your example rather than sticking with my anonymous NFL team.

You are still missing the key point. In the draft, grade A players are less likely to fail than grade B players; and grade B players less likely to fail than grade C players. So, anytime you have to reach down to fill a need, you increase the odds of missing on your selection.

[addicted]

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.

Let me get this straight, teams draft on a success rate of 50 freaking percent means that it isn't a crapshoot? Flip a coin dude, 50% is half good half bad. No single team wants to draft a bum but all of them do. If that's not a crap shoot then what the hell is?

You're the one missing the point. Let's stick with the example I gave you previously:

Why?? You were wrong then and your wrong now. Just because you can't pick winners means that someone else can? You said it yourself, the experts are wrong as much as they are right. Your talking as if there is a science to this. You talk about drafting players we have no use for. Your telling us that Vinny knows enough to not try and fix our most glarring needs? Come on and bring something substantial to this arguement or just stop, you look foolish :doh:

[addicted]

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

Why draft in the first place with that attitude

[Oldfan]

Unfortunately, the Skins are usually considered to be a win-now front office.

It certainly has been. It's not like it was in 2004-2006, but I don't think they've completely kicked their old habits yet.

[Oldfan]

Let me get this straight, teams draft on a success rate of 50 freaking percent means that it isn't a crapshoot? Flip a coin dude, 50% is half good half bad. No single team wants to draft a bum but all of them do. If that's not a crap shoot then what the hell is?

There is no skill in a crapshoot. It's pure luck. A 50% hit rate is excellent because it's not a coin flip. The odds of selecting a player who will make it are much higher than 50/50. Therefore, the draft is not like a crapshoot.

[Pwyl]

Why draft in the first place with that attitude

...

That's what I've been trying to say to you. You're the one saying it's impossible to tell.

Still think that "reaching" on a draft pick is something kiper made up?

[addicted]

I'm sure I could find more guys, and if I went through 2007 I'd probably find more.

20 million dollar contracts are given to guys picked 7th and lower in the draft. The fact you found 3 guys who made next to nothing compared to the 100's of guys that make less then that in the draft doesn't prove what you were trying to argue with me. The arguement was that you believed it was cheaper to build a line through FA then through the draft which you've still never proved. Big whoopydoo you found 3 guys in the 2008 class that are paid less then the 8th drafted player in the 2008 draft.

Fact is, you can't look to spend nothing on guys that are going to help you. If you are spending chump change and the guy has a great year, he's going to hold out for more money. You need to spend a decent amount (Note: Decent, not too much) to solidify your OL.

Say we used all of our picks this year on Offensive Linemen. The first pick would cost us about 15 million for 4 years. The three others? Combined no more then 10 million for 4 years. Say they all worked out for us and became starters for 4 years. That would mean that 4/5ths of our line for 4 seasons would cost us a total of 25 million. That's cheap as hell. You need to admit that its cheaper to draft lineman then to pick them up in FA like you claimed

[addicted]

My point is that the players likely available where we pick will be able to address a need on this team. You shouldn't put the blinders on and just focus on one position.

I wouldn't however like I have been saying I would not simply go and draft a player at a position of non need like the Eagles did with Donavans backup simply because they thought he was the best guy availible at the time. In my eyes its not a BPA vs. Need arguement. Neither is a sound strategy, the best strategy is to blend them and go with drafting the BPA at a position of need on the team that works best

[addicted]

There is no skill in a crapshoot. It's pure luck. A 50% hit rate is excellent because it's not a coin flip. The odds of selecting a player who will make it are much higher than 50/50. Therefore, the draft is not like a crapshoot.

You've lost me. Last time I checked a coin flip was 50% going to be heads, 50% going to be tails. Now there is always that chance it lands on the edge and its neither but the point is that a coin flip is 50% one way, 50% another. If it's not then please tell me what it is

[redskins0756]

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.

Your analysis would make sense if there were those perennial "All-Pro" players hanging around at #13, but the fact is they won't be. I don't see one guy on the board right now that if he slipped to #13 we would HAVE to take him. Aaron Curry could deserve an argument, but beyond that I think it's too difficult to base your draft on "projections". Yes the draft is cyclical in that there are "rules" you should follow based on prior experience, but with each year the NFL Draft occurs it becomes harder and harder to judge the difference between a #1 talent and a #20 talent. The drafts have become deeper and it's becoming harder for GM's to compensate. So while I understand your point that based on prior drafts we should not pass on that "All-Pro", where is that "All-Pro" exactly this year?

[Ernie5]

You've lost me. Last time I checked a coin flip was 50% going to be heads, 50% going to be tails. Now there is always that chance it lands on the edge and its neither but the point is that a coin flip is 50% one way, 50% another. If it's not then please tell me what it is

I think Oldfan is comparing a crapshoot to a coin-flip. A plain, old-fashioned crapshoot has odds far less than 50%. I don't really know anything about gambling, so I could be wrong.