Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[redskins0756]

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.

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.

Precisely. We have several needs on this team. Essentially you draft the BPA who could help improve an area in need of an upgrade. Unfortunately what we did last year was draft a non-need (TE) with not the BPA.

[addicted]

...

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

I said that its impossible to be CERTAIN someones the real deal. There is no formula for being certain a player was the next HOF'er. You can guess but too many variables exist to be sure. You can act as if your certain, but your not. That's my point. If your not going to be sure then at least take a chance on a guy who may be able to make an impact on your team besides simply taking up a roster spot

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

If someone had drafted Tom Brady in the first round when he was drafted wouldn't all of the experts have freaked out? If Fitzgerald was drafted with the first pick of the draft wouldn't they say "IT A REACH" What about all of the other guys that fit this example? When someone says today that drafting so and so is a reach, they could be dead wrong. It happens every single year after year after year.....

[Ernie5]

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?

That's why I usually prefer to trade down -- unless there's a player sitting there that you REALLY want. If the difference in quality from 13-20 is slim and the perfect guy isn't sitting there at 13, try to trade down. It's not always possible, of course, but I'd trade down pretty much every year if I could.

[addicted]

Precisely. We have several needs on this team. Essentially you draft the BPA who could help improve an area in need of an upgrade. Unfortunately what we did last year was draft a non-need (TE) with not the BPA.

I agree except the team drafted that TE because he was the BPA in there eyes and said so

[Ernie5]

If someone had drafted Tom Brady in the first round when he was drafted wouldn't all of the experts have freaked out? If Fitzgerald was drafted with the first pick of the draft wouldn't they say "IT A REACH" What about all of the other guys that fit this example? When someone says today that drafting so and so is a reach, they could be dead wrong. It happens every single year after year after year.....

That's why post-draft grades are kind of ridiculous. I like to pat myself on the back because when the Ravens traded UP in the first to draft Kyle Boller, I said, "That is one of the lamest moves I've ever seen" and Boller makes me look smart. Of course, he could have turned out great (or at least good) and I'd have been wrong.

Reaches and bargains are only really discernable a couple of years down the line (unless your first day guy doesn't even make the team his rookie season). I believe Devin Thomas was a steal in the second round, but I have no idea until I see where he shakes out in the grand scheme.

[Ernie5]

Precisely. We have several needs on this team. Essentially you draft the BPA who could help improve an area in need of an upgrade. Unfortunately what we did last year was draft a non-need (TE) with not the BPA.

Last year, they drafted, according to their evaluation, the BPA in Fred Davis. We can all differ, but we'll see how it plays out on the field. If Cooley (heaven forbid) gets hurt this year, bingo: it's a need and you have a young guy ready to step in and perform. That's why BPA works. Maybe the need never develops, but you have the talent in hand. Maybe you find other creative ways to use him and get both TEs on the field. Who knows?

[TheLongshot]

Precisely. We have several needs on this team. Essentially you draft the BPA who could help improve an area in need of an upgrade. Unfortunately what we did last year was draft a non-need (TE) with not the BPA.

How do you know it was a non-need to have a second pass-catching TE? It is actually becoming vogue to have two pass catching TEs on your team, and certainly if you are looking at improving red zone efficiency, you are going to be looking for all the big body receivers you can get.

As for BPA, the Skins sure thought he was the best player available.

[addicted]

That's why post-draft grades are kind of ridiculous.

The point I was trying to make is the term "reach" isn't known when players are picked, its all speculative bs. So I do not support the theory that people can say that so and so is not a good pick at a certain round. They don't know for certain but they act as if they do. That's why I've said draft the BPA at the position of need you believe to have. If it doesn't work out with that guy you picked, you have lost nothing and still have the same area to address. However if the guy turns out to be a great player you've fixed your problem. If however you simply ignore your areas of need you still have that area of need that needs fixing which is worse.

[ttr77]

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.

If they do break the bank for Haynesworth tomorrow, I'll say that the old habits are very much alive.

[Chachie]

I have no idea how to draft but I want some freaking linemen who can move a LOS from either side. I may be too simplistic but I just figure like most that if you're winning on the LOS, your talent positions will thrive regardless. We're losing badly on the LOS.

(Certainly not responding disrespectfully to Oldfan. Just adding my "no duh, Chachie" bottom line.)

[Oldfan]

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...

Your criticism is based on your knowledge of the draft. I don't know your expertise, but I certainly hope that we have people in the front office who know a whole lot more about the college players than I do. The odds are very good that there will be an all-pro drafted between #13 and #32, spotting him will take a keen eye for talent.

[redskins0756]

How do you know it was a non-need to have a second pass-catching TE? It is actually becoming vogue to have two pass catching TEs on your team, and certainly if you are looking at improving red zone efficiency, you are going to be looking for all the big body receivers you can get.

As for BPA, the Skins sure thought he was the best player available.

It wasn't a need position though. We needed a second TE over a DE, DT, LB, CB, ect.? No.

The Skins have thought a lot of people were the BPA over the years of course that hasn't worked out so well has it

[addicted]

Last year, they drafted, according to their evaluation, the BPA in Fred Davis. We can all differ, but we'll see how it plays out on the field. If Cooley (heaven forbid) gets hurt this year, bingo: it's a need and you have a young guy ready to step in and perform. That's why BPA works. Maybe the need never develops, but you have the talent in hand. Maybe you find other creative ways to use him and get both TEs on the field. Who knows?

That's the good spin on that. The bad spin is we wasted an opportunity to address other areas of need that we had. Instead of drafting Defensive Lineman with that pick we had to go get Jason Taylor when we had two major injuries. If we had drafted a Defensive Lineman in that spot we might be sitting here with more money to spend in a couple hours and 2 more draft picks. Everyone agreed that lineman was a need going into the draft and we ignored it because we went with BPA. Fred was a complete nonfactor for us last year and had we drafted a DLineman its possible, although not certain, he would have had a major impact on the year. Going BPA cost us. That's the bad spin

[Ernie5]

If they do break the bank for Haynesworth tomorrow, I'll say that the old habits are very much alive.

If they break the bank for Haynesworth, it will remind me more of 2006 than 2000, but either way, it'll likely be a step back and prove, to me anyway, that Snyder learned from Gibbs more than I'd like to believe and Cerrato's power is limited. I think they've progressed in their thinking, but this would give me pause.

Having said that, I don't mind them being players for a guy with Haynesworth's obvious talent, but they don't need to outbid the world for him. It's not that important.

[TheLongshot]

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

Sorry, but I disagree with you that the Eagles drafting Kolb was a non-need. It can take a couple of years to develop a QB and McNabb isn't getting any younger. If Kolb turns out, the team has the freedom to be able to part ways with McNabb if they choose to.

[Oldfan]

If they do break the bank for Haynesworth tomorrow, I'll say that the old habits are very much alive.

I agree. I'm hoping that was just more wild speculation. I don't think that Dan and Vinny are peabrains, but they sure seem to have to learn everything the hard way.

[TheLongshot]

It wasn't a need position though. We needed a second TE over a DE, DT, LB, CB, ect.? No.

The Skins have thought a lot of people were the BPA over the years of course that hasn't worked out so well has it

Did you see a player from one of those positions that had the potential Davis did? I didn't. (and I don't think the Redskins were looking for a DE at that point.)

[ttr77]

If they break the bank for Haynesworth, it will remind me more of 2006 than 2000, but either way, it'll likely be a step back and prove, to me anyway, that Snyder learned from Gibbs more than I'd like to believe and Cerrato's power is limited. I think they've progressed in their thinking, but this would give me pause.

Having said that, I don't mind them being players for a guy with Haynesworth's obvious talent, but they don't need to outbid the world for him. It's not that important.

If they have that kind of cash and feel the need to spend it, how about filling 2 or 3 holes instead of one. If Haynesworth was simply playing for a contract last year, or worse, if he gets hurt...it could really hurt this team for years to come.

But I digress...no need to freak out over something that hasn't happened yet. I do, however, reserve the right to freak out at this time tomorrow.

[Ernie5]

That's the good spin on that. The bad spin is we wasted an opportunity to address other areas of need that we had. Instead of drafting Defensive Lineman with that pick we had to go get Jason Taylor when we had two major injuries. If we had drafted a Defensive Lineman in that spot we might be sitting here with more money to spend in a couple hours and 2 more draft picks. Everyone agreed that lineman was a need going into the draft and we ignored it. It cost us. That's the bad spin

This goes back to an earlier question: what Defensive Lineman? Trevor Laws? I don't see him doing much. Calais Campbell? I like him less. If the Redskins had Davis rated significantly higher than any D or O linemen available at that spot (and I think they did and should have), they had two choices: pick Davis or trade the pick. They might have tried to do the latter and rec'd no acceptable offers. At that point, you say, "let's take a guy we really think will be great and deal with the fact that we don't need a TE." To me, that makes a lot of sense, especially in a draft where you have 9 or 10 picks. This kind of thinking would work even better if they had a minimum of 7 picks every year and that's what they need to work on.

[addicted]

If they break the bank for Haynesworth, it will remind me more of 2006 than 2000, but either way, it'll likely be a step back and prove, to me anyway, that Snyder learned from Gibbs more than I'd like to believe and Cerrato's power is limited. I think they've progressed in their thinking, but this would give me pause.

Having said that, I don't mind them being players for a guy with Haynesworth's obvious talent, but they don't need to outbid the world for him. It's not that important.

I've been going back and forth on the idea of AH in my head. Right now I think that we won't get him and it was all a ploy to drive up his price tag. However if we did get him we'd have the absolute best interior defensive lineman in the league that could play every down for us. He can shut down the run and he can rush the passer. He is an amazing athelete and I believe would make the entire defense better. He is truely one of a kind. I wouldn't look at 2000 or 2006 because the man's a 27 year old probowler at the prime of his career. I'm warming to the idea to be honest. However I still don't think it happens

[Ernie5]

If they have that kind of cash and feel the need to spend it, how about filling 2 or 3 holes instead of one. If Haynesworth was simply playing for a contract last year, or worse, if he gets hurt...it could really hurt this team for years to come.

But I digress...no need to freak out over something that hasn't happened yet. I do, however, reserve the right to freak out at this time tomorrow.

Yeah -- I'd love to use that dough on Dockery and Brown from Baltimore. Talk about an O-line upgrade! Now, I have no clue what those guys want in terms of $$$, but I'd do that anyday before signing Haynesworth.

I'll freak out if they sign Haynesworth, but I'll get over it and root like hell for him to be the player he was in 2008.

[Pwyl]

I said that its impossible to be CERTAIN someones the real deal. There is no formula for being certain a player was the next HOF'er. You can guess but too many variables exist to be sure. You can act as if your certain, but your not. That's my point. If your not going to be sure then at least take a chance on a guy who may be able to make an impact on your team besides simply taking up a roster spot

Absence of certainty != "crap shoot" (or dart board ). This "certainty" stuff is something I haven't argued for.

There are, in fact, formulas that give a probability that a player will be successful, and at what level. You even alluded to using them when you said that a team should make a list of players at a position of need and pick the best one. That's exactly the same process that I"m talking about. I'm just saying that you make your lists for ALL positions, and if someone at a position of non-need is rated by your formula as being better by enough of a margin than the best guy at the position of need, you take the non-need guy instead.

If someone had drafted Tom Brady in the first round when he was drafted wouldn't all of the experts have freaked out? If Fitzgerald was drafted with the first pick of the draft wouldn't they say "IT A REACH" What about all of the other guys that fit this example? When someone says today that drafting so and so is a reach, they could be dead wrong. It happens every single year after year after year.....

Can you make me a pie with all those cherries? =P

Picking Brady in the first round would have been a reach, because he was available in the 6th (7th? I forget).

Picking Rinehart(sp?) in the second last year would have been a reach because his talent level wasn't high enough to warrant using that much draft and contract currency to acquire him.

[addicted]

This goes back to an earlier question: what Defensive Lineman? Trevor Laws? I don't see him doing much. Calais Campbell? I like him less.

Its possible both of those guys are bums and never amount to much, I honestly don't know. However no one knew either for certain. Look at the Defensive MVP of the league this year. He wasn't drafted and was cut three times. Who knew he would turn out so good? The only thing we knew at that point was that we had a significant need to address and we choose a non need player who did nothing the entire year. We are going to be reminded soon just how much not addressing that need last year hurt us.

If the Redskins had Davis rated significantly higher than any D or O linemen available at that spot (and I think they did and should have), they had two choices: pick Davis or trade the pick. They might have tried to do the latter and rec'd no acceptable offers. At that point, you say, "let's take a guy we really think will be great and deal with the fact that we don't need a TE." To me, that makes a lot of sense, especially in a draft where you have 9 or 10 picks. This kind of thinking would work even better if they had a minimum of 7 picks every year and that's what they need to work on.

To me it doesn't. To me you have those picks and you say ok, we gotta get some lineman. Take the best availible. Im dead serious that I believe the possibility existed that had we taken a lineman at that spot it's possible we don't spend the 8 million this year on Jason Taylor and we'd still have those 2 picks. At the very least it would have been nice to have had an option instead of being forced into that position to trade for Jason

[addicted]

Can you make me a pie with all those cherries? =P

Nope but I now have to make like a banana and split.

Longshot, Oldfan, Pwyl, and Ernie5 its been my pleasure sitting here today and talking with you guys. Please don't take anything I said to heart, you all are great and I look forward to talking with you guys more down the road. But I gotta go play in a texas hold em tournement now. Take care guys!!!

[Ernie5]

Its possible both of those guys are bums and never amount to much, I honestly don't know. However no one knew either for certain. Look at the Defensive MVP of the league this year. He wasn't drafted and was cut three times. Who knew he would turn out so good? The only thing we knew at that point was that we had a significant need to address and we choose a non need player who did nothing the entire year. We are going to be reminded soon just how much not addressing that need last year hurt us.

And I'm not saying they will be bums. I don't know. I do know that teams that draft well stick to their boards. It doesn't mean they never look at need, of course, but it means they look at their boards first and then move to the needs analysis. Sometimes, you get both: BPA & need (as we might have with Devin Thomas). Sometimes, you sacrifice need to pick up a player who will make you better over the long haul. If the next available lineman is far behind the TE who's sitting there, it's not even a tough choice (aside from trading down).

To me it doesn't. To me you have those picks and you say ok, we gotta get some lineman. Take the best availible. Im dead serious that I believe the possibility existed that had we taken a lineman at that spot it's possible we don't spend the 8 million this year on Jason Taylor and we'd still have those 2 picks. At the very least it would have been nice to have had an option instead of being forced into that position to trade for Jason

You might be right. It's also possible that Taylor could have come in, not gotten hurt, and had 8-10 sacks. It didn't happen. It's always a calculated gamble to take one guy over another. If we'd taken Trevor Laws with the Davis pick (I think he was available, but I could be wrong), we might be saying, "wow, that kid saved our bacon" or he might have been riding the pine and we'd have "had to" trade for Taylor anyway. You can only draft who's there and if the team had little confidence that either Laws or Campbell were worthy of a 2nd (at least in light of those players still available), they were right to bypass them. Perhaps they were gambling that one of them (or someone else) would be there in the 3rd, as they were likely gambling Merling would be there for their initial 2nd rounder and they missed by one pick.