Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[Going Commando]

Maybe the call around here for building through the trenches first is so prominent because the lines are the two current, most conspicuouss weaknesses of the team. If we had a stud defensive line and god awful defensive backs giving up huge plays a couple times a game, the consensus would be that you need team speed and elite skill position players to run a successful defense.

[seantaylor=god]

great thread.

PBA is the way to go. Now, the only issue is you must be confident in your analysis of players. If you grade players correctly then one day you look up and you find yourself not worried about resigning that 26 yr old stud to a monster contract, because you have a 22 year old backing him up who is as good or may be better, freeing up big long term contracts for your QB, MLB who lead the D, or any other all pros.

case in point, the lions got it right when they drafted Calvin Johnson, despite their many many problems elsewhere. (only issue is they had some bad evals before). Then what do they do? trade roy williams for a 1st and 3rd and you're ok b/c calvin johnson is better.

There are examples for each point, but BPA is the way to go, especially if its done consistently. The problem we have is we havent had enough picks over the years to build depth so now we may have to reach for a OL b/c our depth is so poor.

[Oldfan]

PROSCOUT: 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.

We won't know how well the Davis picks works out for a few years. Zorn called it an excellent pick a few days ago.

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.

I used only the first-round players over a 20 year period. In that way, no one can accuse me of cherry-picking my evidence (which is what you want to do).

...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.

For you and me, that's true. But, NFL teams spend a lot of money grading players. It would be kinda dumb to spend the money and then ignore the grades.

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.

If the had Davis graded A and linemen no higher than a B, I disagree.

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.

When you pretend that you know enough to grade rookies after one season, you reveal your lack of knowledge.

[Going Commando]

BPA is the best long term strategy without question. The only time I think you really have to go to need is when you have the following situation:

When you get to select your player, there are players available who you have ranked equally. Yes, "what does it mean to be ranked equally?" mean? But lets leave that for another thread.

So when you get up to pick at #13 you might have a top 5 TE or a top 5 DT. It just seems silly to draft another TE and ignore the top 5 DT. Is it so cut and dry? Probly not but thats what seems to make the most sense without repeating everything that everyone has already said again.

Yes you are right. I think the best phrase is "Best player available, with regard to need". A team that has Joe Montana and Steve Young on their roster isn't going to draft a Mark Sanchez if he fell to them. It clearly doesn't make sense to take the best player available when he plays a position that he might even struggle to make the roster at because the team is already stacked there.

That said, how many tight ends and fullbacks have we drafted over the past five years or so?

[DCMONEY]

I do believe that a team should build up their trenches 1st and foremost. I think teams that are strong in the trenches generally stay competitive.

I do agree that even if a team goes into the draft with a specific need in mind, that they shouldn't take that player if he's not rated that high on their draft board. They should trade down or take the best player available.

If for instance the Skins get a shot at Malcolm Jenkins or Vontae Davis, I think they should really think about it. I think these 2 CB's are gonna be good. They might be eyeing some O-lineman that might not rate 13 on their draft board. :2cents:

[KDawg]

If for instance the Skins get a shot at Malcolm Jenkins or Vontae Davis, I think they should really think about it. I think these 2 CB's are gonna be good. They might be eyeing some O-lineman that might not rate 13 on their draft board. :2cents:

There's a good chance Jenkins winds up playing FS in the NFl due to a lack of speed.

[Oldfan]

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

As I said in the OP, this thread isn't about the Redskins draft history.

[Ernie5]

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

Exactly! And well put. It's all well and good to say, in the abstract, WE NEED TO DRAFT A TACKLE IN THE FIRST ROUND, but who? Any tackle with a heartbeat? What if the guys you would have taken at your spot are gone? Be damned and take a tackle anyway? That's ludicrous.

[Oldfan]

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

I don't start threads to please everyone. So far most response agree with me.

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.

As I said in the OP, this thread is not specifically about the Redakins.

[ttr77]

As I said in the OP, this thread is not specifically about the Redakins.

Well, since you posted it in the Stadium, certainly most responses would be geared towards the local team, no?

[ttr77]

I don't start threads to please everyone. So far most response agree with me.

Responses? Yes, most of the 59 agree. Reads? Of the 480, who knows?

As I said in the OP, this thread is not specifically about the Redakins.

Well, since you posted it in the Stadium, certainly most responses would be geared towards the local team, no?

[Oldfan]

GHH: 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.

An earlier poster, asked about Crabtree v. Eugene Monroe. I'm going to suppose that the Skins have both rated as grade A players. In that case, they take the player who fills the need. But, if they have Crabtree at an A and Monroe at a B, they should take Crabtree.

[PROSCOUT]

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.

Wow. Thats about all I can say to that kind of logic.

Except for the fact that New England and Pittsburg draft defensive and offensive linemen year after year and we don't. If EVER there was an example of teams that believe in drafting in the trenches, its New England and Pittsubrg.

Boy, you guys have some screwed up logic.

[nightbird]

1. Right would you have preferred us to match Dockerys deal? Wade could not make the adjustment. Buges and Gibbs thought he could once it was clear he could not they made a move for Kendal who is a solid player. I think we gave up too much for him but what choice did we have.... Who would you have chosen?

2. Freak accident that happened midway through camp. Daniels was in great shape and we needed to do something because the guy we wanted to lean on was now on IR.... We did not give up the farm for Taylor......

3. Heyer played well as a rookie but then got hurt... this stunted his development. If he had stayed healthy we would have seen a lot less of Jansen...... in 08.

4. Value FA is the dumbest term being used in the NFL today... "value FA" = not so good but we will take him..... I think we drafted Reinhart with the future in mind... People think the OL is garbage but I personally do not see it that way.

Samuels is still a Pro Bowl LT

Jansen is done and needs to be replaced.

Heyer is a solid backup that cost us nothing!!!!!! Not even a draft pick.

Thomas is solid not stellar anymore but we have a year or two to get someone and develop them.

Kendal needs to be upgraded IMHO....

Center Racbach is a take it or leave is guy for me..... IF you can upgrade do so but he is serviceable.

So really we are one starting RT and a few backups away from a solid line.... but everyone says the sky is falling????????

It sounds like you're making excuses for the front office. I never wrote that the sky is falling, simply that we don't put enough emphasis on our talent level along each line.

Point by point,

1. I never said to match Dockery's deal. I just said have a better plan than "slide over a 6'8 guy who's been playing tackle his whole life, and if that doesn't work, cross our fingers and hope someone is willing to trade us an older guard for multiple picks." It's about replenishment. It's about "next man up." It's about not constantly scrambling to fill holes.

2. For one thing, freak injuries happen. Especially to 36-year olds. Was that our plan all along? "Well we don't trust Demetric to start, so if anything happens to either end, let's plan on panicking and finding somone out there who's past his prime that we can get for multiple picks." Then it turns out that Demetric performs better than the hall of famer we traded for, because our ends are primarily responsible for run-stopping. But no, none of this is the front office's fault, because it's not like this happens EVERY FREAKING YEAR.

3. Maybe. But from what I've seen, Heyer is a nice backup to have around, but not someone you should be counting on to lock down the RT position for years ahead.

4. No it isn't. A "Value FA" is when, oh, let me think, Ryan Clark goes to the Steelers for the Ashburn equivalent of a ham sandwich and goes on to start for one of the best defenses in league history. It's about identifying guys you can sign without a bidding war, and their value is higher to you than their cap number hurts because they fit a role. Frankly, I considered Rabach a "Value FA" back in 05 and I still do. I also think Fletch fits that because he replaced Lemar Marshall and was the main addition to a defense that was awful in 2006 and helped us turn things around.

I also think a lot of people suspect that if pulling guards and 1-technique defensive tackles scored touchdowns and sold jerseys, they'd be higher on the team's priority list. And I think that suspicious is justified.

[ttr77]

Besides, isn't BPA a subjective thing? I'm sure most teams disagree who it is at any given time. If there was a 'Universal BPA Chart' teams wouldn't even need to have a war room. Just assign the next player to the next team up.

Also, I'm sure many teams value certain positions higher. Judging by the Skins drafting history, I'd be willing to bet they value DBs and WRs more than linemen.

[Oldfan]

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?

I don't doubt your ability to create a scenario in which Tony Gonzales would be useless to us. However, I have just as much faith that the team could figure out a way to use such an asset. If Jim Zorn can't figure out a way to use three TEs, then I like the chances of trading Cooley for two or three high picks, or a proven player that we can use of equal caliber.

[kvarlo12000]

I also think a lot of people suspect that if pulling guards and 1-technique defensive tackles scored touchdowns and sold jerseys, they'd be higher on the team's priority list. And I think that suspicious is justified.

If we had a line then our playmakers could score tds and sell jerseys

[eljeasel]

That said, how many tight ends and fullbacks have we drafted over the past five years or so?

Im not really sure our guys know what they are doing...

[eljeasel]

I don't doubt your ability to create a scenario in which Tony Gonzales would be useless to us. However, I have just as much faith that the team could figure out a way to use such an asset. If Jim Zorn can't figure out a way to use three TEs, then I like the chances of trading Cooley for two or three high picks, or a proven player that we can use of equal caliber.

Funny you mention using 3 TEs. Early in the season Z used a triple TE set in the RZ in something I have dubbed the "heavy jumbo." It actually worked pretty darn well. Later on we went away from the heavy jumbo and RZ scoring plummeted.

Other teams use similar tactics. Baltimore and Pitt come to mind.

[Oldfan]

So when you get up to pick at #13 you might have a top 5 TE or a top 5 DT. It just seems silly to draft another TE and ignore the top 5 DT. Is it so cut and dry? Probly not but thats what seems to make the most sense without repeating everything that everyone has already said again.

I am assuming that by "top 5" you mean the top five in the draft, but if you have one grade A TE with four grade B and five grade B DTs...I take the TE. What do you do?

[elkabong82]

http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6070870#post6070870

http://extremeskins.com/showthread.p...70#post6070870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Happy

Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 rounds (2000-2008):

8 - Patriots

8 - Giants

7 - Steelers

6 - Colts

3 - Redskins

Here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 2 rounds (2000-2008):

7 - Patriots

5 - Giants

4 - Colts

4 - Steelers

1 - Redskins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldskool

As is common knowledge, winning teams draft lineman on a regular basis.

/thread.

Except you are onlying looking at winning teams that have drafted a bunch of linemen early.

Under those same parameters, here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 and the first 2 rounds from 2000-2008 of some less-than-stellar teams.

Raiders: 8/4

Lions: 10/8

Bengals: 6/4

Browns: 5/4

49ers: 12/9

So as you can see it's not just about drafting a bunch of linemen early, because teams can fail using that strategy just as easily as they can win.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Except you are onlying looking at winning teams that have drafted a bunch of linemen early.

Under those same parameters, here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 and the first 2 rounds from 2000-2008 of some less-than-stellar teams.

Raiders: 8/4

Lions: 10/8

Bengals: 6/4

Browns: 5/4

49ers: 12/9

So as you can see it's not just about drafting a bunch of linemen early, because teams can fail using that strategy just as easily as they can win.

But not even attempting to better the lines through the draft surely isn't a good strategy.

Trading for guys with arthritic knees doesn't count as a serious attempt to upgrade the lines.

[Oldfan]

D'Pablo: So, if I'm reading this correctly, we should not draft for lineman because there is a risk involved.

That's not what I said.

[PROSCOUT]

Except you are onlying looking at winning teams that have drafted a bunch of linemen early.

Under those same parameters, here are the number of linemen drafted in the first 3 and the first 2 rounds from 2000-2008 of some less-than-stellar teams.

Raiders: 8/4

Lions: 10/8

Bengals: 6/4

Browns: 5/4

49ers: 12/9

So as you can see it's not just about drafting a bunch of linemen early, because teams can fail using that strategy just as easily as they can win.

Well, when you have total nimrods like Al Davis and Matt Millen running your draft, then its apparent why they are losing. The Browns and Bengals have failing organizations as well. It wouldn;t really matter WHO they drafted or what position they drafted because THOSE franchises always make the wrong decision.

Every team has to do what is right for them, and you are fighting a losing battle trying to convince Redskins fans that we need 3 all pro tight ends when we can't sack the QB or protect our own QB.

Perhaps you can go run the Detroit franchise with that kind of logic, or even better, I think you might get along well with Al Davis.

[Oldfan]

Pounds: Great post, Oldfan!

Thank you.

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.

I add the blindside tackle and DE to the skill positions in the early rounds. I think that's what most NFL teams do and it makes sense to me