Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[elkabong82]

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.

That is true. However, the lines can be addressed through free agency as well. According to posts such as the one to which I replied, however, apparently "as is common knowledge, winning teams draft linemen on a regular basis." I was simply pointing out that the not so common knowledge aspect is that a lot of losing teams draft linemen on a regular basis as well. Some posters, it would seem, assert that drafting linemen early and often automatically brings success, which isn't the case.

And back to us ignoring it. Like I said, you also have to consider free agency, which we have used to address the lines. The Giants, for example, have an OL comprised mostly of free agents. I agree that older vets are not the way to go except for maybe a stop gap while you draft or find a replacement, a la Kendall. But we brought in Randy Thomas who played great for us until the injury in '07. We brought in Rabach, who is solid, but not phenomenal, but was still an upgrade over Raymer. We drafted Samuels and Jansen. We drafted Dockery, and it is debatable if we should have let him go, but that's an argument for another time, the point here being we did draft more OL. We drafted some lower round guys that didn't pan out, but what team hasn't? We drafted an OL in the 3rd last draft as well. So we haven't ignored it, it's just that the guys we got to upgrade the OL now need to be upgraded. If we didn't trade away so many picks in the draft, we could have gotten better depth to take over. That's something I blame on the team giving too much power to head coaches so they could "get their guy."

Like I said in my first post in here, it's not about attempting to draft any singular position, because for every success with that, you have a failure too. It's about drafting smart and having as many picks as possible. You draft smart by going for the best talent when you pick, so long as that player is likely to see the field in enough of an aspect where they can contribute their rounds' worth. I have looked back at our draft history before, from 2000 to current, in terms of what DL were available in the 1st and 2nd rounds when we did pick. My conclusions were that we only missed on 2 good ones, Osi Umenyora and the other escapes my memory right now. I believe we went with Taylor Jacobs instead (Spurriers guy) and said then as I said now, that the biggest detriment to our drafting hasn not been ignoring certain positions, rather, it has been the lack of draft picks and giving too much power to head coaches. I'll try to find my old post on this.

[Oldfan]

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

You made two very different claims in one paragraph. I agree that Championship caliber teams must have solid line play on offense and defense. I don't think there is any evidence at all that perennial winners were "built from the trenches out."

[turbodiesel#44]

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

You try to come off as wise, but you are just old.

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.

What quick draft study? You say it can be done, but history has proven you wrong.

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.

You need to consider who is doing the grading, and their track record. Vinny is a fool.

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.

You think every first rounder is Dan Marino. You obviously have blinders on your hindsight. A study, or an assumption? Make up your mind.

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

Are you talking about "A" player, or are you talking about the odds?

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.You talk like the teams drafting those players had no need at the position. Bull****.

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.You pick the cream of drafts and act like it's a given. Hogwash. I could fill this page with names of early round busts in that timeframe. It doen't matter if a draft is weak at a position, you still have to field the position. BPA is only a consideration. If you need a lineman, an extra QB on the bench does squat.

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.Now you want to line the bench 2 deep behind a PB player? Yeah, that'll help. Take your medicine, OF. You completely whiff on the importance opportunity plays in a career track. If Gonzalas sat on the bench for 5 years, who might he have ended up being, and what good will he have done over those 5 years for his team?

Should the decision change because foresight never equals hindsight? It should not for an NFL team.Unless you have a gifted GM who can jump the odds, you gotta play those odds. We have Vinny.

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.One of the most stupid conclusions about the matter I have read. Team building and maintenence is not about individual players. It's about teams. The draft is not about making HOFers, it's about making your team better. The whole goddamn sport is about teams, and that is somehow lost on your foggy old mind.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

That is true. However, the lines can be addressed through free agency as well. According to posts such as the one to which I replied, however, apparently "as is common knowledge, winning teams draft linemen on a regular basis." I was simply pointing out that the not so common knowledge aspect is that a lot of losing teams draft linemen on a regular basis as well. Some posters, it would seem, assert that drafting linemen early and often automatically brings success, which isn't the case....

I agree with your overall sentiment.

We have not done a good job of drafting linemen or getting them in free agency recently. Samuels is a rock, and Thomas and Jansen were great linemen but the latter two are well past their prime.

I still think that Snyder has an obsession with the flashy picks, the skill positions and does not feel a need to draft a guy like Jake Long, who could solidify the LT position for Miami for years to come.

You made two very different claims in one paragraph. I agree that Championship caliber teams must have solid line play on offense and defense. I don't think there is any evidence at all that perennial winners were "built from the trenches out."

Alright, fair enough I guess that idea is somewhat cliche.

I just want to make it clear that teams that want to compete in the playoffs need solid lines, which I don't think we have.

Also I do not think the concept that drafting linemen first is overall a bad idea. I think that if you need linemen and there is one there for you to pick who isn't a huge reach, you get him.

[Oldfan]

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

I didn't count them, but just a seat of the pants impression -- I think LOTs and edge rushers go in the early rounds -- which makes sense to me.

[addicted]

Oldfan you make a good point. The problem with specifically this team is that we have such a huge hole to fill. No one thinks that we can replace 3 offensive linemen this offseason but that's what we need to do. If we take another position besides offensive linemen what good is a skill position player on the offense if the QB has no time to throw the ball? If the line can't protect the QB everything else fails. However if we can protect him then he's got time to read through progressions and find the 2nd or 3rd option. Our offense this season will go the way we treat the line this year. If we treat it badly and ignore it or simply draft some low round low talent guys in the late rounds then we are cashing in the season. This year we don't have a choice other then address the offensive line and that's priority number one for anything else

[PrimetimeSkins26]

your wrong.

[elkabong82]

I agree with your overall sentiment.

We have not done a good job of drafting linemen or getting them in free agency recently. Samuels is a rock, and Thomas and Jansen were great linemen but the latter two are well past their prime.

I still think that Snyder has an obsession with the flashy picks, the skill positions and does not feel a need to draft a guy like Jake Long, who could solidify the LT position for Miami for years to come.

Alright, fair enough I guess that idea is somewhat cliche.

I just want to make it clear that teams that want to compete in the playoffs need solid lines, which I don't think we have.

Also I do not think the concept that drafting linemen first is overall a bad idea. I think that if you need linemen and there is one there for you to pick who isn't a huge reach, you get him.

Yeah, I agree we haven't done a great job with OL recently, mostly because OL have been going for ridiculous amounts of money lately. Kendall was a good deal, IMO, even if he is just a 2-3 year solution. Heyer could be decent, we don't know yet. Same with Rinehart. We need a new starter on the line, I think RT is the best way to go. This would allow the them to replace Jansen, and it would move Heyer back to LOT where he should be. Then we can draft a guard to replace Thomas eventually, and we can find him in 3rd.

I think Snyder likes to go with the trends in the NFL.

Yes, you absolutely have to have solid lines to succeed. And also, when I did a pre-draft analysis thread last season over which position, OL, DL, WR, or CB in the lower 1st round, OL came out on top by a good margin. The ratings were subjective though, however there were so many players that the subjectivity wouldn't skew the results significantly. So yes, OL have a high success rate in the 1st round, however, this doesn't mean reaching on one in the 1st is a good idea, Especially when you consider that DL and CB had high success rates as well. WR had a very low success rate, and I pointed out that the success rate is actually better in the 2nd round for WRs, and then we wound up drafting 2 in the 2nd round. Some of this seems like you should lock on to certain positions early in the draft, but really all it is saying, to me anyways, is that there are a number of positions with good success rates early in the draft, meaning you shouldn't have to reach to address one certain position, there should be better talent available at another position.

[elkabong82]

your wrong.

you're wrong

[Oldfan]

you know you can make this argument for just about every position, right? Please realize that there are more busts in the first round then even serviceable players, let alone pro bowlers or hall of famers?

In what way does your point relate to my argument that "drafting the trenches first is not smart?" Sure, I agree; it would apply just as well if someone said we should "draft the receivers first." But I've never heard anyone make that argument.

[eljeasel]

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?

No, I was using "top 5" to indicate their value amongst their position.

Like, the "Big 3" Tackles this year might be ranked above the other OTs in the draft. Similarly there might be 3 or so DLmen you rate about equally. In that situation you might have only negligible difference in how you rate them. Of course in the real world youd take into account where their particular skills and talents lay, but for the purpose of my example it was more like the following:

You pick at #13 (doesnt really matter). 2 player are available. 1st is position A which you already have a probowler at, no real need. 2 a position of need, B, who you have rated just as highly. I dont really see a reason to draft 1 rather than 2. In fact I see only a reason to draft 2 cause hes worth more to me in my particular situation.

Its an incredibly simplistic hypo that really doesnt accurately depict much of value. You probly should have enough to be able to pick one over the other. Within the position its a little easier to visualize - tend the think of the tales of Manning over Leaf. But dealing with one position over the other its a little harder to generalize without falling into old cliches.

one grade A TE with four grade B and five grade B DTs...I take the TE. What do you do

In response to that I think it depends. If I can, I trade down, if the TE is still there its a sign from God, take him and one of those grade B players. Of course, if you cant trade down...

[ttr77]

Sure, I agree; it would apply just as well if someone said we should "draft the receivers first." But I've never heard anyone make that argument.

IMO the team made this exact argument last year by doing just this...even though everyone with the slightest inkling about the game of football KNEW the team was too old on the lines.

So, here we are a year later and I keep reading the excuse that it was the LINE that led to a disappointing offensive performance. Well, had the team stretched a bit last year and done whatever it took to draft linemen, perhaps that excuse wouldn't hold water. After all, the odds of a drafted lineman producing LESS results than the top 3 picks last year aren't all that great.

[Oldfan]

nightbird: I don't think the main point people make is that we must draft linemen every year, all the time. That's not what I see people write...I think the main point is that the trenches -- where games are won and lost -- are ignored in the overall player acquisition strategy of draft, FA and trades.

That's not the same argument at all. Have you not read posters claim that championship teams should be built starting with the trenches?

I think your assertion that games are won and lost in the trenches is an over-simplification of the game, but it's not a position that can be supported well by either side in debate.

The draft is a part of it, and you can't ignore the fact that so very very few picks have been spent on the lines going back 10 years. It's a trend, and it's perfectly relevant.

It isn't relevant to the argument I laid out in the OP.

[Oldfan]

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

Ernie5: Great job.

the 12thskin: well said, i agree 100%

Thanks, Guys

[turbodiesel#44]

IMO the team made this exact argument last year by doing just this...even though everyone with the slightest inkling about the game of football KNEW the team was too old on the lines.

So, here we are a year later and I keep reading the excuse that it was the LINE that led to a disappointing offensive performance. Well, had the team stretched a bit last year and done whatever it took to draft linemen, perhaps that excuse wouldn't hold water. After all, the odds of a drafted lineman producing LESS results than the top 3 picks last year aren't all that great.

Solid observation. These same pundits who supposedly "rate" the value of draft candidates all point to our lines as the major flaw in our team. Some here ignore what they want, and misconstrue the rest. Teams elevate individual players to HOF status far more than an individual player elevates his team to a SB. It is a finely orchestrated, collective effort. I guess the argument just boils down to some fans wanting to idolize their hero's numbers rather than seeing another trophy here in town.

[Ernie5]

I still think that Snyder has an obsession with the flashy picks, the skill positions and does not feel a need to draft a guy like Jake Long, who could solidify the LT position for Miami for years to come.

As Gibbs handled the recent drafts and then Cerrato, how do we know what Snyder likes? I just think it's a facile characterization that resides more in bias than fact.

[Ernie5]

IMO the team made this exact argument last year by doing just this...even though everyone with the slightest inkling about the game of football KNEW the team was too old on the lines.

We did know that, but I'm still not clear on which O-linemen we should've taken (as opposed to Thomas, Davis, & Kelly).

[Oldfan]

I have to agree 100% with NightBirds' analysis. Line play by this organization has been treated with a mild neglect.

Okay, but Nightbird's analysis had nothing to do with the OP.

[turbodiesel#44]

We did know that, but I'm still not clear on which O-linemen we should've taken (as opposed to Thomas, Davis, & Kelly).

Can you name a single lineman from the draft who could have had less impact on this team than Thomas, Davis or Kelly?

[Ernie5]

Solid observation. These same pundits who supposedly "rate" the value of draft candidates all point to our lines as the major flaw in our team. Some here ignore what they want, and misconstrue the rest. Teams elevate individual players to HOF status far more than an individual player elevates his team to a SB. It is a finely orchestrated, collective effort. I guess the argument just boils down to some fans wanting to idolize their hero's numbers rather than seeing another trophy here in town.

You take the players with the greatest chance to succeed. If they're as good as you hope they are, they'll play and you'll benefit. It's an inexact science, no doubt, but that doesn't mean you abandon it b/c the player you have rated the highest available isn't in one of the positions you really need. Good drafting teams (New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Indy) stick to their boards. In other words, they do not get swayed by need b/c they know TODAY'S STRENGTH IS TOMORROW'S NEED.

And then you can cut Marvin Harrison without a second thought b/c you have Gonzalez. Gonzalez played pretty well his rookie season, but he clearly showed last year he could handle the job and work with Manning. And the team could win.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

As Gibbs handled the recent drafts and then Cerrato, how do we know what Snyder likes? I just think it's a facile characterization that resides more in bias than fact.

I'm fairly sure that Snyder has had a hand in our draft picks.

We did know that, but I'm still not clear on which O-linemen we should've taken (as opposed to Thomas, Davis, & Kelly).

Its not a matter of that.

Its a matter of drafting a TE we don't need, a WR with bad knees and a WR who seems unprepared for the NFL.

If they were the best players available, the guys that were highest on our boards then so be it, I just think we did a crappy job of scouting.

[Oldfan]

I agree here. The philosophy is called "Build From the Trenches" and I have yet to hear anyone say "Draft the Trenches".

How do you go about building from the trenches if you don't draft from the trenches? Could you elaborate on that?

[Ernie5]

Can you name a single lineman from the draft who could have had less impact on this team than Thomas, Davis or Kelly?

Are we back to grading 2008's rookie class? What a joke.

There were dozens of O-linemen picked (including by us) who had less of an impact than Thomas, Davis, or Kelly. Many didn't even make their teams.

[Peregrine]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Who would pass up on another Darrel Green? Wait a second, how do we KNOW he will turn into Darrel Green on draft day?

The real problem with your "analysis" is how incredibly biased it is. Its very light on facts, and very heavy on opinion that you didnt lay a solid basis for. Lets look at 1983 for example. There were 3 drafted linemen in that first round that played in the NFL(4 were drafted, one had his career ended very shortly in a freak car accident). One was a key player in the Cowboys winning a couple superbowls(with over 100 sacks). One was a three time pro-bowler. The third was considered to be the best center of all time.

How would drafting any of the three of them been a bad thing IF we had needed a linemen? BPA sounds good, but it is fundamentally flawed in two ways. First, how do you accurately identify the BPA? Second, if you take a BPA at a spot you already have a great player at, either he is a downgrade, and worthless, or he is a small upgrade, and you then have to trade your former star for a CHANCE to draft another good player...who may be at the same position.

Fred Davis is an excellent example of why you dont draft BPA. We do not need a TE. If the best player still on the board is a TE, and we draft him, we have now used two 1st-2nd round draft picks in two years, on a TE, when we already have Cooley. Yet only one TE can start. How much better can the TE be than Cooley? At best we have a great backup. What if the BPA is a QB, we have a young Peyton Manning, and no offensive line to protect him? There is a linemen that is very good, but maybe just not as good as this young QB. Does it help the team?

Drafting players should be based not on whether its the BPA, or if its the biggest need, but on how much better this player will make the team 5 years down the road. It should be about wins. If only it were as cut and dry as a ratings system...

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Pro you saved me a lot of typing!:thumbsup: