TheLongshot Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 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 As I said in another thread, we were never going to replace three starting OL this offseason. Thomas is still going to be here partially because of his contract and partially because he's still pretty good even if he's starting to slow down. Jansen is going nowhere and it looks like he will be competing for the starting RT job with Heyer barring any draft or FA movement. This was never a place where we were going to fix it all in one offseason. You also shouldn't reach to do that, because that's not the only position that needs to be addressed on this team. We also have needs on the DL and LB. At pick #13, we should be able to find a guy to fit one of those needs, and it should be the best player from those three positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 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. I'll say it again: TODAY'S STRENGTH IS TOMORROW'S NEED. Were the Colts stupid to draft Anthony Gonzalez in '07 when they had Harrison and Wayne? Were the Patriots stupid to draft TE Ben Watson in the first in 2004 when they drafted TE Daniel Graham in the first in 2002? And Thomas -- as a rookie WR (perhaps the position of most struggle among rookies) -- played some very good special teams, improved as the year wore on, and showed he could make big plays when given the chance. Let's not judge him a bomb JUST YET. Kelly's knees? Let's wait and see about that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 We did know that, but I'm still not clear on which O-linemen we should've taken (as opposed to Thomas, Davis, & Kelly). Neither am I. Thankfully that's not my job. But, if you have to stretch....STRETCH! Don't pick 3 players that aren't truly a need and then a year later use the same older line as an excuse for failure. Last year there were 14 linemen picked in the first round. In the second round, the following teams all took linemen: Miami San Fran Philly Arizona Jacksonville Tennesee Indianapolis Were they all reaching? Were they using BPA strategy? If so, their BPA is certainly different than the Skins BPA. And almost all of them had better seasons than the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Thank you Pro you saved me a lot of typing!:thumbsup: You picked the one entry that has absolutely no internal logic and extol its virtues? Jeepers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Neither am I. Thankfully that's not my job.But, if you have to stretch....STRETCH! Don't pick 3 players that aren't truly a need and then a year later use the same older line as an excuse for failure. Last year there were 14 linemen picked in the first round. In the second round, the following teams all took linemen: Miami San Fran Philly Arizona Jacksonville Tennesee Indianapolis Were they all reaching? Were they using BPA strategy? If so, their BPA is certainly different than the Skins BPA. And almost all of them had better seasons than the Skins. If it's any further than 3 or 4 spots: Do. Not. Reach. There is no reason to do so. I don't know whether those 2nd round OLs ended up contributing or not, but you grade players for a reason. Stick with your grades. It's a simple formula. It works over time. You draft for need over BPA and you'll always be working from behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 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... Well, picking the best players are often the best way to make sure that you make your team better down the road, so I don't see the distinction you are trying to make in your last paragraph. A couple comments about Davis. One, a second TE probably was identified as a need of some sort. More than likely, they had a goal of trying to find big targets for the end zone, and Davis fits that definition. Second, what happens when a player like Davis isn't just your best player on the board, but head-and-shoulders better than your other needs? Do you take the lesser player just to check a box off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 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. We are talking about a draft philosophy here. I thought you were part of the conversation. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Elkabong: You prioritize talent over need, but you still address a need. Your position is vague because both talent and need are values within a range. So, we need to test your statement. How would you pick at #13 in this scenario: 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 will you pass on another Gonzales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 If it's any further than 3 or 4 spots: Do. Not. Reach. There is no reason to do so. I don't know whether those 2nd round OLs ended up contributing or not, but you grade players for a reason. Stick with your grades. It's a simple formula. It works over time. You draft for need over BPA and you'll always be working from behind. So...don't reach and then a year later use the portion of the draft you neglected as an excuse for a bad offensive performance? I could grade some college kid's thesis on theology over and over - but I don't know a damn thing about it...so, this would never 'work over time'. Just doing something over and over doesn't mean it will 'work' necessarily. And as far as 'working from behind' goes, this team already is, despite their BPA strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Last year there were 14 linemen picked in the first round. In the second round, the following teams all took linemen:Miami San Fran Philly Arizona Jacksonville Tennesee Indianapolis Were they all reaching? Were they using BPA strategy? If so, their BPA is certainly different than the Skins BPA. And almost all of them had better seasons than the Skins. Only SF and Indy took O-lineman in Round 2 last year. Rachal in SF is going to be really good, but he was picked BEFORE we picked either Davis or Kelly. Between Rachal, a guard, and Thomas, a WR, taking Thomas (projected as a mid-first rounder) was an excellent pick. As far as D-linemen, we wanted to pick Merling (didn't think he was worthy at #21) and he was gone by the time we picked. What are you going to do? Could have picked Trevor Laws. Thanks -- I'd rather have Fred Davis. Calais Campbell? A reach. Groves, Jones? None of these guys made a difference last year, so what's your point? I'm certainly willing to admit that one or more of these guys might wind up as good players, but you have to concede that the same holds true for our picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Oldskool: Your points in #47 are not relevant to the argument laid out in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 So...don't reach and then a year later use the portion of the draft you neglected as an excuse for a bad offensive performance?I could grade some college kid's thesis on theology over and over - but I don't know a damn thing about it...so, this would never 'work over time'. Just doing something over and over doesn't mean it will 'work' necessarily. And as far as 'working from behind' goes, this team already is, despite their BPA strategy. No -- they're working from behind because they've been to willing to trade draft picks. We throw out BPA, we never draft Laron Landry. Every draft brings choices: pick at RB, don't pick a LB. Might it bite you later? Of course. You can only leverage that by increasing the # of draft picks you have and this team has to work on that. Every team says, "last year we addressed areas X and Y but knew we'd have to address area Z this year," so what's the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Building a house on the BPA only plan - Wife: I like the new bathroom, it could be bigger but it's all hooked up and works fine. Did you get the stove? BPA: No, but I found a good deal on a really excellent toilet. Wife: That's a nice toilet, but I need something to cook on, and we already have.... BPA: I'll just put the toilet where the stove should go. Wife: But... BPA: Just sit down and make me something to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 As good as Gonzalez is/was, the Skins just don't need another TE. And that's assuming your hindsight can be replaced with future telling, because nobody knows who is going to turn out to be a hall of famer. So yes, if you are the Redskins you certainly pass on Tony Gonzalez. That position shouldn't be on their radar. Many nfl gm's build the trenches first, but I guess what do they know, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Every team says, "last year we addressed areas X and Y but knew we'd have to address area Z this year," so what's the big deal? This team had needs in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and maybe more. Why pick X, X, X last year, then use the holes at A-G as the reason you regressed? And now, with aging players at many positions, that list of needs is longer. However, the 'X' position is full with players that may not all see the field at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 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. You're probably right, but there's a major difference in saying that we have a need for help on the lines and proposing that winning teams should be built from the trenches first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Building a house on the BPA only plan - Wife: I like the new bathroom, it could be bigger but it's all hooked up and works fine. Did you get the stove? BPA: No, but I found a good deal on a really excellent toilet. Wife: That's a nice toilet, but I need something to cook on, and we already have.... BPA: I'll just put the toilet where the stove should go. Wife: But... BPA: Just sit down and make me something to eat. Don't forget...on the next payday you have to run out and grab another toilet. And put that one in the garage...perhaps it will be of some use in a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 As I said in another thread, we were never going to replace three starting OL this offseason. LS, I am speaking of what this team should and needs to do more then anything else. Unless your Snyder in disguise how can you be certain that we would never do this and even say that? Thomas is still going to be here partially because of his contract and partially because he's still pretty good even if he's starting to slow down. Thomas is 33 years old and showing signs of slowing down. He needs to be replaced. Jansen is going nowhere and it looks like he will be competing for the starting RT job with Heyer barring any draft or FA movement. Because the team pays Randy Thomas and Jon Jansen big money doesn't mean that they are good enough to start or even SHOULD start for us. Heyer hasn't showed anything to me to make me believe he will be any good either. None of these guys is the answer, but because we were stupid and signed them to big money we are supposed to simply accept that they are the starters no matter how much they absolutely suck? Come on man, Jansen is garbage and has been for two years now and needs to be given the boot. I noticed you didn't even mention that our starting Left Guard is no longer on the team from last year. Before FA starts we have 4 of 5 linemen and they are all slowing down. I stand by what I've said, we need to address this now this offseason and make this our very top priority. Jason, Clinton, Santana, and the rest of the boys are going to have very bad years if we ignore this. The offensive line is much more important then the Corner spot and the Defensive Line. Without a line to block everyone on the offense will hurt and we will be the same team that last year in the final 8 games scored a total of 100 points with an average of 12.5 per game verses the first half of the year when we averaged 20.6 points per game. This was never a place where we were going to fix it all in one offseason. You also shouldn't reach to do that, because that's not the only position that needs to be addressed on this team. We also have needs on the DL and LB. At pick #13, we should be able to find a guy to fit one of those needs, and it should be the best player from those three positions. If you can tell me how adding a LB, or resigning a corner, or a Defensive Linemen will get us back to averaging 20 points a game then I'm all for changing my mind about this. What good is having a stout Defense if the offense is not going to score 2 TD's a game? We could have the best Defense in the world but when Jason's flat on his back and Portis can't find any running lanes and we are constantly punting how will that even matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 This team had needs in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and maybe more. Why pick X, X, X last year, then use the holes at A-G as the reason you regressed? And now, with aging players at many positions, that list of needs is longer. However, the 'X' position is full with players that may not all see the field at the same time. In fairness, we picked X, Y, X and we needed at least one X (if not two). Didn't need Y, but if you value a player's ability, you take him and worry later -- esp. given that there was only one O-lineman taken after Davis in the 2nd round. Not like anyone else had any O-linemen graded anywhere close to where we chose Davis. WR was an enormous position of need last year, but it often takes WRs more than their rookie year to really contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Building a house on the BPA only plan - Wife: I like the new bathroom, it could be bigger but it's all hooked up and works fine. Did you get the stove? BPA: No, but I found a good deal on a really excellent toilet. Wife: That's a nice toilet, but I need something to cook on, and we already have.... BPA: I'll just put the toilet where the stove should go. Wife: But... BPA: Just sit down and make me something to eat. If a football team were a house, but it ain't. You don't draft rooms and appliances from a limited pool with a limited number of picks, for one. You buy what you need when you need it and can afford it. If you pick up players whenever you had the dough, it would be a better analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 great thread. Thank you. 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. When forced to make another mistake because of previous mistakes -- that's kind of a treadmill, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 If a football team were a house, but it ain't. You don't draft rooms and appliances from a limited pool with a limited number of picks, for one. You buy what you need when you need it and can afford it. If you pick up players whenever you had the dough, it would be a better analogy.It's no different. You have a budget, a limited space and the same basic needs as every other house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 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 will you pass on another Gonzales? I would. What good is Tony Gonzalez on our team? We already couldn't get Davis involved in the game plans because we had such a terrible line that we needed another blocking TE. So the only good that Tony G. would be is if on the off chance Cooley goes down with an injury but that's what Fred Davis was for! Are you thinking that we would have on the active game day roster 3 pass catching TE's? That doesn't make sense to me and no team would do that. I believe Chris Cooley could make the same plays that Tony G could make so there is no need for him on the team. All of that is completely mute when you realize that our QB has no time to even go through his progressions and has to get rid of the football quickly or else he's going to be sacked because our Offensive Line is the oldest in the league and often injured and our starters are only starting because the front office gave them monster contracts :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 In fairness, we picked X, Y, X and we needed at least one X (if not two). Didn't need Y, but if you value a player's ability, you take him and worry later -- esp. given that there was only one O-lineman taken after Davis in the 2nd round. Not like anyone else had any O-linemen graded anywhere close to where we chose Davis. WR was an enormous position of need last year, but it often takes WRs more than their rookie year to really contribute. I disagree...we may never find out what that Y has to offer since he's buried on the depth chart behind arguably the team's best player on offense. Yet, the lines have still gone mostly ignored. BPA is a strategy for a young, up-and-coming team. The Skins are not. They are built to win NOW and they should be drafting like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 IMO the team made this exact argument last year by doing just this... No, they didn't. They took the 2008 draft as it fell and did the best they could with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.