Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[turbodiesel#44]

Where is everyone getting this notion that I'm saying not to use the draft?

Not saying that I all. I agree with you. I am just illustrating the draft is the basis for building your team, the other avenues are best used to fill holes and make up for injuries because of the cap.

[addicted]

Not all guys are like Dockery, and I'm not even referring to Dockery. It's an in general statement.

What I'm saying is that in FA good offensive linemen get big time contracts. When you look at what rookies get paid comparred to what FA's are pulling it makes better financial sense to draft the more expensive positions early and the less expensive positions later. You argued that it was cheaper to bring in offensive lineman in FA then the draft and I proved that wrong

[addicted]

The two biggest lessons I hope Vinny and Dan have learned over the years is the importance of youth and the how often a single player can disappoint. No matter what combo of drafting/FA/trades we use this year, I just hope we look for young guys for decent value. An OL that learns and develops together can be nearly as good as an OL with all top-tier talent thrown together at random--and it leaves more money to work with.

Take the time to get the lines intact, THEN you start moving more and more towards a purely BPA approach.

Great post and I couldn't agree more. Build the lines before looking at any Defensive players. If the Offense can't score were screwed. We aren't a player away from being the Baltimore Ravens, and it makes no sense to draft someone to rush the QB if we can't protect ours. Are we saying we will all be so happy with another year of "If our team could put up 14/21 points a game we'd...."

[addicted]

Absolutely. I'd take another TE like a young Tony Gonzales in a heartbeat. That's the kind of problem I'd want as a coach or GM -- too much talent at one position. Damn.

And that would be the worst possible thing we could do around here. How in the world would we be able to use Tony Gonzalez, Chris Cooley, and Fred Davis? TE isn't a position of need, not even close :doh::doh::doh:

[elkabong82]

You misunderstand. I'm giving you the benefit of hindsight in making your selection in drafting #13 in the 2009 draft by assuming that this year's draft, replicating the 1997 draft, includes linemen who are equally as good as Trevor Pryce and Reynaldo Wynn and a TE as good as Tony Gonzales that could be had for the #13 pick.

The Redskins already have Cooley and Davis at TE. They need linemen. Do you pass on Gonzales because we don't need another TE?

It's a good question to measure the extent of your BPA v. Need commitment.

If I'm only looking in hindsight then yes, I go for Gonzalez. Or I can trade down and grab Tiki Barber in the process., and then draft his brother early in the 3rd, and any other great players from the draft I'd be in a position to get. That's why you can't look at the draft in hindsight, because how the player turned out wasn't known at the time of his drafting. You have to go on their scouting reports and where each player was ranked.

If I have Chris Cooley and Fred Davis, and I'm looking at the #1 rated TE or the #2 rated DL, and DL is a need and TE is not, I'm going DL. HOWEVER, if you are looking at the top rated TE and the #2 DL is rated significantly lower, or you are looking at the #6 rated DL or OL, then I'd go TE.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

oldfan, this is pretty silly. when you know the exact outcome of the draft 10-15 years later, its pretty easy to sit back and say "see, drafting lineman wasnt good because x y and z".

drafting lineman is always a good idea, if good lineman are available. reaching on anybody is never a good idea, but if its a need, and theres a prospect there, you go with him. i for one will be furious if we draft a RB/WR/CB/S/TE with our 13th overall pick, regardless of what stud will be there.

[Oldfan]

Great post and I couldn't agree more. Build the lines before looking at any Defensive players.

Build the lines first? So, if the NFL quality starting linemen you need aren't available in the draft when you pick, what then? Put in your order and call "dibbsies" on linemen in future drafts?

[essex03]

O Line is (arguably) THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the field.

Lets say that you have:

WR: Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, and Santana Moss,

QB: Joe Montana,

RB: Barry Sanders and Walter Payton,

and you have aging, withered, horrible O-Line.

What do you think the Mosses, the Rices, the Montanas, and the Sanders of the world would be able to do with that line???

NOTHING.

We had an amazing line back in 1992. Who did we have behind it??

Rypien (what else did he do after that season?)

Riggs (serviceable, but not HOF material by any stretch)

Granted we had Clark, Sanders and Monk to throw to but that was it.

O-Line is important... Period. Not always 1st round important, but definitely a HUGE priority.:dallasuck

[SkinsTribeVA]

addicted brings up a good point about the importance of protecting your own QB versus the importance if getting after their's...

Hypothetical: let's say it's draft day, pick 13 comes up and Ray Mauluga and Andre Smith are both still on the board (I think it's very possible that at least one of them will be available given Curry's performance at the combine and Smith's lack thereof), who do you take?

[Oldfan]

And that would be the worst possible thing we could do around here. How in the world would we be able to use Tony Gonzalez, Chris Cooley, and Fred Davis? TE isn't a position of need, not even close

If I'm to believe that your post is from the heart, you don't have an ounce of creativity going for you as a coach or GM. In Zorn's shoes, I guarantee I could find ways to get those three animals on the field.

And, in Vinny's shoes, if my coach isn't excited about the idea, then I'm shopping the proven player, Cooley, who would bring more than the #1 pick I spent on the young Tony Gonzales.

[turbodiesel#44]

HOWEVER, if you are looking at the top rated TE and the #2 DL is rated significantly lower, or you are looking at the #6 rated DL or OL, then I'd go TE.

That's where you trade down. You are not helping your team otherwise. Unless you think that rook TE had enough value to let you trade your proven guy and find value there. That's a big gamble.

[SkinsTribeVA]

If I'm to believe that your post is from the heart, you don't have an ounce of creativity going for you as a coach or GM. In Zorn's shoes, I guarantee I could find ways to get those three animals on the field.

And, in Vinny's shoes, if my coach isn't excited about the idea, then I'm shopping the proven player, Cooley, who would bring more than the #1 pick I spent on the young Tony Gonzales.

So send the message to our young, talented players that their time could be up in Washington any year depending on BPA? And who's going to throw the ball to Gonzales since his QB is on the ground before he can complete his three-step drop?

[SkinsTribeVA]

That's where you trade down. You are not helping your team otherwise. Unless you think that rook TE had enough value to let you trade your proven guy and find value there. That's a big gamble.

Bingo. It's about finding a balance between BPA and need.

[Oldfan]

oldfan, this is pretty silly. when you know the exact outcome of the draft 10-15 years later, its pretty easy to sit back and say "see, drafting lineman wasnt good because x y and z".

drafting lineman is always a good idea, if good lineman are available. reaching on anybody is never a good idea, but if its a need, and theres a prospect there, you go with him. i for one will be furious if we draft a RB/WR/CB/S/TE with our 13th overall pick, regardless of what stud will be there.

The topic on the table, BLC, is NOT "drafting lineman is a bad idea." I'm attacking the idea that drafting the trenches first is a sound approach in building a winning football team. Do you take that position?

[Oldfan]

O Line is (arguably) THE MOST IMPORTANT position on the field.

The O line is important. I don't know that anyone can say just how important because that factor will vary with the scheme.

But, that isn't what we're debating here.

[fansince62]

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.

I disagree with the philosophy....you don't draft the best possible player in all instances. if you have a good TE...you can pass up on a Gonzales and draft another player who provides incremental improvement to THE TEAM at a different position who makes the team stronger more broadlly.

[fansince62]

Bingo. It's about finding a balance between BPA and need.

yup.

[turbodiesel#44]

So send the message to our young, talented players that their time could be up in Washington any year depending on BPA? And who's going to throw the ball to Gonzales since his QB is on the ground before he can complete his three-step drop?

If Gonzales had to share playing time every year with whatever some harebrained GM thought might be the next Gonzales, he wouldn't be Gonzales. The experience wouldn't be there. The numbers wouldn't be there. And neither would the new guys. It's all about talent recognition. Recognizing the talent THAT IS GOING TO HELP YOUR TEAM THE MOST.

Oldfan is like a grandma hunched over the wheel doing 35 on 95.

[Oldfan]

Bingo. It's about finding a balance between BPA and need.

What do you mean by "balance?"

At #13, you have two players. You have a lineman projected as a grade B talent who can probably start for you. You have another player projected as a grade A player, a potential perennial all-pro. Let's make him a cornerback. Which do you take?

[Oldfan]

I disagree with the philosophy....you don't draft the best possible player in all instances.

Never said that. It depends on how much better his grade is.

if you have a good TE...you can pass up on a Gonzales and draft another player who provides incremental improvement to THE TEAM at a different position who makes the team stronger more broadlly.

Unwise -- because schemes can be adjusted and trades can be made when exceptional talent is added at any position.

[SkinsTribeVA]

Oldfan,

If we were to start drafting entirely for BPA, in 5-10 years we MIGHT be a major contender. On the other hand, if we were to start drafting/moving in the draft to find a combination of need and value, and look for young value guys in FA and trade to plug up holes, then in 5-10 years we WOULD be a competitor. Once we reached that level, THEN we could move closer to a pure BPA approach. We could then afford that risk to reward ratio.

Look at the Steelers and Patriots. They've been smart, they replenish, and they have depth (for the most part). That's why teams like that can afford to draft more for BPA.

Skins over the past decade or so = mediocre, hanging around 8-8.

We start acquiring players in an intelligent manner and in a few years we'll be competitors, usually going over 9-7 and making the playoffs.

Then we start drafting more and more for BPA and after few years we could be contenders, consistently going deep in to the playoffs.

I know it's easier said than done, but IMO that should be every team's basic game plan.

And Oldfan, to answer your question: if we're set at the position the grade A player plays (I'm going to stick to the TE analogy), then yes, you either take the grade B starter (we'll call him an RT or OLB) or you attempt to trade down to find better value. See explanation above.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan is like a grandma hunched over the wheel doing 35 on 95.

Your attempts at humor with your insults are pretty sad. You should stick to making attempts at logic. They're knee-slappers.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The topic on the table, BLC, is NOT "drafting lineman is a bad idea." I'm attacking the idea that drafting the trenches first is a sound approach in building a winning football team. Do you take that position?

i take the position that drafting trenches first is a sound approach to building a winner. a dominant dline can make a back 7 look much better. pressure on the QB from your DEs makes the CBs/Ss jobs easier. push up the middle from your DTs makes the DEs job easier when the pocket collapses, and also makes the LBs job easier if runningbacks have to cut earlier, or change direction. it starts up front with these guys, and the skins are a perfect example of this. imagine our back 7 with a dominant front 4. we'd be the best D in football, bar none.

and it starts up front with oline protection and blocking. a great line can make a decent runningback look incredible. you remember the hogs im sure. it also gives the QB more time to make reads and complete throws. a dominant oline can make a QB look better than he really is.

this goes both ways for sure, a dominant runningback can make a good oline look better. see barry sanders. a dominant QB can make a solid oline look great, see drew brees. but id rather just have the lines than the one crazy player that comes along every now and then. we dont have any crazy players like that to begin with. we need an oline that isnt a million years old, and a dline with some youth that can get some push. we currently have neither, and we need them. the draft is where to start.

[turbodiesel#44]

This board is supposed to be about the Redskins. Our head talent evaluator/procurer drafted the next Ray Guy last year. He also lucked out and found a hidden gem in a 6th round safety because it was a position of need. Which guy helped the team more?

If one were to assume that stacking talent on the bench while ignoring basic team deficiencies is a winning method, which it is not, do you trust Vinny to make the call?

[turbodiesel#44]

Your attempts at humor with your insults are pretty sad. You should stick to making attempts at logic. They're knee-slappers.

Oldfan, I am using logic. I just gave you a real time example in my previous post. I didn't have to go back to 1983 and hand pick Dan Marino as a rule of thumb. And my insults are all in jest because you ignore my logic. Don't take it personal please.