Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[Oldfan]

SkinsTribe Va: Oldfan, If we were to start drafting entirely for BPA..

"Entirely for BPA?" If the grades of two players are close -- let's say that one is a B and another a B minus -- I'd compromise on that

...in 5-10 years we MIGHT be a major contender.

How did you come up with that estimate? There's no basis for it.

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.

I think if we went to the approach I suggest, we'd be a dynasty in three seasons ( I don't have a basis for my estimate either).

Once we reached that level, THEN we could move closer to a pure BPA approach. We could then afford that risk to reward ratio.

It would make more sense to draft BPA until you have few needs and then draft to fill them. But, I wouldn't do that either because I don't just want to get to the top, I want us to stay there.

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.

Is it your position that those two teams were built by drafting to fill needs?

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.

Okay, so basically you are in the "draft for need" camp. I asked the question because you mentioned "balance." There isn't any way to balance some of these decisions. There are compromises in tight calls, of course.

[JMUGator19]

you think the Wildcat is a long term answer?

The 13th pick will not be the thirteenth most talented player to join the league this year. 13th highest paid, probably. but not most talented

The Wildcat is an invention created to take advantage of the talent at hand. Is the talent at hand going to stay the same every year? no. So the Wildcat will be adjusted dropped or added as needed. My point was that the wildcat is an example of making plans to go around the talent at hand.

This is a changing league. Nothing is permanent, not ideas nor talent.

PS the 13th pick SHOULD be the most talented, if people followed BPA, which most teams at least attempt/claim to. talent is currency, more talent gets more currency. if you dont like overpaying people, you pick the best available person.

For the most part, talent is not that changeable due to the nature of contracts, short term and long term. Plans can change, game plans can change, plays can change. And its fairly cheap to do so at the begining of a season. Draft first, plan later.

[SkinsTribeVA]

You took my generalizations and knocked them simply for being generalizations. Let me see if I can get more specific, I'll return to a point I made earlier: when drafting, a team should first look at their needs and ask if there is a player available who fits their needs at the right value. If not, THEN you look at BPA or trade down, not look at BPA first. I think it is widely accepted that a good team needs good lines, I don't need to get into that and beat a dead horse. Skill players alone won't win a championship. We don't want only a win-now approach and we don't want to only build for the future. Right now, the Redskins need to upgrade their lines in order to be a good team, both next season and for years to come. That's what the great franchises do.

With a team like this, if I had a choice in the draft between Michael Strahan and Ocho Cinco, I'd take Strahan. Crabtree or Oher, I'd take Oher. Beanie Wells or Ray Mauluga, I'd take Mauluga.

Who would've thunk an 18 year old punk would be telling a 73 year old geezer that it all starts in the trenches. I never saw the Hogs in action, but I'd sure like to!

[turbodiesel#44]

PS the 13th pick SHOULD be the most talented, if people followed BPA, which most teams at least attempt/claim to. talent is currency, more talent gets more currency. if you dont like overpaying people, you pick the best available person.

BPA is subjective. You can't "follow it", except the version in your own head. Or in this case, Vinny's head. Even years later, there is no agreement to who WAS most valuable 1 2 3.....and so on. Not even by Coaches, Fans, GMs or the Players themselves. Rarely, there is a concensus on #1. And that's after the fact. And the most valuable guy is the one who helped his team the most, not necessarily the most talented.

How on earth can you trust Vinny to predict who will perform, much less how we will even use him if he is drafted to sit the bench. We have holes to fill, and we need to fill them. If there is a huge value gap at a position for our pick, we should trade down. We don't need another QB. Or TE...

[JMUGator19]

One other thought to throw in here. I do not think we all understand what those grades mean...

lets do it by numbers rather than letters. To make it even simpler, the lower the number, the higher the grade...

ranked 1 over all means your the best player, 100 means your the 100th best.

my point is: your not ranked compared to people IN your position, you are ranked compared to ALL positions. EVERY PLAYER IN THE WHOLE DRAFT.

Since you are drafting people to play football, you want the best players to play. AKA all of them to be 330 LB 6-5 players with soft hands, 4.2 40s, incredible cuts and footwork etcr etcr. All can play QB, CB, OL, LB, TE, WR, K, P etcr etcr.

No one drafts a player because he fits well as a "traditional RB". they might say he IS a "traditional RB" but if they could get a "traditional RB" + blocking ability of an OL, they go for the latter. The media just gives us these buzz words so we buy more junk.

Some skills are more valuable than others (throwing a ball without messing up), such as kicking a ball in the air. But in the end of the day, you want the most talented person, and when you are about to start the season and you have a "need" you fill it with anything serviceable OR you create a new plan/idea/play that negates the need for that serviceable person (wildcat formation, WCO, cover 2, etcr)

Examples of this are: miami, STEELERS (they needed OL bad last year and the only one they drafted was in the 4th round with serious injury problems, they got a RB, QB, LB, none of which are needs), etcr, etcr

People definetly draft on a need basis, i will admit. Anyone drafting to fill out their 3-4 scheme is going out of his way to fill out a blueprint instead of the other way round. The reason for this is simple, they think the blueprint is SO good that its worth the sacrifice. we will see.

Interesting thing to note... people love to have hard rules to follow in tough and questionable situations. How about good old fashioned JUDGEMENT. people seem scared to use their judgement these days.

Example: supermario vs Bush. BPA was very similar. I don't remember if either was a significant need. Bush might have been slightly more "talented" but good judgment prevails.

BPA is best, but good judgement is better. I think everyone arguing for BPA keeps pointing this out.

[SkinsTribeVA]

turbodiesel

"And the most valuable guy is the one who helped his team the most, not necessarily the most talented"

Exactly. Look at need before BPA and see if there's a value pick.

"How on earth can you trust Vinny to predict who will perform, much less how we will even use him if he is drafted to sit the bench."

Sad but true. If we had Scott Pioli, I wouldn't be so worried about filling our needs.

[JMUGator19]

BPA is subjective. You can't "follow it", except the version in your own head. Or in this case, Vinny's head. Even years later, there is no agreement to who WAS most valuable 1 2 3.....and so on. Not even by Coaches, Fans, GMs or the Players themselves. Rarely, there is a concensus on #1. And that's after the fact. And the most valuable guy is the one who helped his team the most, not necessarily the most talented.

How on earth can you trust Vinny to predict who will perform, much less how we will even use him if he is drafted to sit the bench. We have holes to fill, and we need to fill them. If there is a huge value gap at a position for our pick, we should trade down. We don't need another QB. Or TE...

Agreement with you on this = 100%

It is definitely in your head. But what is the point of analysis or even showing up at draft day if you don't TRUST your judgment. According to your thoughts we should just look at what Kiper says is our need and look at who is ranked highest at that position by Mike Mayock, then pick that person without even looking at his name.

Personally, I think I'd be the best GM of all time. We probably all think that way. Vinny is in charge b/c Danny thinks hes the best.

I will say this now, If i get a chance to draft the next Peyton Manning, Im taking him ahead of an OT. If i get the chance to get the next Gonzales, im taking him.

I will also say this, I always think the person I am drafting is the best one there. I might be wrong, but im not going to bet against myself. I will draft based on who I believe is best. EVERYONE does.

Ever thought maybe you should draft Gonzales and then trade him? Or better yet, USE him? Everything is always a need, you never know who is going to get hurt when. Look at Denver and their RB fiasco. They had plenty of young people they knew they could plug in, it wasnt a need. But you gotta draft Adrian Peterson if he is there. You never know. Talent rises to the top, and you WILL find a way to use him.

[Peregrine]

Lets take the amazing turnaround of the Miami Dolphins as a real life tangible, and recent, example.

Where did their offensive line starters come from?

The Dolphins offensive line is composed of a two 1st round draft picks, a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and an UDFA. Only one of these players was drafted by another team. These are all young guys too, several recent draft picks(the UDFA is starting because one of last years draft picks got injured). This is not terribly isolated to the Dolphins. I took a look at the best 5 scoring offenses in the NFL last year. All 5 showed a theme of offensive lines that were typically composed of about 1 UDFA, 1 late round pick, and 3 drafted in the first day, almost all by the team itself. Yes, the Giants do have a line that has several late round picks, but they also have two starters drafted in the first day, and only 2 of their top 8 linemen were acquired via FA.

The Packers offensive line(5th in offensive scoring this past season) is composed of 10 players, 9 drafted by the packers, 1 UDFA. This includes two 2nd round picks(starting) a 3rd, and a couple of 4th round picks. 3 of their starters are first day picks.

The Cardinals offensive line(Top 5 scoring offense) is composed of 9 players, only one was drafted by another team. The 5 starters include a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick, one traded late rounder, and an UDFA(pretty much every good Oline has one UDFA).

The Saints offensive line(Top scoring offense) is composed of 9 players, with only 3 drafted by another team. Their starters include a 1st rounder, 2nd rounder, and 4th rounder, followed by two 5th round picks.

The Chargers offensive line(Top 5 scoring offense) is composed of 10 players, including a 1st round pick, two 2nd rounders, two 3rd rounders, and only 3 players that another team drafted. Once again it sees three 1st day picks, a late round pick, and a UDFA starting.

The Colts offensive line is composed of 8 players, including the starters, two 2nd round picks, a 4th round pick a late round pick, and then an UDFA. They have no players who were drafted by another team.

The Patriots offensive line is composed of 10 players, 2 of them drafted by other teams. The starters include a 1st rounder, 2nd rounder, and 3rd rounder, as well as a late round pick, and an UDFA, all drafted by the Patriots(except the UDFA of course).

Seeing a pattern? I know I am. You must accept that either teams that put an emphasis on drafting linemen succeed because of that choice, or that teams that have good offenses tend to see drafting linemen as important. None of these teams has an offensive line that is built by non-first day picks. They are not composed entirely of them, but they still represent the core of the group. If we ever want to compete as a top offense, we need to place an EMPHASIS on drafting linemen. It does not HAVE to be in the 1st round, but we need to, for the first time in many years, put an emphasis on drafting linemen, and not just whoever the best player is. We had 3 opportunities in the last draft to take one in the 2nd round, and give us two young potential starters in the draft. Instead, we took 3 pass catchers. Can you really tell me that just taking one linemen there would not have been wise?

[addicted]

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?

Of all of the posters on this forum, I would think that after so many people have pointed out to you already that a players value isn't know for sure at the time of the draft that you'd get this. Hindsight is a luxury no one truely has.

If drafting players was an exact science then we wouldn't have the Chris Hortons and the Tom Bradys out there. Since no one knows for sure how a player will play until they are put to the test your question to me has no merit to it. If you can tell us for certain that NFL starting linemen are not in this draft class then you win. But since you can not, you've made yourself look foolish acting as if anyone in the world could know who's best in the class.

The only thing we can do is take our best shot and hope we get lucky with whomever we pick. All I want is for us to do that with a linemen. I don't think that's too hard to ask

[turbodiesel#44]

Seeing a pattern?

Seals the deal for me. Nice research, nice post.

[addicted]

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.

I believe you could. I believe anyone could get Fred Davis more involved then he was last year, the guy did nothing at all last season. Now answer me this, if Zorn was unable to utilize Chris Cooley and Fred Davis, do you seriously think that he could get Cooley, Davis, and Gonzo involved? How does he do that with 3 players when he couldn't do it with 2 because he needed more protection on the line? The reason we didn't use Fred more is the poor line play we had. Its one of many reasons I believe we have to address this before any other

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.

I like Cooley as much as the next guy but if any team would seriously give us there #1 for him I'd take it. No teams going to do that imo

[SkinsTribeVA]

Peregrine hit it dead on.

You may not get a gem every time, but look at what drafting a first-round OL did for Miami, Atlanta, Denver, and Carolina last year. Especially those first three--all in the midst of some sort of "rebuilding" effort--it starts at the lines.

[addicted]

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.

:notworthy:applause:

Sure your really only 18? That was a fantastic fantastic post :applause:

[chipwhich]

Of all of the posters on this forum, I would think that after so many people have pointed out to you already that a players value isn't know for sure at the time of the draft that you'd get this. Hindsight is a luxury no one truely has.

I already pointed out to Oldfan...if you take the Patriots first five drafts after Bellicheks arrival. Assign a "value" to the pick and then see what value/points they put into drafting lineman...overwhelmingly they went trenches. A point he can't and won't try to refute other than a generic "i have made my point, you haven't".

Good teams go trenches. Bad teams go receivers.

[addicted]

Seeing a pattern? I know I am.

That should end this debate right there, great research :applause:

[SkinsTribeVA]

:notworthy:applause:

Sure your really only 18? That was a fantastic fantastic post :applause:

Well, soon to be 19. Haha thanks.

[kramdizzle]

i think everyone would agree that we need to take the BPA. Hopefully it is a trench warrior. obviously we cannot take for instance a RB,CB,S,WR,or TE. if the BPA happens to be a ray lewis so be it. if the BPA is a RB you have to pass b/c that need is NOT a pressing one. What you need to do is take the BPA at one of the positions you need or you wind up with a fred davis sitting behind cooley

[turbodiesel#44]

This part of your post -

i think everyone would agree that we need to take the BPA.

is not in agreement with this part.

Hopefully it is a trench warrior. obviously we cannot take for instance a RB,CB,S,WR,or TE. if the BPA happens to be a ray lewis so be it. if the BPA is a RB you have to pass b/c that need is NOT a pressing one. What you need to do is take the BPA at one of the positions you need or you wind up with a fred davis sitting behind cooley

That is pretty much both sides of this argument.

I was not aware of a worst player available at a position of need faction. But then, sometimes logic confuses me.

[JMUGator19]

i think everyone would agree that we need to take the BPA. Hopefully it is a trench warrior. obviously we cannot take for instance a RB,CB,S,WR,or TE. if the BPA happens to be a ray lewis so be it. if the BPA is a RB you have to pass b/c that need is NOT a pressing one. What you need to do is take the BPA at one of the positions you need or you wind up with a fred davis sitting behind cooley

I guess this is where I disagree. I do not mind having Ray Lewis backing up Ray Lewis. That is a good problem to have. Hopefully I can invent the 3-4 to find a way to put both of them on the field at the same time.

[KDawg]

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

You did? Where was I for that?

All I saw was you name one player and then you assume that you somehow proved me wrong.

So, by your theory, we're just going to keep drafting these guys, then? We're never going to resign any of them? You know, to keep them less expensive?

[JMUGator19]

The only thing we can do is take our best shot and hope we get lucky with whomever we pick.

I am DEFINITELY not hiring you as a GM. Do you have that attitude at work?

Do your research, get better at it every year, and do the right thing. however difficult it may be.

[JMUGator19]

Assign a "value" to the pick and then see what value/points they put into drafting lineman...overwhelmingly they went trenches.

Good teams go trenches. Bad teams go receivers.

Maybe, just maybe... the skills of an OLman are more valuable than a WR...

Maybe, just maybe... those players they picked at OL/DL were more highly rated than other WRs

Maybe, just maybe... all that is considered and put into the draftboard rankings.

Quick, pick one of two players: Worlds best FB or Worlds best QB. one of those people has more valued skills. They are not equally ranked. Best QB of All time is ranked more highly than the best FB of all time.

Hopefully this illustrates that BPA includes a person's position and skills, allowing you to say "hey, this guy is better than that guy. Do I want the better guy or the worse guy?".

The draft only happens once a year. No draft class is ever the same again. FA lasts a couple of months, and those players usually will go back to FA more than once. And for once, with the draft you don't have to worry about convincing a person to join your squad.

[chipwhich]

Maybe, just maybe... the skills of an OLman are more valuable than a WR...

Maybe, just maybe... those players they picked at OL/DL were more highly rated than other WRs

Maybe, just maybe... all that is considered and put into the draftboard rankings.

Or maybe just maybe good teams draft in the trenches, bad teams draft receivers.

Proof is in the research. Maybe's and buts and candy and nuts are for Christmas.

[TheLongshot]

I would be a hell of a happy fan if that happened. All I'm asking for is to see the Skins use the ammunition we have and address the line. :applause:

But, as I said, that is overly optimistic. I doubt all that will happen.

So your happy with the way the line played the second half of the year and realistically think that we can via for the division next year without improving it? Just because we spent money unwisely doesn't mean that we can ignore this problem

My statement has nothing to do with whether I'm happy with the line or not. It is the realistic viewpoint that we probably won't be able to do much to upgrade the line for next year.

You speak with certainity in your words but I have to ask, how do you know that we would have used any of those picks on linemen? I don't think anyone knows what we would have done with those picks.

I would think that in 2007 that we would have used one of those picks to select a guard to replace Dockery. The 3rd round seems to be a sweet spot for Vinny to select guards, unfortunately it went to get Duckett.

I agree with this but not the idea that we know about having a good OL. The way I see it is if we knew a thing about it we wouldn't have been in this position in the first place, we would have drafted a lineman in the first two rounds of the draft since we drafted Samuals 9 years ago, we wouldn't have done that with Jansen, and some of the younger guys we've picked in the later rounds would have panned out but none have. I don't think the front office views this position as important since its not flashy

Considering how much money is invested in the OL, I don't know how you can say that the FO doesn't think that the OL is important. I'd also say that the OL that Vinny has built has been pretty good for a good amount of time. The only problem now is that we've gotten to the point where we have multiple parts that need to be replaced soon and not a lot of ammo to get replacements.

I'm pissed at Taylor for several things which include:

Understood, but the price has been paid and the last thing I want to see is to compound the problem by getting rid of the guy after having an unusually injury prone year and go elsewhere and have a great year when we are in very big need of a pass rushing end. Fact is, we aren't going to find anyone out there who can have the impact that Taylor can this year. If the coaching staff thinks that they can use him, we probably should keep him around.

[Shilsu]

Just for perspective...

Highest linemen taken with or after the #13 pick since 2000.

2000 - DE John Abraham

2001 - DT Marcus Stroud

2002 - DT Albert Haynesworth (after WR Donte Stallworth, TE Jeremy Shockey)

2003 - DE Ty Warren

2004 - DT Tommie Harris (after WR Lee Evans)

2005 - OT Jammal Brown

2006 - DE Kamerion Wimbley

2007 - DE Adam Carriker

2008 - OT Chris Williams (after RB Jonathan Stewart)

Damn...