Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Drafting Sanchez at this point in my non-expert opinion would ignore other needs that we have and continue to keep us in the never ending rebuilding process. Even experts disagree on the need versus BPA debate, so it isn't surprising that we do. I think need is way over-emphasized in building a roster. It's a win now strategy. Who will help us win in 2009 is the question asked rather than which player will add the most value to our team in the coming years. IMO the draft is about recognizing and seizing opportunities to improve your team, not about taking the best player available to fill a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 If the Redskin scouts agree with your opinions, they will pick an OT in the draft. But, suppose they don't? Are they then stupid for not drafting an OT?Don't we have to assume that they are operating on much better information than we have? Or perhaps they are taking a calculated risk. Obviously as fans we have opinions that aren't always going to jive with the front office and visa versa. They do have a lot more experience, resources etc to make these type of decisions. Lets also not forget something, the final decision has to be OK by Danny. There have been reports in the past about Danny and Vinny drafting/trading/and signing players that went against the recommendations by Scott Campbell and other scouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Or perhaps they are taking a calculated risk. That's a given. All roster decisions are calculated risks. Lets also not forget something, the final decision has to be OK by Danny. There have been reports in the past about Danny and Vinny drafting/trading/and signing players that went against the recommendations by Scott Campbell and other scouts. I pay no attention to the rumors about them. I base my opinions on what they do. My major gripe is that, evidenced by some of his moves, Dan seems to be content with a win now goal. I want a dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I pay no attention to the rumors about them. I base my opinions on what they do. My major gripe is that, evidenced by some of his moves, Dan seems to be content with a win now goal. I want a dynasty. Agreed this win now tactic hasn't worked before and what makes anyone believe it will suddenly work now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brlawson Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I guess that if you look at our first rounders over the past ten years, we have done really well when finding defensive talent (Champ, LaVar, S. Taylor, Carlos Rodgers, Landry) and O Line (Samuels). As for our skill positions we have taken Patrick Ramsey, Rod Gardner, and Campbell (Whom everyone seems to think we need to replace). I think we need to continue our success in the first round and select on the defensive side of the ball, or boost our O line. It looks like our FO is not great at evaluating first round talent for WR/QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtwray67 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Great post JTwray67 ... but you will get hell from the status quo ante fans. Thanks! and bring it on...it's hail to the Redskins...not hail to Jason Campbell. Just think...when Campbell's gone they can stop apologizing for him. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I want a dynasty. As do I. And I am a firm believer that the game is won in the trenches, despite some others that may disagree;) The OL is in obviously need of help. When you have the opportunity to grab a top OT prospect, you go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Truth Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I'm somewhat convinced that the Skins could end up getting Sanchez. Now that would be a dumb move for the 2009 season IMO but assuming the Skins are thinking big picture this is a alright move to me. Dude is talented and JC has not been given a contract extension so that sorta tells me something right there. If they go with Sanchez, thats basically saying that we gonna rock out like we did last year but with minmimal improvements done to our O and the defense NEEDS to hold us down aka won't cut it so get ready for next year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGREENHULK Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I firmly believe this will be another stupid move by Vinny C and Dan Snyder. I'd love for Sanchez to come here with the same midget receivers and Offensive Line that campbell had last year. These idiots in the FO will never get it. Keep your draft picks and draft in areas where you were previously deficient! 2 DGREENS and sharing the same brain. I hope Vinny is trying to create false belief we will take the QB. Trading back in the 1st and picking up a 2nd would be the best case for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 As do I. And I am a firm believer that the game is won in the trenches, despite some others that may disagree;) The OL is in obviously need of help. When you have the opportunity to grab a top OT prospect, you go for it. The way I have it... QB = one-third of total worth in offense Other five skill positions = one-third. Five O linemen = one-third Of the five O linemen, the LT is the most important, then the RT, then the interior linemen So, if Sanchez is a grade A player, he can upgrade Campbell's grade C and make a much greater contribution to the objective of winning football games in future years than the second-most important O line player even if there is greater need at the RT in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 2 DGREENS and sharing the same brain. You're both half-wits? <just teasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 The way I have it...QB = one-third of total worth in offense Other five skill positions = one-third. Five O linemen = one-third Of the five O linemen, the LT is the most important, then the RT, then the interior linemen So, if Sanchez is a grade A player, he can upgrade Campbell's grade C and make a much greater contribution to the objective of winning football games in future years than the second-most important O line player even if there is greater need at the RT in 2009. You and your attempts to quantify things:D Another year in the system for JC would certainly bump him. Plus, an OL is only as good as its weakest link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Bleeder Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I want a dynasty. We agree 100% on this fact! However, i dont feel drafting a QB in the first round every 4 years is the way to do it. When we did have a dynasty it was built around the lines, as evidenced by the fact that we had 3 rings with three different QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 You and your attempts to quantify things:D I know. Disgusting isn't it? Another year in the system for JC would certainly bump him. I'm betting the team wins 11 - 13 games and Jason is selected for the Pro Bowl. But, I think his ceiling is a C+ or B level QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 ...When we did have a dynasty it was built around the lines, as evidenced by the fact that we had 3 rings with three different QB's. Doesn't the evidence that we were the only team in NFL history to win three rings with three different QBs suggest that that team was a deviation from the norm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brlawson Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Maybe it's better that we take him, because in the long run it may teach our FO that we can not keep wasting our picks on QB's and not give them a worthwhile supporting cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Good post.Looking at guys like Mike Williams, Robert Gallery and Michael Huff makes me glad that we are good at drafting in the top half of the first. Agree, and heck I recall some on this board one in particular who bashes Vinny a lot was touting Jamal Anderson as the be all and end all, and a no brainer pick that year. Well, so far he looks like a bust. Ditto with Alan Branch who many loved. I recall some on the board saying we were nuts to pass over Mike Williams. Last draft, a bunch of people complained how we didnn't draft an OT with one of our second rounders -- but which team did draft an OT in the 2nd round -- the answer is nobody. While I do think Danny and perhaps Vinny get overeager and give up too much when they fall in love with a player -- I do think they do want to succeed, and have made some decent decisions in the draft am assuming thanks to their scouts. If you read what the draft geeks think about Sanchez, it doesn't strike me a reach that Sanchez has the potential to be a franchise QB. Mayock on NFL Network said he's his top QB and likes him more than Stafford, Kiper said he's one of the top 5 players in the draft. But yeah something tells me that Zorn, Vinny, Campbell, Brown, and the rest of the Redskin scouts aren't flailing in the wind, reading this board and saying to themslves, wow I didn't know drafting QB's in the first round is risky, Sanchez only has 16 starts we didn't know that maybe we should think again, etc. My point is they don't seem dumb evaluating first rounders, so unless this is Snyder doing this on his own and against the take of the team's scouts and Zorn -- I'd figure they must really really like this guy, and why should we assume they have to be wrong? I do agree that they have the tendency to overpay, and that's a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinned Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Doesn't the evidence that we were the only team in NFL history to win three rings with three different QBs suggest that that team was a deviation from the norm? Plus, this was prior to free agency. It is now nearly impossible to retain all of your guys in the trenches for more than 2-3 years. Not so when you find your franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreen1 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You're both half-wits? <just teasing. You're not a half-wit? Just teasing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.