Trading up makes more sense for OT rather than QB for us

[Oldfan]

I say lets assume that trading up in the high first round is a bad idea in general, no matter what the grade on a player...

Trading up in the draft is generally a bad idea, but there are exceptions to every rule. So, I can't agree with your absolute position, "no matter what the grade on the player."

Look no further than the Patriots to see why.

Not long ago, I did a thread on Belichick's methods. Since 2000, the Patriots have traded up twice. Once for Moroney...I'm fairly sure...can't recall the other... but they did it twice in nine years.

The only thing they do differently with the draft is draft players that fit their scheme better than the competition. They don't keep expensive vets. They trade them for draft picks; and sometimes they spend picks for vets, but when they do, they get value.

[Hooper]

Again--the Patriots can stockpile picks because they have the luxury of an already-filled CENTERPIECE leader/HoF Franchise QB.

If Brady quit this offseason after Cassel was traded, what do you think they would do? Trade back for a mediocre QB prospect or try to grab they thought was special? Also, they had Seymour who was a very high pick. Again, foundational line talent---you can then stock picks because you've got a centerpiece for one level of your (defense, in this case.)

The Pats found two stud qbs in what, the sixth and seventh round? Clearly they were very lucky, but the success rate for qbs taken in the first round isn't that much better than QBs taken in later rounds. No qb drafted in the first round -- especially ones who started for all of a year in college.

I understand the Skins aren't sold on JC. I'm definitely not. And if Sanchez is there at 13, I can live with the Skins taking him. But to trade up -- which will take next year's first I bet -- is just a huge roll of the dice. It would have made more sense to spend three first round picks to get Cutler -- at least he's a proven commodity.

[DCDiesel44]

We should be trading DOWN for a OL/DL not a QB. No player in this draft is worth us trading up for. Trade down and try to regain some picks that we wasted in our foolish past that hopefully doesn't become our present/future.

[Oldfan]

The Pats found two stud qbs in what, the sixth and seventh round? Clearly they were very lucky, but the success rate for qbs taken in the first round isn't that much better than QBs taken in later rounds. No qb drafted in the first round -- especially ones who started for all of a year in college.

1) Cassell isn't a stud;

2) the QB hit rate is considerably better in the first round than later rounds;

3) The main factor for first-round QBs failing is that they are drafted by lousy teams. The Patriots were lucky with Brady, true. Brady was lucky to be drafted by the most QB friendly scheme and best support system in the NFL, also true;

[Ghost of]

The Pats found two stud qbs in what, the sixth and seventh round?

Well, I won't argue with you too much about potential price to acquire Sanchez (but remember we do have college scouts and guys besides Vinny and Snyder that have input and I actually have come to trust them a LITTLE bit with the big picks, at least) but I just get tired of people throwing things out there without context. A team like the Patriots can do what it does because for WHATEVER reason, they hit with Brady and can afford to play all those games.

Also, they typically are picking later in the first (MUCH later) and have to find ways to maximize the overall talent "slice" they're getting from the draft. If the Patriots could pick top-10 talent and NOT pay for them at much higher rate, I'm going to guess they'd go for that.

Can you imagine a Sean Taylor with the Patriots? Even a guy like Wilfork, a good player, fell for other reasons--he had top 15 talent easily.

I think they make what they can work with those value guys because there is usually some high value in the upper second round or very-late first round of guys who fell for rather insignificant reasons (looking back) or a combination of "workout warriors" and "we gotta have a LB! ANY LB!"-type picks pushed them out.

[KokoMike]

Colt Brennan will do just fine as our QB. I'm not going to write off Campbell at this point either.

We need some beef.

[TheLongshot]

So, basically, your argument is that Dan Snyder is too dumb or too zoned in on winning in 2009 to do the smart thing and draft the QB if he can.[/i]

So, how is my conclusion (in bold above)wrong? Can you give me a direct answer?

Sorry, I don't respond to inflammatory strawmen that don't have much to do with my arguments. You are going to have to do better than that.

BTW, you probably insulted the majority on this board, since if you took a straw poll, you'd probably get the result that improving the OL is the greatest need for this team. A subset probably believes that coming out of this draft without a potential starting OT will be a failure.

[Newera]

If you're going to trade up that high. You're not going to do that for one of the offensive tackles. Goes against what Danny or Vinny ever do.

I think we will target someone that's a "Franchise type player or we will move back.

[Newera]

As has already been pointed out we don't have the ammunition to trade up.

Not neccessarily. Depends on how far we are willing to pay. There's always a price.

[TheLongshot]

If you're going to trade up that high. You're not going to do that for one of the offensive tackles. Goes against what Danny or Vinny ever do.

I think we will target someone that's a "Franchise type player or we will move back.

You mean we didn't trade up for Chris Samuels? (or you can say Arrington as well, both fit.)

And when isn't a stud LT guy not a "franchise" player?

[Newera]

Good post McQueen ... I agree with your assessment that Sanchez is special. My feeling is that Draft choices will be devalued next year because of the CBA stuff ... this is the year to grab a QB (Sanchez) who looks like the real deal.

That's a good point.

[Newera]

Sure, but we had two high picks. Not one.

[alwaysaskin]

The only thing I want to hear next Saturday is: "With the 13th Pick in the NFL Draft, the Washington Redskins Select: ANDRE SMITH, Tackle, University of Alabama

[paintrain]

At this point with Sanchez likely going off the board in the top 5 and Buffalo taking the 4th tackle at #11 if we trade up it will be to #9 for Orapko. Putting Orapko on the DL with Haynesworth, Griffin and Carter will give us a hellacious D-line.

[Haynesworth_Mancrush]

The only reason we should trade up is to acquire Curry, Monroe or J. Smith. Otherwise, stay put and if/when Curry, Orakpo, or any of the top 4 OLs aren't there at 13, then try and trade back. Forget Sanchez. We have Colt to experiment with first.

[illone]

Let's first temporarily set aside Dan Snyder and trying to read his intentions and stick to the conclusion suggested by your title.

Let's assume that we have a QB and an OT both graded by our scouts as having the potential to be perennial All-Pros at their positions.

With that assumption, it makes no sense to me to trade up for the OT when the QB position is far more important to winning football games over the next ten years.

So, basically, your argument is that Dan Snyder is too dumb or too zoned in on winning in 2009 to do the smart thing and draft the QB if he can.

This is one of your most pointless posts ever, and that's saying something OF.

Way to come out of left field with nothing, though.

You are right about one thing: QB is more important than OT. However, that doesn't mean that QB is the correct pick in every draft, but you knew that;).

[LoudMouth12thMan]

Why would they trade up to get an OT when OT is probably the deepest position in the 1st round? That doesn't make sense to me and I would guess that they'd assume that one or two of those OT's would be available. They could all be gone by #13, sure, but I doubt it.

The trade up to get Sanchez scenario makes perfect sense. It's the anti-Snyder-of-the-past way of thinking save the fact that he'd have to sell the ranch (as far as draft picks)to do it, which is typical for this organization. The difference is the fact that he'd be giving up picks to get a pretty damn good qb prospect from the draft that some project to be an above average, maybe even an elite, qb down the road. We're not talking about going after an aging FA qb which is what Danny has done in the past.

On a different note: Why would they worry about Sanchez stepping right in if Campbell struggles early on this season? That might not be so bad. One of the veteran Ravens players (Lewis, I think) said after playing us last year that our offense was the most basic that he has seen all year, essentially. Sanchez knows the West Coast system and can make all the necessary throws. With the rest of the team (on the offensive side of the ball) coming in for year two in this system, Sanchez could come right in and be effective. That is not a far fetched concept. Flacco anyone? Ryan anyone? Copy-cat league anyone?

I'm not advocating the move necessarily, but I understand it if it happens. I don't get the whole "trade up to get an elite OT" b/c I'm not sure that the top two OT's in this draft, who could be any three or four of the top guys depending on who you ask, are NOT graded out much higher than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranked OT's. :2cents: ...interesting debate though and I'm looking forward to seeing what they try to do next weekend.

[TheLongshot]

You are right about one thing: QB is more important than OT. However, that doesn't mean that QB is the correct pick in every draft, but you knew that;).

More to the point, is QB more of a need than OT right now? Also, don't make the assumption that because we are looking strongly at a QB that he's automatically on top of the draft board just because he's a QB.

[illone]

More to the point, is QB more of a need than OT right now? Also, don't make the assumption that because we are looking strongly at a QB that he's automatically on top of the draft board just because he's a QB.

I definitely think OT is more important right now but then again with a better QB who makes quick decisions and gets rid of the ball in less than three seconds, the Skins oline would look above average.

Tough call, but I'd rather the Skins stand pat at 13, or trade down. Trading up is my least favorite option, but I agree with you that trading Up for one of the big four isn't all bad.

[illone]

Why would they trade up to get an OT when OT is probably the deepest position in the 1st round?

Because of the dropoff in talent from say Michael Oher, to Eben Britton.

It's fairly significant.

[Gregpeck99]

The only thing I want to hear next Saturday is: "With the 13th Pick in the NFL Draft, the Washington Redskins Select: ANDRE SMITH, Tackle, University of Alabama

Is Andre wearing a Bra?

[Oldfan]

The Longshot: Sorry, I don't respond to inflammatory strawmen that don't have much to do with my arguments. You are going to have to do better than that.

It's too late for you to use a strawman accusation as an evasive tactic. In addition to the two other posters who have responded to the counterpoint I made in Post 31, you have already made two attempts to deal with it.

First, you made a weak attempt to argue that, assuming they were graded equally, as potential all-pros, it would NOT be smart to choose the QB over the OT when you said in Post 33:

...OTs are probably the safest position to pick in the 1st round.

Then, in Post #40, you implied that your argument assumes that Dan snyder, as I put it in Post 31, "is too zoned in on 2009" when you said:

My comments are based on the perceived goals of the FO...

BTW, you probably insulted the majority on this board, since if you took a straw poll, you'd probably get the result that improving the OL is the greatest need for this team...

You think most people are insulted when someone disagrees with them? Did the 11% opposed to the Jason Taylor trade insult the 89% who were for it? Are you insulted because I disagree with you?

Besides, I don't disagree. An OT is our greatest immediate need. I just am not as concerned with filling immediate needs as much as I am improving our team as much as possible for the long haul.

Bottom line: You could be right. Maybe Dan's win-now goal will mirror the win-now goals of most ES members to fill the immediate need for an OT. However, if Jim Zorn sees Sanchez as a grade A talent who fits his scheme nicely, I think the Skins would be remiss if they did not make a serious bid. If the scouting reports are accurate, Sanchez sounds like another Drew Brees type with more talent than Drew.

[Oldfan]

This is one of your most pointless posts ever, and that's saying something OF.

You're wising up, illone. In the past, you would have embarrassed yourself by trying to explain why my post was off the mark.

[Oldfan]

You are right about one thing: QB is more important than OT. However, that doesn't mean that QB is the correct pick in every draft, but you knew that;).

Yes, I know that; but the point is not relevant here since the only logical way to test the sense in a trade up scenario is to assume that both the OT and the QB are graded as potential perennial all-pros -- and there is no situation where the QB wouldn't be the right pick for a team that doesn't have a perennial all-pro already at that position.

[Oldfan]

More to the point, is QB more of a need than OT right now?

Even more to the point...should immediate need be the primary concern for the Redskins franchise? It is --only when the goal is to win now -- the chief reason that most of the 32 teams will stay mediocre.