"A man's got to know his limitations" -- Dirty Harry

[Oldfan]

I know very little about the players available in the draft because I haven't seen them play much football and I have a low regard for the opinions of the self-styled experts like Mel Kiper and the legion of Kiper wannabes who followed his lead. These men don't know their limitations.

The scouts who really know their stuff get paid very well by the NFL teams for their opinions. They watch the college players live and spend even more hours watching film before giving each a grade. I'd feel like a damn fool questioning or second-guessing any pick made by the Redskins.

I can, and have, disageed with what seem to be the goals of the organization as well as their approach to roster building in general, but I will not question the front office on their draft picks.

I will try to grade the organization on their drafting ability over a reasonable length of time. Right now, I think their hit rate is above average. The team simply hasn't kept enough picks over the years.

Once I see the player on the field in a Redskins uniform, it's another story. I wondered if Joe Gibbs knew what he was doing in spending three high picks when I saw Jason's Campbell's sloppy mechanics; but my ego is not so huge that I would question a HOF coach based on my knowledge of the game. Subsequently, though, Al Saunders and Jim Zorn had the same concerns I did. Joe Gibbs just doesn't think QB mechanics are a big deal. I can't flat out say he's wrong about that. There are some NFL coaches who would agree with him.

There are four factors to be considered when grading college players:

= the player's ability

= the player's fit to the scheme

= the relative value of the position

= the team's immediate need at that position

Jack Del Rio recently said that his team would stop drafting with the emphasis on need. Like other NFL teams that have come to the same conclusion, the Jags hit rate has suffered because need has nothing to do with the quality of the player. So, while I think an OT is the team's most immediate need, I'll try to heed Harry's advice and keep my limitations in mind. So, I won't criticise the Skins if they draft a middle linebacker at #13 who grades out for them as the next Brian Urlacher even though I think London Fletcher is a helluva fine football player.

[Koolblue13]

Well put Oldman. I would rather not see us grab a corner or receiver, but if you get a chance at the top rated one, it should pay off down the road.

[mnb123]

Well put Oldman. I would rather not see us grab a corner or receiver, but if you get a chance at the top rated one, it should pay off down the road.

If we take a corner in the first there is no limit to the destruction that I will make in my house.

[Annonymous Source]

I agree with you in theory, but with this high of a pick you should be able to find someone that you can take for need and is still a stud. If none are available then trade down and find your gems. The crazy thing is that the Redskins have drafted really well recently but dont have enough picks to make an impact. A list of late rounders that we have drafted.

Anthony Montgomery, Cedric Gholston, HB Blades (still unproven), Reed Doughty, Chris Horton.

All these guys started for our team and were taken in the 6th round or later.

The problem is that the redskins have never had enough picks to fill their roster with young talent. Im hoping they trade the 13 for two seconds and a third, then go Center, OLB, RT, HB. They should be able to get good value at center and olb is very deep this draft. As for RT and HB those are positions that you can develop players in.

PS im new on the site so i dont know how all this works yet

Hail

[Oldfan]

If we take a corner in the first there is no limit to the destruction that I will make in my house.

Suppose the corner is as good as Champ Bailey -- now you have Big Al who has to be double-teamed -- and no need to double-team the opponent's big WR playmaker because your corner needs no help. That's like playing defense with 13 men.

Are you still pissed?

[Laxpunk2006]

I agree with you in theory, but with this high of a pick you should be able to find someone that you can take for need and is still a stud. If none are available then trade down and find your gems. The crazy thing is that the Redskins have drafted really well recently but dont have enough picks to make an impact. A list of late rounders that we have drafted.

That really comes down to how our coaches and scouts have graded the players against our scheme. I think any of the big 4 would likely grade high enough for the #13 pick. Curry, Rey, and Orakpo are likely high enough at LB. At DE I see a bunch of tweeners and Tyson Jackson who I don't think we go after.

Assuming these guys are all off the board I could agree in going in what some here would call a crazy direction by drafting Knowshon Moreno/Beanie Wells or something along those lines if their grade is significantly higher than the players remaining at a position of need.

I still have hopes for addressing a need while still hitting the BPA but it doesn't always work that way. I fully believe BPA is the best way to build a franchise longterm. Drafting for need gets you Alex Smith #1 overrall.

[Est.1974]

If we take a corner in the first there is no limit to the destruction that I will make in my house.

All 3 second rounders were deemed ( by Vinny ) BPA last year. Apparently, we had them all graded out as 1st rounders.

I've said this is another thread. If Malcolm Jenkins is easily the BPA ( in Vinnys eyes ) when we pick, hold on to your hats...

Everyone better leave your house fast

[Oldfan]

I agree with you in theory, but with this high of a pick you should be able to find someone that you can take for need and is still a stud.

Welcome to the forum.

I gave your idea some thought, but I can't see how the #13 makes it any more likely that the best player to fit our scheme will coincidentally play the position of greatest need. With 22 positions, I'd say the odds that he will be are 21-1 against.

But, as I said, need is certainly a factor which has to be considered. I just don't think it can be given as much weight as the draftniks want to give it.

[elkabong82]

All 3 second rounders were deemed ( by Vinny ) BPA last year. Apparently' date=' we had them all graded out as 1st rounders.

I've said this is another thread. If Malcolm Jenkins is easily the BPA ( in Vinnys eyes ) when we pick, hold on to your hats...

Everyone better leave your house fast [/quote']

And the consensus amongst mock drafts and "experts" were that all 3 would go in the 1st round. Thomas and Kelly were considered 2 of the top WR candidates, and Davis was arguably the best TE prospect in the draft. Davis was a head scratcher at first, but we were looking at a team with difficulty scoring and midgets for receivers while relying heavily on the TE in the pass game, yet we have a perrenial top 10 D. Then we were looking at the 7th/8th/9th rated DEs vs. the 1-2 rated TE. I really don;t see anyone criticizing the Cowboys for taking Bennett in the same round, eventhough they have Witten.

I highly doubt Jenkins is the BPA if we pick at 13, especially since he isn't projected to go that high.

[Gregpeck99]

I dunno Oldfan ... Skins are only one or two players away. In such cases, the line between BPA and need becomes blurry. And of course, Lady Luck plays a huge part in how a particular pick pans out. Bottomline: I don't think we can formularize player selection ... its more art than science.

[HA1LV1CT0RY]

If we take a corner in the first there is no limit to the destruction that I will make in my house.

hahahaha

[MumboSauce]

I could be wrong, but at a glance, I don't think our team is set up in a way that can take advantage of best player available.

Look at the New England Patriots or Steelers and the like, they use the draft well, don't pay old vets long term(1-3 yr deals at most) and they don't have to draft to fill a position of need because they have depth, and almost always have the luxury of taking players based on talent(bpa) and not to fill an area of need.

The you have the Washington Redskins who throw away draft picks, pay big money for other teams vets and sign them to big/long deals. Granted they are getting vets that are a bit younger now in recent years...but by not having many draft picks, and having high priced, long term older veterans both from FA and our own there is little depth.

Then when you can't afford to pay one of these high priced guys and they are let go, or they get injured and there is no depth behind them, you are forced then to draft for a need to fill an empty hole for a starting roll...or bring in a veteran for a starting roll, not depth.

You want it set up so you can take a player that is the best on the board and not reaching for a need, but I don't think the Skins are set up to have that luxury unfortunately.

And this team is not one or two players away, it's that kinda thinking that keeps this team mediocre and at the bottom of the division.

[Oldfan]

I dunno Oldfan ... Skins are only one or two players away. In such cases, the line between BPA and need becomes blurry. And of course, Lady Luck plays a huge part in how a particular pick pans out. Bottomline: I don't think we can formularize player selection ... its more art than science.

In Snyder's shoes, I wouldn't ever want to hear from Vinny or Jim Zorn that we are one or two players away. The weight I give NEED or the other three factors in the draft grade doesn't change regardless of the state of our roster. I'm in a continual state of seizing the opportunities to improve my roster as they present themselves.

[Oldfan]

I could be wrong, but at a glance, I don't think our team is set up in a way that can take advantage of best player available.

Look at the New England Patriots or Steelers and the like, they use the draft well, don't pay old vets long term(1-3 yr deals at most) and they don't have to draft to fill a position of need because they have depth, and almost always have the luxury of taking players based on talent(bpa) and not to fill an area of need.

The you have the Washington Redskins who throw away draft picks, pay big money for other teams vets and sign them to big/long deals. Granted they are getting vets that are a bit younger now in recent years...but by not having many draft picks, and having high priced, long term older veterans both from FA and our own there is little depth.

Then when you can't afford to pay one of these high priced guys and they are let go, or they get injured and there is no depth behind them, you are forced then to draft for a need to fill an empty hole for a starting roll.

You want it set up so you can take a player that is the best on the board and not reaching for a need, but I don't think the Skins are set up to have that luxury unfortunately.

And this team is not one or two players away, it's that kinda thinking that

keeps this team mediocre and at the bottom of the division.

GregPeck just argued that we should draft for need BECAUSE we are just one or two players away. You argue that we should draft for need because we aren't one or two players away. I don't see the logic of either position.

The weight I give NEED or the other three factors in the draft grade doesn't change regardless of the state of our roster. In Dan Snyder's shoes, I want my staff in a continual state of recognizing and seizing the opportunities to improve my roster as they present themselves in the draft, by trade or free agency (the draft is the primary source).

[Est.1974]

And the consensus amongst mock drafts and "experts" were that all 3 would go in the 1st round. Thomas and Kelly were considered 2 of the top WR candidates, and Davis was arguably the best TE prospect in the draft.

I think you have taken my post as a dig at Vinny ?

Not so,

Just saying we go BPA :cool:

[Chump Bailey]

I don't know OF, I think Kiper, McShay and more so Mayock, do have and offer intelligent insight worthy of consideration. McShay was the only I'm aware of to come out and say Vernon Golston will be a bust - thus far he's correct. Mayock the same about Mike Williams.

These guys get hammered by former players/analysts routinely for their opinions, but Marshal Faulk and Deon have recently acknowledged that they can and do indeed bring substantive thought to the table with regard to a players overall talent level and projection.

Scouts are not soothsayers or oracles. It's not something they go to school eight to ten years for. I really don't think it's all that hard to spot and evaluate talent.

[elkabong82]

I think you have taken my post as a dig at Vinny ?

Not so' date='

Just saying we go BPA :cool:[/quote']

No, I interpreted it as you suggesting the players we took weren't BPA, which is why I discussed what their draft grades were. Apparently I misinterpreted you. You are simply saying we go BPA, correct? If so we're in agreement. However, I don't think Jenkins will be BPA if we pick at 13. Also, need does influence BPA as well, but in more of a tie-breaker scenario I imagine.

[Oldfan]

I don't know OF, I think Kiper, McShay and more so Mayock, do have and offer intelligent insight worthy of consideration. McShay was the only I'm aware of to come out and say Vernon Golston will be a bust - thus far he's correct. Mayock the same about Mike Williams.

These guys get hammered by former players/analysts routinely for their opinions, but Marshal Faulk and Deon have recently acknowledged that they can and do indeed bring substantive thought to the table with regard to a players overall talent level and projection.

Scouts are not soothsayers or oracles. It's not something they go to school eight to ten years for. I really don't think it's all that hard to spot and evaluate talent.

No sale, CB.

Scouts have both superior expertise and far more man-hours to apply to the task than the Kiper-types.

Show me Kiper's hit rate over several seasons (or any of the others).

[Skinsinparadise]

I agree with this 100%. For example, when I read posts about how so and so watched a whole bunch of USC games, and they definitively know that Sanchez is going to be a bust and some of these same people mock Snyder for being seat of his pants and not thoughtful enough -- the paradox is pretty amusing.

Seems like some want to think Snyder is trolling the board with his scouts like Scott Campbell and telling him look yeah I know you've studied the tapes to death, I know you've been a scout for years, I know you spoke to Pete Carroll, and Mike Sanchez directly, heck you even talked to his high school coach -- but please give a ring to the guys on extremeskins who watched some USC games, because they seem to have the definitive take on him. We are going back and forth internally about this dude, but that poster on extremeskins has no doubts, he knows with 100% certainty the verdict on this move, so contact him immediately.

or Scott, did you know that there is risk when you draft quarterbacks who are juniors, you didn't? Please take notes, there is a thread on extremeskins today which will give you a nice scouting 101 briefing, and how we are missing the idea that Sanchez doesn't have enough starts. Heck some are even saying there are better QB's coming out in the next draft, Scott did you consider that? Scott: "Oh really, oh yeah isn't that Tebow guy coming out, lets rethink this."

Jim (Zorn) yeah I know you work with him almost every day, but a guy in extremeskins just watched the tapes, you are missing the drill on Jason's Campbell's mechanics, please read that post! And while you are at, I know you got Colt Brennan in practice everyday and have been working on his mechanics but there are some guys on the web who are saying that you are missing out on the idea that Brennan is ready to shine right now, I'll get the phone numbers of the people who posted it on Extremeskins, and they will explain it to you Jimmy!

The sarcasm isn't directed at anybody. And look I argue points all the time as a non expert, these comments are directed at those that seems to have definitive/absolute view points about players whether on the team or in the draft, and its hard for me to imagine why any one of us would be ****y about how we know players better than scouts. Yeah scouts make mistakes but they are going on WAY more information than us. Plus they are trained experts we aren't.

[AAARedskin]

This is a really smart post/thread. Oldfan and I are on the same page....he is warning of "reaching" and drafting simply out of need. Hey, if the best O-linemen that the Skins targeted are already off the board when it's time to pick at #13, then you start considering some of the best remaining linebackers and defensive ends still on the board. In this scenario, it's better to draft a MLB from USC with the 1st pick who is probably another Junior Seay or Urlacher, than to reach for a lineman who is average at best.....

[Oldfan]

I enjoyed reading your Post 19, SIP. You captured rather well the silliness in so many of these ****sure positions on the draft.

[Est.1974]

No, I interpreted it as you suggesting the players we took weren't BPA, which is why I discussed what their draft grades were. Apparently I misinterpreted you. You are simply saying we go BPA, correct? If so we're in agreement. However, I don't think Jenkins will be BPA if we pick at 13. Also, need does influence BPA as well, but in more of a tie-breaker scenario I imagine.

Yes, you did misinterpret my post & yes, I do say we go BPA.

I also agree Jenkins won't be BPA at #13, but could be if we happen to trade back a hand full of places.

[zoony]

I would grade need on a 30 point scale and ability on a 70 point scale and grade them out that way.

so for the Redskins, a stud tight end might score out at 65 points (0+65), while a stud OT might score out at 70 (30 + 40). Even though the tight end is a better player we take the Tackle.

That's off the top of my head though, I might rate ability a bit higher depending on how the scoring worked itself out. Maybe 80-20

You can't ignore need entirely though- unless you're Matt Millen of course.

[Oldfan]

I would grade need on a 30 point scale and ability on a 70 point scale and grade them out that way.

Your 70/30 ratio on those two factors sounds about right to me, but there are four factors involved and you need to quantify each of them:

= the player's ability

= the player's fit to the scheme

= the relative value of the position

= the team's immediate need at that position

If you assigned weights to each factor, then used numerical grades, you could use your computer to spit out a spreadsheet analysis to make decision-making more precise. I'd bet most NFL teams are doing something like this.

[jflow78]

I can only agree on the pure BPA strategy if we agree that when the BPA is someone that makes absolutely no sense to draft, we get the heck out of that spot and move to where we're more likely to see someone we can actually use (hypothetically we draft another great TE when we already have a Pro Bowl TE and just drafted a guy with lots of potential last year because he happens to be there at 13).

Otherwise this draft strategy is just a horoscope, if fate says we're picking another TE at 13 (pretending that a Kevin Winslow exists in this draft) then we take him. My biggest problem with it is, so the guy is fantastic, great. He's not seeing any playing time because we've already got a fantastic guy playing ahead of him who's proven.

If we get to 13 we've got enough needs to take the BPA and fill a need still. I don't think the difference between the DE taken 14th and 15th and the Corner at 13 is going to be so drastic that we can't take the DE that we have rated one player lower, not one category lower (aka starter versus a backup). In other words, if we've got Malcolm Jenkins as our #13 guy and no one rated higher is there, but our #14 guy is (fill in the blank with a OT or DE/LB) I think you still take the #14 guy.

It just doesn't make sense to me any other way. However if you have Malcolm Jenkins as a future HoFer and your #14 is a decent backup, of course take the HoFer, but I very much doubt it's ever THAT clear cut.