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

[Gregpeck99]

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.

In my view, a well-stocked team will always seek better players because of injury risk, salary-cap attrition and other roster-risk factors. Being in a position to Draft luxury picks (e.g. Pats, Steelers ...) removes some of the blurryness and shifts the needle closer to the BPA zone.

[Gregpeck99]

Yes' date=' 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.[/quote']

Just curious ... whom do you think is BPA at 13? Please feel free to make a few assumptions and suggest a few names. If every poster did this we would be all over the lot. BPA is subjective.

[Skinsinparadise]

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

Thanks, it was comment to all the Sanchez posts where there has been quite a few people posting that they know one way or another whether Sanchez is going to succeed, for the most part with a negative spin -- claiming he isn't going to make it.

Heck NFL guys admit that there is an element of luck/crap shoot to the process even after all the research they do, and Kiper himself said recently he can't say for example whether this defensive end will be a stud versus that one with certainty, and that he's just making educated guesses -- but some of us nonetheless think we are smarter than the scouts and have it down to a science.

So yeah we can predict any players career based on some Youtube highlights or catching a few games. If that were true, NFL scouts would have to be some of the dumbest people on earth because we are basically saying that we can spend a fraction of the time researching players and do so in a hands off fashion (they see the players up close, we don't) with no background or expertise in the profession -- but make better decisions than scouts do.

So when it comes to Sanchez for example, our scouts saw him in person at the combine, saw him in person at pro day, interviewed him, brought him this weekend to Redskins park to try him out personally, and I would bet they talked to Pete Carroll quite a bit, I would bet MULITIPLE scouts along with Zorn reviewed every play of every game multiple times (I recall reading them doing this for Landry and Taylor for example so I'd gather its their normal drill) and they have an ex QB on staff who is considered by many the best QB coach in the country looking closely -- and yeah this all adds up to nothing, compared to a non football guy, recalling a couple of USC games they saw 7 months ago.

And I agree with you that actual scouts have to know a heck of a lot more than media draft talking heads, most of the Draft geeks aren't trained scouts, and I doubt they are doing the same exhaustive research. Something tells me for example Sanchez didn't visit with Kiper over the weekend, etc.

The funny thing is though the draft geeks for the most part love Sanchez, so if the Skins make this move, it would be some extremeskins people versus the draft geeks and Redskins scouts. I am not saying I personally endorse the move but if they do make this move am gathering that the scouts and Zorn are really high on Sanchez so as long as they don't overpay in the trade, I'd be on board.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

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.

Hear hear! Excellent post, sol. You highlighted the basic flaw in at least the last decade of drafts by this team. No PLAN. One year they seem to take BPA, and the next they try to fill holes. Whichever route the FO decides on (BPA vs. DFN), they need to make up their minds, draft a 5-year strategy for the draft, and STICK WITH THE DARNED THING. This on-again, off-again, scattershot team building such as we've witnessed these last ten or so years will in no wise accomplish anything except, perhaps, to leave us even farther from our return to glory than we were before.

(if that makes any sense)

[TSO]

A nice, simple I agree here from me will suffice.

[Skinsinparadise]

...the basic flaw in at least the last decade of drafts by this team. No PLAN. One year they seem to take BPA, and the next they try to fill holes. Whichever route the FO decides on (BPA vs. DFN), they need to make up their minds, draft a 5-year strategy for the draft, and STICK WITH THE DARNED THING. This on-again, off-again, scattershot team building such as we've witnessed these last ten or so years will in no wise accomplish anything except, perhaps, to leave us even farther from our return to glory than we were before.

I think for the most part they go for BPA that fills one of their multiple needs (few teams only have one need) but not per se their top need, when they drafted Sean Taylor and Laron Landry i don't recall either year, safety being the team's top need.

When Landry was drafted, the D line was arguably a much more pressing need and they didn't trade up for Adams, or draft Anderson or Okoye that time. There are exceptions: in the 2nd last year, they drafted Fred Davis and TE arguably wasn't a need and passed on guys like Quentin Groves or Calais Campbell that filled a clear need position.

To me it DOES seem like they have a plan but its not a 5 year plan but a one year plan to make the Superbowl. I'd say in the average year going back a few years, they have multiple needs and of late those have been D line, WR, OL -- and then a new position adds to that crop pretty much every year, corner when they lost Smoot, Middle LB when Lemar Marshall tanked, and now Strongside LB.

For the most part, with some exceptions, they don't seem interested in lining up a player 2-3 years in advance to take over for a veteran, but seem to want to use FA and the draft to fill needs, usually they have 4-5 needs, and end up filling 2 or 3 of them successfully, and then the next year they try to fill in the gaps and a new need or two pops up, and the cycle keeps going.

I am not saying I endorse the approach but it seems like there is a method to the madness. One NFL magazine quoting a scout said something to the effect that the Skins are always trying to patch up what they got as opposed to rebuild, and that's the easy way, but at some point they have to go for it and redo the thing like most successful franchises have done.

I would guess every off season they tell themselves they are close to the Superbowl, what do they need to do to get themselves there, and work from that.

[Oldfan]

jflow78: I can only agree on the pure BPA strategy...

I'll stop you there because I haven't advocated a pure BPA strategy. I offered four factors for grading, one of which is need.

....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).

It's highly unlikely that a tight end like a young Antonio Gates would fall to us at #13, but suppose he did. In Jim Zorn's shoes, I'd want him. I'll line up Cooley, Davis and Newgates at slot, H-back, FB and even at WR in red zone situations and give defenses fits using them as blockers and receivers.

One of the arguments for drafting the BPA commonly overlooked is that schemes can easily be adapted to accomodate a surplus at most positions. Last year, Blache created a look using three safeties where we are strong.

[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...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.

What you are suggesting here, though, is that it's necessary to adopt a new win-now tactic (drafting for need) because your past win-now tactics have put you in a hole. Why not just bite the bullet and play a pat hand even if you stink for a year or two? Just get on the right plan and stick to it.

[Dan T.]

I've said before that for all the criticism of Cerrato, he stays pretty disciplined in using the BPA approach, which most people feel is the way to go in the NFL draft. The draft isn't like going supermarket shopping with a grocery list in hand. It is just one avenue of many for acquiring players.

You're screwed if you draft on need. To me, need should be a tie-breaker. If you're on the clock, and the potential picks you're looking at grade out pretty closely, then by all means make the pick based on need. But don't leapfrog a guy just because you're hurting at a position. That's a recipe for failure.

[Skinsinparadise]

One of the arguments for drafting the BPA commonly overlooked is that schemes can easily be adapted to accomodate a surplus at most positions. Last year, Blache created a look using three safeties where we are strong.

Another example IMO is what the Giants did 2 seasons ago with their surplus of pass rushers. Steve Spagnolo in some circumstances had all 4 of these guys in at once (gambiling against the run) with the idea that it was impossible for opposing offensive lineman to stop them all at once -- ironically if I recall he introduced that idea for the first time that year against the Redskins and in that game the Skins were criticized by the media for having Cooley on somedowns as the primary blocker of Strahan.

[Est.1974]

Just curious ... whom do you think is BPA at 13? Please feel free to make a few assumptions and suggest a few names. If every poster did this we would be all over the lot. BPA is subjective.

I thought this was the place for uneducated assumptions on matters of a subjective nature.

As for a name, maybe 'Knowshon Moreno'.

You'd probably call him a luxury pick,though.

[jfriedenthal]

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']

Just remember, if we had taken Philip Merling last year.... we most likely would have an additional two picks this year (i.e. no Jason Taylor), and would not need to address DE this year in draft. That would've put us in a MUCH better position. Granted Merling was injury prone, etc.... but we would still be in a MUCH better position. The course of his career would've been different too (i.e. forced to perform)

[addicted]

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.

I served in the military for many years and understand the price we pay to allow people to speak thier minds when they are displeased. Silence is not golden, it is more distructive then a loud voice. I respect your decision to keep your own mouth shut no matter the player we decide to draft but I will not do that. Their is no point in doing that in my opinion and I will continue to say what I feel like about my team. If this team drafts a defensive player at 13 we have made a huge mistake. Grades for players don't matter when one side of the ball is so much better then the other. We need to go Offense much more then going Defense. A stud Linebacker is not going to help this team as much going forward as adding an OT, a #1 WR, or a play making QB. If we go Defense at 13 we blew it

[S.T.real,lights,out]

See i usually agree with Mcshay and Mel for the fact they know more about these players than anyone. Not saying they no each teams needs as much as our own scouts, but they do know their stuff!

[Skinsinparadise]

Good article that is on point with Scott Campbell, here's one of his responses:

http://blog.redskins.com/2009/04/21/...per/#continued

What are some of the things people might not realize about the process of preparing for the draft?

Campbell: "I think it's that it's not any one piece that decides these things. Some people may think it's the 40 time that decides things, or something like that. It's how much volume of information since August. We've had two or three scouts look at all these players and write reports. We've had exposure through practice, through games, through interviewing staffs at the schools, following it up with personal interviews with the players, maybe going back to the coaches again. Then getting our coaching staff involved at the Combine, with their interviews and the workouts there. Then going maybe to the pro days and private workouts with the players, bringing them in here and talking with them....

"So it's just a looooong process. And you finally come to the end, it's not just any one piece, it's putting all that information together."

[Dan T.]

I served in the military for many years and understand the price we pay to allow people to speak thier minds when they are displeased. Silence is not golden, it is more distructive then a loud voice. I respect your decision to keep your own mouth shut no matter the player we decide to draft but I will not do that.

Did you just say that you served in the military to defend our right to argue about the NFL draft on a team message board?

Thank you for your service, but

[Koolblue13]

What team in the NFL has zero holes to fill in this draft?

What team in the NFL will have no holes to fill the following year.

How many teams are just a few players away? Or as good/ close as we are?

I would say all of them. You will always be drafting out of need, because eventually, you will need the players you take. Just like my CB example.

That said, if you think just by adding a couple of rookies, no matter how good, will be enough to push you over the top the following season, in almost every case, you are wrong.

[Oldfan]

I served in the military for many years and understand the price we pay to allow people to speak thier minds when they are displeased. Silence is not golden, it is more distructive then a loud voice. I respect your decision to keep your own mouth shut no matter the player we decide to draft but I will not do that. Their is no point in doing that in my opinion and I will continue to say what I feel like about my team.

I don't question your right to spout off like you know more than the Redskins professionals, the coaches and personnel people, on the topic of player evaluations in the draft. I just want you and other members of this forum like you to become aware that others aren't obligated to take you seriously. My aim here is to burst self-inflated ego-bubbles.

[addicted]

Did you just say that you served in the military to defend our right to argue about the NFL draft on a team message board?

Thank you for your service, but

The reasons I served are personnal to me as they are to any one who's ever worn a uniform. What I am saying is not what you think. I suspect that your not nearly as ignorant as this post you wrote makes you out to sound and you get what I am saying but just decided to respond because you didn't like my message but just in case you really were being serious let me spell it out for you.

What I am saying is that FREEDOM of Speech has a price. All of us have the right to say whatever we want because of the men and women protecting that right. If Oldfan wants to shut his own mouth and accept whatever we do in the draft that is his right to do so. I also have the right to open my mouth respectfully and as long as within the rules here voice my displeasure with our front office making mistakes like they have been doing for years. We see the same thing but look at our own reactions differently, different strokes for different strokes.

I think this fan base has been far too silent for far too long and don't think that is the answer anymore. We have had failure for a decade since Snyder took control. If fans are not pleased with how things have gone then its time to do the only thing that Snyder will understand and voice that protest. Not the silent treatment and not the kind where you call some radio show the team doesn't care about and complain. The best way to voice your displeasure to the team is to not give it any money. Do not go to games. Do not buy jerseys. Take out ads with the money you saved from not buying stuff and make a public neuinsense of yourself. Get your friends and family working with you to make a real difference that Daniel Snyder will have no other choice then to understand. Create a PR nightmare for him and he will have to listen to you. Or you can do as OldFan suggests and say nothing and just be mindless sheep controled by this billionair and agree with every thing the team does and watch the organization never change. Like speaking, the choice is yours.

[addicted]

I don't question your right to spout off like you know more than the Redskins professionals, the coaches and personnel people, on the topic of player evaluations in the draft. I just want you and other members of this forum like you to become aware that others aren't obligated to take you seriously. My aim here is to burst self-inflated ego-bubbles.

Oldfan you and I have gone round and round and round on this forum. We've spent hours talking to one another. You have tried to burst my ego already and failed. Your threat does not scare me one bit. Sir you simply can't beat me.

I honestly think that your message here to simply accept what we can not control is right, the problem I have with this message is that you not only say "Accept what happens you also say we must like it" and that is where you lose me. Liking it is pure bullspit and the voice of a propaganda machine. I will never accept this controlling message. I really don't give a damn if you like me or respect me or take me serious. I want you to like me, respect me, and take me serious but if you don't I won't lose any sleep over it

The idea that you want to silence fans with an arguement that even though you yourself have questioned moves that this teams made EVEN when you were right to me shows that you've lost your spine and pride. I still have mine Sir. I will voice my displeasure when I deem it necessary. If you simply try and burst my bubble you will once again fail, just like you've always failed to win an arguement with me. I am addicted to the team. I am not addicted to the owner or the choices he has made.

Without protest there can be no change. No one can hear displeasure if no one is there to say it. If we believed as you suggested that its better simply to shut up and leave it to the experts we'd have no experts left. I think you need to remember that everyone makes mistakes and remember that you might make better choices then they do. You got it right before you just lost your nerve. I'd look into getting it back

[Dan T.]

What I am saying is that FREEDOM of Speech has a price. All of us have the right to say whatever we want because of the men and women protecting that right. I

Oh I've heard that before, and appreciate the sacrifice of the men and women of the armed forces in protecting our freedom. I've just NEVER heard it in the context of the right to complain about a football team on a message board before, and it struck me as very odd and very out-of-place. Almost ridiculous, frankly.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan you and I have gone round and round and round on this forum. We've spent hours talking to one another. You have tried to burst my ego already and failed. Your threat does not scare me one bit. Sir you simply can't beat me.

I don't think I've spent more than 15 minutes total on your posts, but I will admit that I'm no match for your inflated ego.

I honestly think that your message here to simply accept what we can not control is right, the problem I have with this message is that you not only say "Accept what happens you also say we must like it" and that is where you lose me.

Wikipedia: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.