Bruce Allen said he prefers "Best Player Available" in the draft

[TSO]

Kelly: The best player available on the board, or per need?

Bruce: The best player for the Redskins to win, which is usually the best player available.

That says more than enough for us to understand their philosophy. It's the "best player for the Redskins to win", and that is usually the best player available but sometimes it's not.

I think, much like Vinny did, they'll identify positions that would simply be overkill to draft at, and draft the BPA not in said positions. Furthermore, I'm sure they'll identify the biggest position of need and if a couple or more players are close on their draft board, they'll pick the guy in the position of need even if he isn't necessarily the top one.

[authentic]

sounds like GM talk, not wanting to tip his hand.

who knows who we'll target in the draft at this point. he wont take a defender though, no chance in hell of that happening.

Exactly!! What do people expect him to say..."Oh yeah, our philosophy is to draft for need. And by the way, we're looking to draft Sam Bradford with the #4 pick!!!" :doh:

[bird_1972]

Trading down would be nice, but it isn't likely to happen. Even in the best of times it was tough to trade down from the top 10 and it is going to get more difficult now with the CBA ending and probably not a whole lot of quality FAs being available.

I would think this would actually increase the likelihood we could convince a team to trade up since they wouldn't be able to score a stud in FA.

[Timmy Smith]

When you're 4-12, have a new coach, and in need of help all over the place, BPA is really the way to go.

[cphil006]

If the BPA is a DT and teams call us to make a trade... we'll probably make a trade if Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are gone.

[1972FAN]

I dont thinks there's a O-lineman worth the 4th overall, so trade out or best available player. If trading down I'd take Bruce Campbell OT and Mike Iupati OG for our 4th overall if we could pull it off.

[zoony]

Teams are generally wary of trading into a top 5 pick.

Contrary to popular opinion, trading down from the #5 pick isn't something that just happens. There needs to be very special sets of circumstances so that both sides can benefit.

Really, the only exceptions are teams that make a play for QB's. However, there are no QB's in this years draft that I can see any team wanting to trade up to #4 to take

[SkinsTribeVA]

Like someone else said, it's GM/coach speak. He didn't actually say anything substantive. Of course he's going to claim that they'll take the best player-- who would call their first round draft pick not the best player available? Now if he comes out and says "we believe in BPA rather than drafting for need" that would be something.

My theory is, for the first round, you draft BPA within a set of needs, and give preference based on level of need. This year our main set of needs is OL, QB, RB, and DB (I think we can hold off on LB in the high rounds for another year). So when it's our turn to draft, look at who's available within that need set, give slight preference to the bigger needs-- OL and QB, then make a selection.

In the second and third round you should go more strictly BPA with only slight attention to need, because you can get some steals at a really good value in those rounds if you go BPA (although OL is enough of a need this year that we should definitely go OL in the second unless someone awesome falls to us, which is possible high in the second).

In the lower rounds, need should be placed above BPA because there isn't as much difference in the talent levels.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Teams are generally wary of trading into a top 5 pick.

Contrary to popular opinion, trading down from the #5 pick isn't something that just happens. There needs to be very special sets of circumstances so that both sides can benefit.

Really, the only exceptions are teams that make a play for QB's. However, there are no QB's in this years draft that I can see any team wanting to trade up to #4 to take

if bradford or claussen has a crazy combine, smoke the wonderlic, and have great interviews, a team could definitely move up.

there was already word on the street the 49ers were considering moving up and taking a QB. its somewhat uncommon, but even the jets did it last year with cleveland.

[zoony]

if bradford or claussen has a crazy combine, smoke the wonderlic, and have great interviews, a team could definitely move up.

well if that's the case I hope we take him then at #4

[Darth Tater]

We also drafted Landry while we had Taylor on the roster. There is certainly room to draft another DT, if he is the best player on the board.

At this time, I don't think it is likely that Suh will fall. That being said, a lot can happen between now and the draft. Players move up and down the board and not always do the best players get picked first. We also can't project our exact needs until that time comes around. There are going to be a lot of changes to this team between now and the draft, and a lot of what we will be looking for will depend on what does and doesn't change.

It was 50/50 from an outsider's view whether we were gong safety or DT in 2007 after we signed Fletcher.

[Darth Tater]

Dont even waist your breath, EVERYONE saw how GARBAGE our offense was this season, now of course, it's offseason time, and now as soon as some of these people see a couple highlight reels, we absolutely have to draft a dam DT or Safety.

While our offense was "medium" at best, even the best offenses did little better than we did when they had long drives. Mostly, they did so well because they had many SFOs. Two of the main factors in scoring points are turnovers and field position.

[TheLongshot]

It was 50/50 from an outsider's view whether we were gong safety or DT in 2007 after we signed Fletcher.

I would add DE to that mix, tho probably to a lesser extent. Given the choices, it was probably a no-brainer to go with Landry, tho Vinny really wanted to trade out of that position.

[Darth Tater]

I was under the impression that Shanny would not draft a RB that high.

Well, a good enough RB behind a good offense playing against a defense on their heals or a tired one will look great. An elite RB behind a sub-par OL playing against a defense that is dictating or not tired will look average.

[Bang]

At #4, hard to argue against BPA, but it better be a position of need.

~Bang

[bubba9497]

Redskin fans say hello to Eric Berry

[phatboy41]

The best player available is a good philosophy in the draft because these are all players that haven't yet proved themselves in the NFL. You want to grab someone that has the best shot at being a great player. What you don't want to do is trade up and give away draft picks where you could be getting great young talent for players who are over priced and washed up. We'll see how he handles it.

[No Excuses]

I don't know about that. If Suh is there, it would be hard to pass. Especially if Okung is off the board. There is always the possibility of trading back, which opens up a lot of options.

That's why I think it is silly right now to say, "We should pick X", when we don't know who will be on the board and how our needs will look when the draft comes around. There is a long time until the draft and a lot will change with this team between now and then.

Unless Suh bombs it in the combine and workouts he will not get past St. Louis, Detroit or Tampa. He might get past the Rams but definitely not the Lions or the Bucs.

And if he does bomb his combines and workouts, why will we draft him when we have ginormous holes to fill on our squad?

[Darth Tater]

I would add DE to that mix, tho probably to a lesser extent. Given the choices, it was probably a no-brainer to go with Landry, tho Vinny really wanted to trade out of that position.

Well, I'm assuming an outsider who analyzed our defense from 2004-2006.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Every GM says they "take the best player available", but none of them really have that philosophy. They all balance need and best available talent. This is pure GM speak. Nothing to see here.

[TerpSkin]

The best player available is a good philosophy in the draft because these are all players that haven't yet proved themselves in the NFL. You want to grab someone that has the best shot at being a great player. What you don't want to do is trade up and give away draft picks where you could be getting great young talent for players who are over priced and washed up. We'll see how he handles it.

I believe this type of thinking is flawed... this is the type of thinking that says a player's success in the league is purely determined by his talent and hard work. NO... a huge part of a player's success is determined by the situation he falls into. If Flacco is drafted as the Ravens QB back when Boller was drafted... we would today be talking about the 1st round bust that was Flacco. Moreover, if Cooley had not been injured this season, we would all still be talking about how Davis was a waste of a pick. Look, nobody is suggesting you ignore who the best player available is and reach way down the list for someone who fits a need... but you have to have need and situation in mind. You have to seriously question the wisdom of drafting a QB in the first round when the OL is not sound. You have to seriously wonder what the point is of drafting someone who could be great at his position if he is just going to be buried on the depth chart behind great veteran(s) at that position for the next three years.

Sometimes the "busts" are guys who turned out to not be talented enough, or to be too injury prone, or did not work hard enough... but very often -- perhaps far more often -- the "busts" are people who walked into the wrong situation. E.g. sat out behind proven commodities for too many years or didn't have an appropriate supporting cast or whose talents did not fit the scheme of a hard-headed coach unwilling to adapt.

[SirClintonPortis]

Apparently Vinnius's version of BPA is the only version Redskins fans know about and thus there is always dissatisfaction because the IMPLIES OLinemen won't be drafted. For the last freaking time, O-LINEMEN CAN BE THE BPA!!!!!

[TerpSkin]

Every GM says they "take the best player available", but none of them really have that philosophy. They all balance need and best available talent. This is pure GM speak. Nothing to see here.

Yes... exactly!

[wildbill1952]

If you're going BPA and staying at #4, the Skins are not going to draft a QB. Suh and Berry are 1 and 2. Okung, Haden, McCoy (the DT), McClain make up the next 4.

But seriously, you can make your board up to draft whoever you want and justify it by saying "he was the best player available". If you want a QB, just rate him higher on every aspect of his game. Voila, he's the BPA.

[kevinklein]

We need offensive lineman. If the best player available is a defensive end, we don't need to take him. That's an example of BPA not being surefire, as some seem to think.