SG: How Much Will The Lockout Affect Redskins Draft Stategy?

[SMOSS89]

Fans of Washington’s football team are used to March being a month chalk full of big spending on free agent additions paired with a renewed optimism on their teams outlook. But this year, as we know, they won’t even have the chance to reel in some players via the open market they are have been historically fond of, due to the NFL lockout.

That leaves the Redskins (as well as the rest of the NFL) to rely on the sole certainty in an offseason that has otherwise been devoid of any certainty: The 2011 NFL Draft.

This puts Washington in an interesting position. The pressure to bring in a quality draft class has heightened, as the team knows it needs to get better but may not get a chance to make any potential splashes in free agency. Add to that the fact that the Redskins haven’t exactly done the best job at drafting over the past 11 seasons and well, you have a predicament.

Of course, the Redskins new front office will enter it’s second draft with the team, and we will get to see what direction they will go after seeing the type of team they had in 2010. As of now, the Redskins have seven draft choices: a first, second, two fifths, a sixth and two seventh round picks. Under the current rules, NFL teams cannot trade players for picks, but they can trade picks for picks, which still gives the Skins an opportunity to get more picks via trading down.

So should the Redskins go into this draft changing their strategy because of free agency? It seems Mike Shanahan thinks most NFL teams will do so:

“I think it is going to be different for everybody that’s been involved since [the start of free agency] than where the draft is first,” Shanahan added. “… I think [this offseason] most people, since they can’t fill any voids [with free agency],

they’ll draft the best player available

.”

It’s been a age old question when a team enters the draft room: Should they take the best player available? Or should they draft a player who fits a particular need? There hasn’t really been proof of which side is definitevely right and which side is definitely wrong, though in Washington we’ve seen when one of those philosophies goes horribly wrong.

Click HERE for the rest of the post.

[Hitman21ST]

I think this could actually work out fairly well. You draft the needs that are most important, thus filling those holes for the longest time possible. Then you pick up the free agents in positions that you couldn't draft to, to hold the team over until you find a draftee to replace them. Plus, with free agency first, other teams will see what holes you're trying to fill, and will have a better idea of who you're going to draft. Teams with similar needs might try to trade up to grab the player you're going after.

Done well, this could work out a lot better than the way it used to be done.

[redrobert]

Upside is greater than the downside, but honestly I do not think it will effect the plan that much.

[authentic]

The funny thing about this draft is that we have so many holes on this team, that even if we strictly draft with the BPA strategy, we will be drafting a need position. Take your pick (WR, OLB, DE, NT, QB)....

[Dukes and Skins]

The funny thing about this draft is that we have so many holes on this team, that even if we strictly draft with the BPA strategy, we will be drafting a need position. Take your pick (WR, OLB, DE, NT, QB)....

Agreed we could honestly go a multitude of different ways and not be making a wrong pick. We could take Robert Quinn or we could take Julio Jones and either would be great picks to help us rebuild

[DavidGQ]

At #10, doesn't matter who we pick, it will be a good pick. I am more curious at rd 2 pick.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Like someone said before, we have so many needs that we will be drafting for need anyway

As long as we get someone that can help, it's hard to **** up the 10th pick

[Diesel__44]

The funny thing about this draft is that we have so many holes on this team, that even if we strictly draft with the BPA strategy, we will be drafting a need position. Take your pick (WR, OLB, DE, NT, QB)....

Actually at #10 the pick has to be an impact pick. That means OLB, QB, WR. We have so many needs but if you look at the draft that is what needs to be taken at #10. In the 2nd then we can look at DE, NT, etc.

[SMU Redskin]

Agreed we could honestly go a multitude of different ways and not be making a wrong pick. We could take Robert Quinn or we could take Julio Jones and either would be great picks to help us rebuild

I'm not singling you out, but how can we justify taking a WR at #10? Especially one with questions surrounding his durability and hands? Before we go drafting a stud WR, we need a QB who can get him the ball, and an offensive line who can protect that QB. We have neither of those things right now.

[Hitman21ST]

Actually at #10 the pick has to be an impact pick. That means OLB, QB, WR. We have so many needs but if you look at the draft that is what needs to be taken at #10. In the 2nd then we can look at DE, NT, etc.

It helps that there aren't many (if any at all) DE, NT, OL that are "worth" the #10 anyway.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 11:28 PM ----------

I'm not singling you out, but how can we justify taking a WR at #10? Especially one with questions surrounding his durability and hands? Before we go drafting a stud WR, we need a QB who can get him the ball, and an offensive line who can protect that QB. We have neither of those things right now.

Where have you seen questions regarding his hands or durability? He had the best performance at the combine on a broken foot. That beats the durability argument for me. Everything I've seen about his hands are that they're pretty sticky, too.

[Dukes and Skins]

I'm not singling you out, but how can we justify taking a WR at #10? Especially one with questions surrounding his durability and hands? Before we go drafting a stud WR, we need a QB who can get him the ball, and an offensive line who can protect that QB. We have neither of those things right now.

While it may not be the best pick, we have a need at QB. Yes having the stud QB would make everything better, but also what if we took Jones round 1 and then took a QB later? Nothing that says we can't and yes our OL isn't good but honestly how much of this team are we going to fix in one year? not a lot with the picks we have right now. We need to slowly rebuild this up and if that means taking a WR at 10 then so be it. Now do I think they take a WR at #10? not really I think we take Robert Quinn

[Diesel__44]

It helps that there aren't many (if any at all) DE, NT, OL that are "worth" the #10 anyway.

You don't draft RTs, NTs or 3-4 DEs in the top 10. That's what needs to be understood. If we trade back then a 3-4 DE would enter the conversation.

[Hitman21ST]

Great quarterbacks make average receivers look okay (See Peyton Manning and the Colts, Tom Brady and the Patriots, Philip Rivers and the Chargers, Aaron Rodgers and the Packers).

Great receivers make average quarterbacks look good (See Andre Johnson and Matt Schaub, Calvin Johnson and Shaun Hill, Plaxico Burress/Hakeem Nicks and Eli Manning).

Before you chew my head off by saying "yeah, but look at where those teams are in the standings..."

The Texans and Lions both had/have horrendous defenses. The Colts, Patriots, Packers, and Chargers all have good to great defenses. The Giants have a good defense.

[The Full Monty]

yes our OL isn't good but honestly how much of this team are we going to fix in one year? not a lot with the picks we have right now. We need to slowly rebuild this up and if that means taking a WR at 10 then so be it. Now do I think they take a WR at #10? not really I think we take Robert Quinn

Seriously agree. I don't know how people get freaked out over the possibility of taking a WR as if we're being reckless. This team a perennial bottom feeder that neglected depth for a DECADE. How the hell can it be fixed in one draft in which we don't even have (currently) a 3rd and a 4th? Take the BPA and stockpile quality, no reaches. And maybe, just maybe, we'll be competitive in two years.

[RichmondRedskin88]

We have a million needs. The only way we miss every need is if we draft a punter at #10.

[Bibby]

We have a million needs. The only way we miss every need is if we draft a punter at #10.

Which wouldn't be a miss either, since its a need. Haha, I kid.

[Skins Talk]

It helps that there aren't many (if any at all) DE, NT, OL that are "worth" the #10 anyway.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 11:28 PM ----------

Where have you seen questions regarding his hands or durability? He had the best performance at the combine on a broken foot. That beats the durability argument for me. Everything I've seen about his hands are that they're pretty sticky, too.

As physically gifted as Jones is, I felt there were times where he underperformed while at Bama. His hands are good, but not great. TO doesn't catch a ball correctly, but Jones does; the drops are more due to mental lapses.

He has the skills, I just worry if he'll be consistent at the pro level when he disappeared at times in college (this happened much less during 2010 than 2009).

Honestly, I think taking Jones would be a big mistake given that there are more vital positions in need of an upgrade. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think he's a good player.

---------- Post added March-24th-2011 at 12:53 AM ----------

I'm not singling you out, but how can we justify taking a WR at #10? Especially one with questions surrounding his durability and hands? Before we go drafting a stud WR, we need a QB who can get him the ball, and an offensive line who can protect that QB. We have neither of those things right now.

I agree. Many far more pressing needs. The good thing is that Shanny doesn't usually draft WRs in the first round.