PER ESPN 980...Skins trying to use later 2nd round pick to get more picks.

[shuler74]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUZGdi7Ty4

[Skins26]

Anyone else like Hankerson at 41?

[PlayAction]

I'd rather we didn't.

Trading back in round one when our guy had gone to TN was one thing. Trading back if say Wisniewski and/or Paea are still on the board is another thing entirely. You end up filling positions of need with lesser talent than you could of gotten, all for the sake of an extra depth player in the third.

Hail.

You make it sound like the players available in the third round are chopped liver. How often do first round picks wash out while third round picks turn out to be long-term contributors? Quite often! I don't think the Skins are going to trade down until they know who is available at their pick slot and how much is being offered in trade. I agree with you that simply trading down and picking additional players is not necessarily a successful strategy, e.g., Vinny with his 3 pass catchers in the second round. Paea would be nice as the new NT - - we'll have to see how high he gets picked. Quite frankly I don't think Shanny is looking for a Center. He has 3 options already on the team to replace Rabach.

[redskins804]

Keep 41 and trade down the 49th would be ideal!... that would mean two picks for the price of stepping 6 spots back in the 1st round. But the chances of that happening depends on who is available and if any team is desperate. Too man variables to guess what is going to happen

[Skinsinparadise]

I'd rather we didn't.

Trading back in round one when our guy had gone to TN was one thing. Trading back if say Wisniewski and/or Paea are still on the board is another thing entirely. You end up filling positions of need with lesser talent than you could of gotten, all for the sake of an extra depth player in the third.

Hail.

I think it depends on what position you are targeting, IMO a lot of depth on offense where there isn't a huge difference between drafting 41 versus 52, etc. Is there a big difference between for example at the guard position: Bolling, Hudson, Franklin, Ijalana? or at RB between: Williams, Hunter, Thomas, Jordan, etc. WR: Hankerson, T. Smith, Cobb, Young, Doss, Little etc?

if they can get a late third you can end up with 2 of these guys as opposed to just one, heck why not even if all these guys are gone you likely can choose among Greg Salas, Vincent Brown, Steve Schilling, etc

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Sounds good...

[Skinsinparadise]

You make it sound like the players available in the third round are chopped liver. How often do first round picks wash out while third round picks turn out to be long-term contributors? Quite often! I don't think the Skins are going to trade down until they know who is available at their pick slot and how much is being offered in trade. I agree with you that simply trading down and picking additional players is not necessarily a successful strategy, e.g., Vinny with his 3 pass catchers in the second round. Paea would be nice as the new NT - - we'll have to see how high he gets picked. Quite frankly I don't think Shanny is looking for a Center. He has 3 options already on the team to replace Rabach.

Agree, especially in this draft -- especially if they can pick up a third rounder, it can be likely used on potentially a good RB, WTR, OG. Not to mention, an NT like Powe, maybe Ellis, heck maybe even Stanzi. if there is a team that needs bodies its us. I get the theory that 2nd rounders are better than 3rd rounders so lets get our marquee player, and if shanny sees the draft that way cool, but if they truly are looking to trade down, then I gather they see the value in that round, and if you go player by player it doesn't seem strange that they would.

[Homercles82]

"The front office has no plan in place"

Tired of seeing that quote around here in it's various forms.

[Xero21]

If we could have #41, another 2nd round pick, and a 3rd round pick, and end up with Ryan Williams, Ryan Mallett, and Kenrick Ellis, I may shed tears of joy.

[Skinsinparadise]

Trading back is fine and all...but if you keep doing it, don't you just end up with a bunch of marginal, third-round talent?

I'd love nothing more than to add as many players as possible, but hopefully we can be "sure" about more than just Kerrigan.

That's a theoretical point, I presume they aren't dealing with theory but actual players and that's guiding this. I gather in the trade draft room its a very player based conversation. For example do we want Hankerson for one pick or would we prefer Kendall Huner and Greg Salas as opposed to just Hankerson. Am no draft expert, but just going with the draft geeks there seems to be decent depth at some positions

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You make it sound like the players available in the third round are chopped liver. How often do first round picks wash out while third round picks turn out to be long-term contributors? Quite often!

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying that, at some point, things become a crap-shoot. This article from February doesn't exactly make the third round seem great:

"To begin, there were 165 3rd round picks between 2002 and 2006. Out of those picks, 76 were deemed to be successful based on the formula above (4 seasons in the NFL, 1 starting or significant contributions). That means that about 46% of the 3rd round picks in that five year period were considered to be successful."

http://nflspinzone.com/2011/02/18/analyzing-the-success-rate-of-mid-round-nfl-draft-picks/

To me, a player staying in the league for 4 years and starting or contributing for 1 year isn't all that tough of a metric. Yet, even with that, less than half of third rounders are considered successful.

[ZRagone]

Please, please do this....

Move back, grab Paea with our first 2nd. Grab Williams with the second 2nd. Grab Matthews with the 3rd. Grab McElroy with the 5th. Grab a WR in 6th and 7th that looks like a good special teamer.

Or even better would be to take the 3rd we get and try to trade that for a later 3rd and 4th....still grab Matthews if possible...use the 4th and 5th on WR and McElroy.

I'm all for trading back if possible. There's no stand outs at these rounds I absolutely want that there's not someone else that I'd be fine with except for perhaps Paea. I'd like LeShoure for instance, but would be happy with Williams. I'd like the WR from Miami but I don't mind if we miss him. I would rather Dalton, but I'm content with McElroy.

[pjfootballer]

I'd rather use the 2 second round picks we have on players now instead of trading them for more picks because we have 6 picks in the later rounds that can be used to fill bodies.

I think Shanny and Allen are looking for more impact guys. Guys that can either play or make the roster. They're not looking for camp fodder or practice squed players which is what most 6th and 7th rounders are good for.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's a theoretical point, I presume they aren't dealing with theory but actual players and that's guiding this. I gather in the trade draft room its a very player based conversation. For example do we want Hankerson for one pick or would we prefer Kendall Huner and Greg Salas as opposed to just Hankerson.

That's a very good point. I'm sure you're probably right. If they have 35 guys similarly graded, they might as well see if there is a way to pick up 3 of them instead of 2 of them.

[ZRagone]

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just saying that, at some point, things become a crap-shoot. This article from February doesn't exactly make the third round seem great:

"To begin, there were 165 3rd round picks between 2002 and 2006. Out of those picks, 76 were deemed to be successful based on the formula above (4 seasons in the NFL, 1 starting or significant contributions). That means that about 46% of the 3rd round picks in that five year period were considered to be successful."

http://nflspinzone.com/2011/02/18/analyzing-the-success-rate-of-mid-round-nfl-draft-picks/

To me, a player staying in the league for 4 years and starting or contributing for 1 year isn't all that tough of a metric. Yet, even with that, less than half of third rounders are considered successful.

Its a good stat, but I'd be interested to see what the success rate of the 2nd round is.

If you told me I'd have 2 picks, either two seconds or a second and third...of course I'd go for the two 2nds.

If you told me I could have either a high and mid second, or a mid and low second and a third...I'd go for more picks. Why? Because even if the picks are slightly less of a chance to hit, the fact I have MORE of them actually increases my chances of hitting with one of them.

[Yeen80]

I love our thought process. Vinny would have wasted these picks already trading for someone like Billy Volek

[yellow41]

My pipe dream:

Al Davis supposedly is drooling over Kaepernick...

Trade #41 and #49 to Raiders

Receive #48 and 2012 #1 pick

With 2 #1s in 2012, Skins would have leverage to make a play for Luck, Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, or whatever QB is there. All three of them are better than any QB in this year's class.

[Va Bch Redskins Fan]

They must really not like this year's QB class.

I have a feeling that McNabb isn't going anywhere this season, and will be delt for a high round pick next season.

[SkinsCrushCowboys]

unless one of the QB's is available I would think they would try to trade back from 41. Having three picks could really help and I don't skill drop off is very much from the second to the third. We could target a WR, OL and possible a RB all of whom could be solid players. Not sure there will be much interest in the 49 for a decent trade up. Maybe the Falcons will give us 5 picks....

[GibbsFactor]

Thanks...that makes sense. It would be pretty cool to pick up a starting OLB (done) and a couple/few OL starters!

It's placing emphasis on numbers. The more picks made, the better chance one of them will be a success. It's the value of the picks, the the position of them.

If we can turn that second into two more picks, I'd be for it since there seems to be value in the later rounds.

[mcgraw238]

My pipe dream:

Al Davis supposedly is drooling over Kaepernick...

Trade #41 and #49 to Raiders

Receive #48 and 2012 #1 pick

With 2 #1s in 2012, Skins would have leverage to make a play for Luck, Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, or whatever QB is there. All three of them are better than any QB in this year's class.

That would be a sweet dream.

[yellow41]

Yeah, not realistic... but it is Al Davis we're talking about.

Back to the real world, with the two picks they have, I'm all for more line help on both sides.

[sabbath1981]

My pipe dream:

Al Davis supposedly is drooling over Kaepernick...

Trade #41 and #49 to Raiders

Receive #48 and 2012 #1 pick

With 2 #1s in 2012, Skins would have leverage to make a play for Luck, Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, or whatever QB is there. All three of them are better than any QB in this year's class.

That looks like a dream scenario. Trying to take of my homer glasses. Would that be a good deal for the Raiders on the value chart?

[Truant]

My pipe dream:

Al Davis supposedly is drooling over Kaepernick...

Trade #41 and #49 to Raiders

Receive #48 and 2012 #1 pick

With 2 #1s in 2012, Skins would have leverage to make a play for Luck, Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, or whatever QB is there. All three of them are better than any QB in this year's class.

Definitely a nice dream. Toss in Kellen Moore and Nick Foles. Next year's QB class is going to be compared to 1983. And THAT is not said very often.

[yellow41]

That looks like a dream scenario. Trying to take of my homer glasses. Would that be a good deal for the Raiders on the value chart?

On paper, maybe not. But there are a few wild cards here:

1. The Raiders didn't have a #1 pick this year and may have targeted someone (Kaepernick) that is projected to go before they pick

2. Teams are willing to overvalue QBs if they think they are franchise-level QBs (see: yesterday)

3. Al Davis is senile