The Draft Analysis Thread. For those who still advocate shortcuts.

[5ohhh]

2002? How about 94.

Division Title...my bust....agreed on the QB.

Samuels, Dockery, Raymer, Thomas, Jansen...essentially 5 pro bowlers starting in the gibbs era...did they help Mark Brunell, sure. Did we win it all with all these studs on the line? Nope.....QB is the top and only priority in my eyes.

[Cpt.Chaos47]

Great post and I 100% agree. The only way to build a team that wins year in year out is through the draft and that takes time.

[Hitman21ST]

The Skins managed to hit on 6 of their picks in the best draft they've had in a long time.

If you are optimistic and believe the Skins can hit on 5 picks a year, then, assuming that you need around 26-30 great players to make a championship caliber team (due to injuries), it would take the Skins 5-6 years to build a team that can compete for the championship, and this is only the Skins first good draft.

It looks like we are in for a bunch more lean years.

I think I'll take the under on your 5-6 year estimation:

Kerrigan, Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Paul?, Gomes? are the 6 hits from this year, I'm assuming. I might throw in Nield as #7 and Hurt as #8 since they've been been solid contributors. That means we'll need 22 more base on your estimation. However, last year we hit on Williams and Riley, which leaves us at 20. If you throw in Carriker, Bowen, Cofield, Atogwe, Hightower, Wilson, and Lichtensteiger from FA, we're down to 13. Then the players that were on the roster already: Orakpo, Landry, Davis, and Hall, and we're down to 9. That's only two more solid drafts.

[sportjunkie07]

nice job OP. i wonder, in the redskin's section, did you include the trading down that shanny did this year to take us from 4 or 5 picks to 12?

A bad coach can make a good team play bad (Previous Niner coaches), but a good coach can't make a bad team play well (Shanahan)

i dont agree with this completely. good coaches can elevate a bad team's play, but it's usually shortwinded.

Trading picks and players for Andrew Luck (or anybody for that matter) doesn't benefit your team, it cripples your team

in the long run, i would agree that probability supports that trading picks will cripple your team (paging Atlanta Falcons and their stupid Julio Jones trade), but what if you are a superbowl contender and are missing a right tackle. whats wrong with giving up your 1st and 2nd to move up in the 1st round and solidify that position? a stance that trading picks will never benefit your team is too cut and dry. as long as its done with good measure, it can help you win a superbowl and thereby benefit youre team.

another thing i'd like to discuss is what i term "franchise stability" and how it affects the ability of management to gain draft picks. franchise stability comes from having the same coaching staff as well as a really good QB. i think the patriots are probably the best example of this. theyve had the same coaching staff and schemes for how long now? they dont need to draft a qb every 3 years or use multiple draft picks overhauling a roster to satisy a new scheme. this allows them to gain solid depth and maintain few holes on their team. moreover, their QB turns non-existent receivers into high quality players that they can later trade for more picks. brady also gives them the luxury to select and develop late round QB's, which can be traded at a future date. they can also gamble on high-risk/high-reward players because the team is stable even without those players. (moss=great gamble/hayneworth=poor gamble).

theyre in a really good cycle, and i'd love for us to get on their level. cerrato showed us exactly how not to do that, but i believe shanny and friends are attempting to replicate the system the patriota use, which is basically warehouse for gaining and developing draft picks. but we are still a long way off. this is part of the reason why i give shanahan such a long leash. if we can hit on QB in this year's draft, we will have made one of the bigger steps in developing a stable franchise.

[Skinsinparadise]

It's the main reason why am giving Shanny some slack. 12 picks in the last draft was a nice change. We have more than our 7 allotted picks right now for 2012 and 2013.

---------- Post added November-16th-2011 at 07:20 PM ----------

Perry has to be an upgrade over the jogging Rocky.

I want Hank and Niles to have success, but you gotta be on the field. Helu is the only bright spot at this point.

Paul right now at the very least is a good special teamer and apparently the best WR blocker on the team according to one beat reporter, he looks like he likely will be a find, ditto as to Hank.

[FSUSkins24]

nice job OP. i wonder, in the redskin's section, did you include the trading down that shanny did this year to take us from 4 or 5 picks to 12?

I didn't, but that is a juicy bit of info I probably should have. I might be hitting the edit button soon.

i dont agree with this completely. good coaches can elevate a bad team's play, but it's usually shortwinded.

Good point, but I think we can both agree he won't be winning any Super Bowls with them. Which is what everybody wants here.

in the long run, i would agree that probability supports that trading picks will cripple your team (paging Atlanta Falcons and their stupid Julio Jones trade), but what if you are a superbowl contender and are missing a right tackle. whats wrong with giving up your 1st and 2nd to move up in the 1st round and solidify that position? a stance that trading picks will never benefit your team is too cut and dry. as long as its done with good measure, it can help you win a superbowl and thereby benefit youre team.

I'm not ALWAYS an advocate for keeping draft picks the way I stress it with the Redskins. Every now and then there is nothing wrong with it. I will even go as far as to say that I have no problem with the Julio Jones trade/pick up. The Falcons are a playoff team and they viewed Jones as one of the missing pieces for a Super Bowl run.

Now, if and when the Redskins are a perennial playoff team and are itching for that last piece that takes them to the Super Bowl I may be one of the first people itching to pull the trigger. As long as it's reasonable and we don't make a habit of it.

Everything in the NFL is situational. Right now in the Redskin's situation we need as many draft picks as possible to build up and bring depth. To me it would be a dream if we could somehow snag an Andy Dalton type who will be great for years to come but won't cost an arm and a leg.

another thing i'd like to discuss is what i term "franchise stability" and how it affects the ability of management to gain draft picks. franchise stability comes from having the same coaching staff as well as a really good QB. i think the patriots are probably the best example of this. theyve had the same coaching staff and schemes for how long now? they dont need to draft a qb every 3 years or use multiple draft picks overhauling a roster to satisy a new scheme. this allows them to gain solid depth and maintain few holes on their team. moreover, their QB turns non-existent receivers into high quality players that they can later trade for more picks. brady also gives them the luxury to select and develop late round QB's, which can be traded at a future date. they can also gamble on high-risk/high-reward players because the team is stable even without those players. (moss=great gamble/hayneworth=poor gamble).

theyre in a really good cycle, and i'd love for us to get on their level. cerrato showed us exactly how not to do that, but i believe shanny and friends are attempting to replicate the system the patriota use, which is basically warehouse for gaining and developing draft picks. but we are still a long way off. this is part of the reason why i give shanahan such a long leash. if we can hit on QB in this year's draft, we will have made one of the bigger steps in developing a stable franchise.

You're exactly right, it's an asset to have that kind of team. Somebody said earlier in this thread that the Patriots had only spent two first round picks on offense in the last ten years. When you have one of the most prolific offenses/QBs in the last 10 years you can afford to do that.

They've already started putting some draft picks into an aging OL (notice how they start doing that when the O-Line is aging, not old... Redskins take note), but what I think will be interesting to see as we go forward is how the Patriots make the transition after Tom Brady. Does Ryan Mallet (or some other young QB) after studying under Brady become his heir apparent, much like Rodgers with Favre, or do the Patriots start to look like the Colts did this year with Peyton gone. One would have to think that players like BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Deion Branch, Danny Woodhead, and Wes Welker (maybe not him so much, I've liked him since I first saw him return a punt with the Dolphins) look rather mediocre with the Golden Boy gone. Most likely there will be different playmakers in NE when Brady retires, but if they're in the same talent range, my point stays the same.