Thekyle1591 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 When a starter goes down the backup can come in and produce just as well? Those expectations seem a little unrealistic considering both starters are 10 sack guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I guarantee we don't draft an OLB at the top of the 2nd round. The only guy I would even consider picking is jeremiah attaochu. Everyone else they've interviewed are 3rd-4th round guys. I'm sure they want to add pass rushers, but they are smart enough to know that you don't make luxury picks on a 3-13 team. I think, given who is likely to be available, that round 2 will have some good OL, CBs, a couple WRs, and DEs. We run a 3-4 so some DEs have to be considered as well for pass rusher since they'll convert to OLBs. You make BPA, though with need factored in. If Dee Ford dropped to us he could be the BPA. That wouldn't be a luxury pick. You don't pass on the highest rated player on your board solely because of need unless the next rated player is rated just as high, or close to it, and fills a bigger need. If the rating gap between Ford and the next guy is significant then you go Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Yeah Elk I generally agree with that comment. If a guy is so clearly the BPA as ford would be, I think that's the smart pick. Unless a guy like him drops, I wouldn't go anything but OL or secondary. Just me tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Tyler Polumbus our starting RT is a marginal player on an expiring contract. His back-up has very limited playing experience. For those making the argument that there is a need at OLB because of expiring contracts of Rak and RJax and Jenkins limited play experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 This is all fine; but it has nothing to do with my point. My point is that BPA doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's great to draft BPA but if they're not the BPA at that position on your team and cannot contribute on the field what is the point? You don't get bonus points for having the best 3rd or 4th OLB. Draft is zero sum. Adding a 3rd/4th OLB means your are saying no to all the other positions: RT/RG/SAF etc... I don't think I'm advocating it in a vacuum at all. I mean, maybe I'm a little extreme about it, but the fact that I clearly stated that QB, K, P and arguably WR (I'm 50/50 on that) shouldn't be looked at really is proof of that. Again, we're divided here about what it means to be "set" at a position. I disagree in general with your thoughts about OLB there. First of all, you're assuming that player will be a 3rd/4th OLB for the short term and maybe even long term. How do you know that he's ONLY going to be that? Heck, maybe the plan is to take Orakpo or Kerrigan off the field more often so they'll be fresher later in the game, while suffering little to no loss when doing so. Secondly, you're not saying NO to the other positions. You're saying no to the players at those positions. There's a difference. Now, if both guys are ranked the same, I'm totally with you. Go with the other positions. Tyler Polumbus our starting RT is a marginal player on an expiring contract. His back-up has very limited playing experience. Which position RT or OLB does it make sense to address Whichever one is BPA. If the same rank, RT, because Polumbus isn't as good at his spot as Kerrigan/Orakpo are at their respective positions. Kerrigan and Orakpo are NOT marginal players. Yeah Elk I generally agree with that comment. If a guy is so clearly the BPA as ford would be, I think that's the smart pick. Unless a guy like him drops, I wouldn't go anything but OL or secondary. Just me tho. That's basically what I'm saying, lol. That being said, we simply don't know how our scouts will rank guys. If they think an OLB other than Dee Ford is THAT GOOD and ranked higher than anyone else at the time of our pick, even though there may be a consensus that he's not... I hope they don't pass on him because of perceived "need". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I think having 2 pro bowl OLB and 2 backups who have shown promise is pretty much being set at the position. Disagree, heavily. We as Redskin fans should know that this way of thinking often leads to failure. Last year, it was the same with the WR group. You haven't taken into account the length of the contracts of said players, how much the team thinks they're worth as opposed to what they'll likely ask for, how they really view those backups (not how you view them), etc... So, your statement there really should read like this (my additions are bolded): "I think having 2 pro bowl OLB (one of whom is tagged for one year, the other who we'll have the option to extend for one more year at the end of next season) and 2 backups (one of whom is only on a one year deal) who have shown promise (in my opinion) is pretty much being set at the position." Until we figure out how to define being "set at a position", we're going to differ. It's really that simple, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsInFebruary Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I see we have a ton of folks here who don't believe in BPA. That makes me I'm generally a BPA guy. I just don't think we can afford to put emphasis on those with upcoming expiring contracts over immediate starting needs. And I think our OL situation has kind of festered into an urgent need, compounded by what RG3 needs now to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 BPA = Need for us in the draft, virtually indistinguishable IMO. Save QB/RB/WR.... we essentially have need at every position. Thus, this year argument is Fred Smoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I'd worry about a plan to replace lost players after we have the players to lose at every position. We need OL; we need RG3 to have time and a better comfort level, and we need the ability to run our plays without so much disruption. OL will help every other position, including D. Fair enough, but if OLB is best player available and we can't trade down, then we should draft OLB. Of course I believe in bpa. If you're a need guy you may not believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Lots of talk of Dee Ford falling into the 2nd round. I know a lot of people think he is one dimensional but he is someone that I'd like to take at #34 IF we were not going to go OL. I mean Rak is one dimensional so we could just train Dee to be Raks replacement lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Lots of talk of Dee Ford falling into the 2nd round. I know a lot of people think he is one dimensional but he is someone that I'd like to take at #34 IF we were not going to go OL. I mean Rak is one dimensional so we could just train Dee to be Raks replacement lmao Neither player is one dimensional at all.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Neither player is one dimensional at all.. they are both amazing players but we all know rak only bull rushes. In fact with rak getting 10sacks a year with only bull rushing says a lot about his motor and strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Yeah Elk I generally agree with that comment. If a guy is so clearly the BPA as ford would be, I think that's the smart pick. Unless a guy like him drops, I wouldn't go anything but OL or secondary. Just me tho. Agreed. This draft has a lot of talent in the middle. There are many options we could go with and I would be happy. OL like Moses out of UVA, DE/OLB Dee Ford, WR Kelvin Benjamin, CB Joyner of FSU (SI mock), or even a trade down should QB Carr happen to fall to us (long shot). While need would have us go OL then CB, and pass rusher and WR are far down the list, if any one of them is rated much higher than the rest then I'd be fine with us taking him and IMO that is the type of draft strategy this team uses. I haven't really seen us make enough big reaches to think we factor need in too much, but I have seen us make enough non-essential needs picks (Cousins and Reed off the top of my head) to where I believe the team uses the right variation of BPA in its draft philosophy. Will be interesting to see the shift in scouting priorities based on new leadership and new coaching/scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 they are both amazing players but we all know rak only bull rushes. In fact with rak getting 10sacks a year with only bull rushing says a lot about his motor and strength. Oh. I thought you were saying all they could do was pass rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 you won't know till you see someone play in a real game but I'd rather pay someone less money for the same amount of results that you'd get from the more expensive guy. I doubt Dee will be as good as rak but I'm just rambling incoherently atm Oh. I thought you were saying all they could do was pass rush. No they are good players all around I just was referring to their pass rush technique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 BPA = Need for us in the draft, virtually indistinguishable IMO. Save QB/RB/WR.... we essentially have need at every position. Thus, this year argument is Fred Smoot. There are some exceptions to this, though otherwise I agree we have needs pretty much everywhere else. But, if we are in round 4 and a Cousins type situation happens again, where he is by far and away the clear cut BPA, highly rated over anyone else available, I'd take him. It makes Cousins expendable/tradeable but at the same time it won't drop his asking value because the replacement is a rookie after all. But that is the only circumstance. That, and if the OL left when we pick in round 2 are just meh and CBs are meh but you have WRs Benjamin or Lattimer rated better, then I'd go with one of them. Roberts may only be here a few seasons, same with DJax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I think having 2 pro bowl OLB and 2 backups who have shown promise is pretty much being set at the position. Set at the position for this year. But relying on Jenkins to start next year with nobody behind him and Kerrigan. That's a recipe for disaster (and gives Orakpo a ton of leverage with us) and is pretty poor planning. On the other hand, if there's no OLB that presents good value at 34, then it makes no sense to draft one there. It's a difference between general philosophy and the reality of the draft. General philosophy says it makes sense to place an emphasis on shoring up the OLB spot given Orakpo and RJax's 1 yr contracts, but draft reality might say that value isn't there until rounds 4+ (as you said). Looking a year ahead, WR, DE, NT, RB, corner and QB are fairly set, but the depth is... questionable I guess. We have some options/upside at ILB, G, corner, SS, RT and TE, but no guaruntees. Then we have some serious question marks at OLB and FS - both starters and depth (Kerrigan/Jenkins/?/?, Rambo/?) So OLB and FS are the two spots I'm most concerned about in the long run even though OLB is set for this year and FS has been upgraded. Doesn't mean we should necessarily draft those positions (BPA please), but they are areas of need. That's my take anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 So adding a rookie with a 2nd round pick would somehow be less of a recipe for disaster than having Jenkins possibly start? Seems like a bad use of resources to replace a guy who was a rookie coming off injury last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I agree with the idea that WR isn't a slam dunk NOT position of need. But the idea that 7-8 Wr's could go in round 1. I wholeheartedly doubt that if there is a WR there at 34, there's a reason. Thus, WR/QB/RB is all avoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Set at the position for this year. But relying on Jenkins to start next year with nobody behind him and Kerrigan. That's a recipe for disaster (and gives Orakpo a ton of leverage with us) and is pretty poor planning. On the other hand, if there's no OLB that presents good value at 34, then it makes no sense to draft one there. It's a difference between general philosophy and the reality of the draft. General philosophy says it makes sense to place an emphasis on shoring up the OLB spot given Orakpo and RJax's 1 yr contracts, but draft reality might say that value isn't there until rounds 4+ (as you said). We have an entire year to a) see how a late round pick develops, sign an FA next year, c) see how Jenkins develops, d) re-franchise Orakpo, e) draft a passrusher early next year. There's absolutely no reason to draft a passrusher early. We have so many opportunities to address the position before next year comes around for us to even think about it. What's next, RG3 is an FA in 2017 so we should consider drafting a replacement in 2015, just so he doesn't have leverage in contract negotiations? Now, if Clowney, Mack, or Barr are, for some impossible reason, sitting there at 34 then fine, go for it. But Ford will not be a significantly better prospect than other guys who may be there. This is a weak year for olb prospects anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 And what if we pass on an OLB who ends up being a stud because we wanted to "protect RG3", draft an Olineman (who we ranked lower than that OLB) and he ends up being a bust or even just average? It's not neglecting anything, because we're simply NOT set at either position long term. I agree, need should factor in... but very, very slightly and especially with our team. We need to amass talent, period. At pretty much every position outside of QB, K and P. There is an argument for WR, maybe, as well. First off, let me say that I'm not bashing you in this comment. Seems to me that, in general, there's a tad too much "making it personal" at times around here. This place is as much football as we've got this time of year so let's all have fun talking to each other. That said, a couple of things: 1. Your what-if scenario is always present. In that regard, it's a non-factor. What if we took the 2nd coming of Steve Hutchinson over the next Dan Wilkinson? You never know -- well, you never know if a guy everyone thinks will pan out flashes in the pan instead. 2. You are correct that we need to amass talent at most positions. Too bad we don't have St. Louis's draft (btw, that's a fun one in First-Pick). What I'm saying is, we have RGIII for whom we gave up serious draftage for. We want him healthy. Let's assume a 1 - 5 scale, graded on a curve (top 20% = 5, next 20% = 4, etc). However you grade the OL (me? 5 - ? - ? - ? - ? with none of those ?s above 2 except 1 you get to pick) Let's say you even had 5-3-3-3-3. I'd want a 4 in there -- preferably in rd 3, but that's a matter of chance. I get the need for D. In fact, I'm a sacks-turnovers guy v. a bend-don't-break guy, but protecting RGIII is a combat multiplier: keep him healthy, give him time to throw, give him lanes to run, and give his hosses a chance to run free. Look at the 1981 draft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_NFL_Draft#Round_one)%C2'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 It's interesting how much the front office rumors effect fan opinion. Somehow people are talking themselves into an OLB and using various levels of mental gymnastics to rationalize it. The idea that we should address depth at OLB this draft doesn't vibe with me when our starting RT is Tyler Polumbus (and I like him better then most) and his back-up is Tom Compton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAILSKINSNYC Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 There's a better chance we could get a quality RT at pick #66 then we can get one of the top LB's. I would definitely trade down in the 2nd round if we could pick up an extra 3rd....the trade with the 49ers makes sense. or trade Cousins. I think the thought process about adding another pass rushing LB is that I can see Kerrigan being used inside on passing downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Just to be clear my response is to the rumors that pass rusher will be a draft focus. I ain't buying that pass rusher will be a focus more then any other position; especially not OL/OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 It's interesting how much the front office rumors effect fan opinion. Somehow people are talking themselves into an OLB and using various levels of mental gymnastics to rationalize it. The idea that we should address depth at OLB this draft doesn't vibe with me when our starting RT is Tyler Polumbus (and I like him better then most) and his back-up is Tom Compton. If the highest rated player when it's our turn to draft is a OLB/DE, and he's rated a 9, and the next best player is an OL rated a 7, I'm taking the OLB, especially with Rak being on a 1 year deal and what he may cost next season. If both are rated an 8 then I'd go OT since need would factor in even more to break that tie.It's not mental gymnastics, it's BPA. Haven't seen anyone advocate that OLB is a must draft high based purely on need. The idea of going into a draft and being determined to ignore a position because there is a greater need elsewhere doesn't vibe with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.