2014 Comprehensive Nfl Draft Database

[Dukes and Skins]

I know some have said Grant was nothing more than a 7th rounder, but I personally had a 5th on him. Lot better player than some have given him credit 

[skinny21]

I don't think labeling draft picks as projects or depth or futures justifies lowered expectations.

Saying a pick was meant for the future doesn't give the team a pass. Especially for a 3-13 team.

Especially when the FO own stance is inconsistent. Why is OLB future more important then SAF? There are playoff teams that seem to have drafted more rookie year contributors then we did.

But in the end time will tell.

And if Griffin takes the next step he'll mask all flaws.

As I've said, my one real beef with the draft was the telegraphing (and thereby potentially 'forcing') of the OLB pick. I also absolutely agree that 'drafting for the future' is not a free pass.

However, there are two sides to every coin.

First, a few points -

Maybe the FO we're hoping for Ward/Buchanon (picking one of them instead of trading back for Murphy may have silenced much of the criticism).

We don't know how the FO feels about the roster (though we can speculate based on their transactions/words).

Yes, we were a 3-13 team, but how much of that stemmed from Griffin, coaching/playcalling, poor ST play, lack of quality pass catchers, lack of pass rush, lack of oline talent, poor safety play, Fletcher's down year etc?

If the FO feels like most of of those were answered/addressed sufficiently prior to the draft, I could see this affecting their board in a big way. Add in the concerted effort to get football smart, hard working players (likely coachable, team player types), particularly guys that can help on ST, and the draft makes a bit more sense to me.

As for the idea that playoff caliber teams might have added day one contributors, but we didn't...

1) you can have a good team but still have glaring holes or question marks, 2) we don't know yet if we or they added more day 1 starters,

3) the FO seems to believe that they did enough in FA to minimize our holes/question marks - enough anyway that they could focus less on immediate need and more on the type of player they wanted and even on the future.

People can gripe about the teams Big Board, the FO's views on the roster, the plan for types of players they wanted to draft, the focus on ST, etc. - all understandable - but I'm happy that they made a plan and stuck to it, and that they seem to be optimistic about the roster and the improvements they've made.

From FA, the draft and improved health, I see more talent and competition (depth) at WR, oline, dline, FS, SS, corner, OLB, ILB, kicker and ST coverage. Would drafting a highly rated dlineman/safety have made me feel better about those areas? Definitely. On the other hand, I am impressed with how many areas they've addressed and (in many cases) in a pretty big way.

As you said, time will tell... but I see enough good (or potential for good) that I can sprinkle in a healthy dose of optimism in with my skepticism.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I know some have said Grant was nothing more than a 7th rounder, but I personally had a 5th on him. Lot better player than some have given him credit 

I agree with this.  People fall in love with measurables, forty times, etc.  Aldrick runs a 4.3 and he can't beat press or run crisp routes.  

 

What I see in Grant is a guy who knows how to get open and catch the ball.  I don't expect his YAC to be great, but I do expect him to contribute.  

[Riggo'sRangers]

I didn't hear Gruden say we drafted projects either. Sounds to me that a lot a posters on here are just upset that we didn't draft the ones they wanted so the ones we got are bad picks

 

I am out of likes.  THIS is the most accurate assessment of the posts I see on this board now, and agree 1000%.  It's amazing the draft crushes we develop. It is soooo easy to see who each poster wanted, and hear the critiques of our draft over and over, with absolutely zero professional football working knowledge.   I wanted Nix honestly, but I also know there is a reason we chose otherwise, and got over it quickly, as I am certain the people making the decision know FAR more than I do, or ever will, in this arena.  We post here and think WE know, but football is all our draft team does for a living.  Just football, 24-7.  They have a vision and a reason for their action(s), as it is their ENTIRE lively-hood and profession.  They (NOW; Vinny a vanishing memory) are pro's.  Let's let it play out. Sorry for the rant.  Being a fan entitles you to bemoan whatever you like, and I get that. However, for myself, I am going to give out new staff the benefit of the doubt.  Hell, I am a half full kind of guy anyway.  I even think we will win the NFC East this year-seriously. Anyway, good post. HTTR

[wilco_holland]

The hole draft did leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Before the draft Allen told it would be bpa.

The word on the street was that we wanted to go olb.

I think from day 1 the goal was to draft a olb with first pick. Kansas City and Philly probably took our #1 and #2 prospects. Our #3 prospect at olb was Murphy so we traded back because we knew he would be availble.

They just left there board and focussed on one position. Thats not the way the nfl works imo, unless you just lost the superbowl and have one hole on your team.

[Thinking Skins]

Now that I had time to catch up with the write ups on him and watch some clips, Grant seems more intriguing to me than he did when he was drafted.  I noticed Gruden was guarded with his comments after the rookie minicamp aside from Grant.  I trust Mayock when it comes to CBs, and he thought highly of Breeland.   Cooley seems in love with Murphy.    Seastrunk seems intriguing.  Gruden says Long will compete for a job right away.  Most like the Moses pick.  Most say if you can land 2-3 starters in any draft, you did well.  IMO there is definitely that potential here. The more I stew on the draft, the more I like it.  But like any draft, of course it has to play out.

I feel like I sound like Chris Russell cause I'm straight riding the FO right now. I mean, I'm really feeling this offseason. We went into free agency with a bunch of holes. We were able to at least provide competition at a number of those by grabbing a bunch of players to throw at the position (DE, ILB, WR, G). There were a few areas that I wasn't comfortable (FS, RT, KR), but even in those areas we have (or brought in) guys to be manage those positions.

So I felt like we had a real opportunity to do BPA (with a balance of position importance) in the draft. But what does BPA mean? Kyle asked a question like what would fans say if we had drafted a RB in the second. And I felt that was clearly a possibility given how many RBs fell in this draft. But I think the fact that RB is becoming less and less of an important position in this pass first NFL made it less likely. So when I heard the Murphy pick, I was intrigued hearing about him as a pass rush guy - which I highly value (third in terms of positional importance). We still had weaknesses, but unlike what we did with Amerson, Thomas and Rambo, we weren't going into the draft looking to start three rookies because of what we were able to do with FA.

So when Moses and Long came to us in the third, I was happy but not out of some thinking that we'd have new opening day starters, but more because I feel that Compton/LeRib/Getts/Hurt/etc hadn't done enough to provide adequate depth at our guard/tackle positions. I didn't do the scouting reports on these new guys and so I'm going to trust our scouts to get it right. If they're wrong then its back to the drawing board, but I like the process and the things that they seemed to be looking for (I will say that I'm not as high on Moses as I read he relies on his size more than just playing angry...but these are somebody else's words so I don't know how adequate they are. I'll form my own opinions come training camp and preseason).

Then after that we got Breeland, Lache, Grant, and TE Ted. Breeland I think is good insurance cause I don't like depending on Porter/Chase/Crawford so much and I've heard good things about his play. I'm more meh on Lache, but I've never been a fan of speedy backs. I read about him and think back to Skip Hicks. Maybe he's different. Grant I love though. I don't care about his 40 time as much as I care about his ability to catch. That's something that at least 1 guy on our current roster can't seem to do (Robinson). So I can clearly see him challenging for that spot. The with Hankerson being injured, he could challenge for that spot. And I like the TE simply because I wanted somebody to challenge for Paul's spot. I don't know how good this TE is, but if he's as good as advertised on special teams and can catch better than Paul, then he should make the team. People act like we were in the seventh looking for a Vernon Davis or Antonio Gates. It would have been great to find one of those, but to make the roster, his competition is Paul and that's not stiff competition.

Then there's the kicker. A) he was picked like 7 spots before Mr. Unreliable. I think it sends a message to Kai that he needs to improve his kickoffs and if he doesn't it could come at a cost. I'm not selling on Kai yet, but we need to do something about our special teams being so bad and this guy was tops on our new special teams coordinator's list.

[Skinsinparadise]

If I give the FO the benefit of the doubt, its not hard to find a rationale for this draft.   Bruce Allen said in the predraft presser and Jay Gruden in a separate interview that after FA they felt comfortable going BPA because at least the way I took it they have veterans they are comfortable within those slots where the rookies don't have to start right away.  

 

Also, they wanted to emphasize special teams.     In the draft, getting guys who can help special teams right away, who don't have to start from day one -- seems pretty normal for a team whose first pick was in the middle of the 2nd round.  Saying your players need to develop and grow seems pretty boiler plate post draft language as opposed to being a cause of concern. I recall reading before the draft that few 2nd rounders in Redskins history have begun their careers as starters, nevermind guys deeper in the draft.

 

If we are going to run with Chris Russell pumping up their want of an OLB early in the draft as proof they aren't per se going BPA at least early in the draft then I think its fair to go with the rest of the stuff that Russell said too.  That is, they liked multiple pass rushing OLBs who they thought would be there in the 2nd and third round, Russell mentioned in different segments they liked Murphy, M. Smith, Van Noy, Attaocho, and one other player forgot which one.   He also said in other segments they didn't like the potential depth of RT in the 2nd round, and also said they liked the top safeties in the draft but didn't like the depth after that.  

 

I am in the camp of why a pass rusher considering their other needs.  But I am not in the camp that they reached for this guy or there couldn't be a BPA component to this pick because Russell telegraphed that point, too.  Simply, it seems like they clearly thought OLB/pass rushers were a sweet spot in the 2nd round.   They also weren't too sweaty to grab one right away considering they traded down and picked up another pick.

 

As for Murphy being a reach, to me it depends on your draft board, clearly to them he wasn't.  If we are going with the draft geeks to determine what a reach is or not.  I got Murphy in my draft magazines in either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd round.  McShay says it was a reach, Kiper says he wasn't.   You can find draft geeks to back or slam just about any pick.  Ditto as to the comment about Ryan Grant being a 7th rounder, in my draft magazines he's generally a 4th rounder.  Heck Seastrunk is often a 2nd-4th rounder in the mocks I got.   Doesn't make one right or one wrong, depends of course on the Redskins board.    

 

If we are going purely based on the draft geeks, of the stuff I read:  Murphy was picked in about the right spot if he was a reach, its maybe by a hair.  Moses was a steal. Long was a reach.  Breeland was a steal.  Grant was picked in about the right spot.  Seastrunk was a steal.  The 7th rounder, not enough info.     

[darrelgreenie]

As I've said, my one real beef with the draft was the telegraphing (and thereby potentially 'forcing') of the OLB pick. I also absolutely agree that 'drafting for the future' is not a free pass.

However, there are two sides to every coin.

We basically agree then.

I was sold BPA but didn't see that at all.

I saw a FO that made some (artful) moves to fill their predetermined need.

And of course there are possible rationales and justifications. There are always maybes...or reasons why a team is 3-13 or whatever.

 Its not that I don't understand their draft, I don't agree with their draft.

 

As for the idea that playoff caliber teams might have added day one contributors, but we didn't...

3) the FO seems to believe that they did enough in FA to minimize our holes/question marks - enough anyway that they could focus less on immediate need and more on the type of player they wanted and even on the future.

Again, any move can be rationalized. You could rationalize that OLB is a greater priority then SAF despite the fact that we have 2 young pro-bowl caliber OLB 1 on a franchise tag and with 2 years left on their contract along with a proven back-up and a draft pick.

At SAF we have 2 aging vets that are marginal to decent starters on 1 year contracts with unproven back-up and a draft pick....

 

All things being equal a pick that contributes in year 1 is better then a pick that contributes in year 2. All 32 teams have a 2nd round pick (or draft picks in general). The teams that get contributions from those 2nd round picks made their teams better. Hopefully we're in the boat that receives year 1 contributions from our draft picks.

 

People can gripe about the teams Big Board, the FO's views on the roster, the plan for types of players they wanted to draft, the focus on ST, etc. - all understandable - but I'm happy that they made a plan and stuck to it, and that they seem to be optimistic about the roster and the improvements they've made.

Those are things that either I didn't mention or responded to because you mentioned in this post.

Having a plan and sticking to it shouldn't be lauded IF the plan is flawed.

 

As you said, time will tell... but I see enough good (or potential for good) that I can sprinkle in a healthy dose of optimism in with my skepticism.

I guess I am not sure how the bulk of your post is a response to my post. You seem to assume that because I don't like the draft I'm skeptical about the team in general.

My comments were about the draft specifically.

[darrelgreenie]

I look at the draft as a whole. I can't look at our picks in a vacuum when I know the other picks out there.

Its not even that I dislike the players.

I think the team has certainly improved because of FA if we nailed the draft it would only make the team that much better.

But again only time will tell.

[Thinking Skins]

Again, any move can be rationalized. You could rationalize that OLB is a greater priority then SAF despite the fact that we have 2 young pro-bowl caliber OLB 1 on a franchise tag and with 2 years left on their contract along with a proven back-up and a draft pick.

At SAF we have 2 aging vets that are marginal to decent starters on 1 year contracts with unproven back-up and a draft pick....

As far as the OLB vs FS question, its not just about our priorities. If they think that the FSs available at pick 34 or 47 are lesser in quality than Murphy, then you pick Murphy. I mean, everybody wants a pro bowl player at every position, but its very possible for us to get a player like Rambo who comes in and plays, but plays mediocre to horrible. If we have a chance to get a playmaker (or a guy we see as a playmaker, then we should take him). This goes back to the Carlos Rogers draft where we went for Rogers over Aaron Rodgers, and then picked Campbell. It goes back to the Kerrigan draft where we went for Kerrigan over Watt.

As far as the talent we have at the position, we have two pro bowlers, but we also have two pro bowlers who are coming off injuries. We have also seen how badly our defense plays when one of them is out of the lineup (at least Orakpo out of the lineup, and Kerrigan limited). A number of teams have multiple pass rushing OLB. We can easily doubt Haslett's ability to use the players to their maximum potential and put different lineups on the field, but that doesn't mean that our FO shouldn't get the best players. Hopefully we overcome this, or Haslett is gone soon. But I don't think this is a good criticism.

All things being equal a pick that contributes in year 1 is better then a pick that contributes in year 2. All 32 teams have a 2nd round pick (or draft picks in general). The teams that get contributions from those 2nd round picks made their teams better. Hopefully we're in the boat that receives year 1 contributions from our draft picks.

I disagree with this too. Take for example our highly talked about B. Rambo. He contributed on year one. Does that make him a valuable pick? I'd say no. Maybe that contribution helps him down the road, but it'd be better if we had filled the safety spot in free agency last year and then Rambo could come off the bench.

[darrelgreenie]

As far as the OLB vs FS question, its not just about our priorities. If they think that the FSs available at pick 34 or 47 are lesser in quality than Murphy, then you pick Murphy.

Again, more rationalization and speculation about what the FO thought. And to be clear I DO NOT ADVOCATE predetermining any postion OLB or SAF.

What I am questioning IF you are gonna target a position prior to the draft then is OLB even the right position to prioritize?

 

...but its very possible for us to get a player like Rambo who comes in and plays, but plays mediocre to horrible. If we have a chance to get a playmaker (or a guy we see as a playmaker, then we should take him)..

I don't understand why people do this? Rationalize one selection by saying another selection could fail. Everything you said above applies the same for Murphy as it does for any other player.

 

...It goes back to the Kerrigan draft where we went for Kerrigan over Watt

You know what's funny? In that draft the Mike/FO mentioned drafting an OLB as a goal then. And guess what? I wanted a DL.

 

As far as the talent we have at the position, we have two pro bowlers, but we also have two pro bowlers who are coming off injuries.

Are you saying we have more talent at SAF then OLB? Because my point here is clear. We had more talent both short term and long term at OLB then SAF.

In addition to my previous points about OLB vs SAF, your comment about injuries is inaccurate.

Orkapo and Kerrigan missed fewer games then Meriweather did this year. And the year prior both Rak and Meriweather were injured.

 

We have also seen how badly our defense plays when one of them is out of the lineup (at least Orakpo out of the lineup, and Kerrigan limited).

You mean during the playoff run without Rak? And this year both were in the line-up both played decent and the defense was still poor.

The production from our OLBs (sacks, hits, hurries) was above average compared to other 34 defenses.

 A number of teams have multiple pass rushing OLB. We can easily doubt Haslett's ability to use the players to their maximum potential and put different lineups on the field, but that doesn't mean that our FO shouldn't get the best players. Hopefully we overcome this, or Haslett is gone soon. But I don't think this is a good criticism.

Name them.

Its not just about Haslett; its about the history of the back-up OLB in a 34. And the notion that Haslett is gonna be the pioneer.

I've addressed these points in detail, probably in response to one of your posts and received no reply. I'm not going to repeat them.

I might repost.

 

I disagree with this too. Take for example our highly talked about B. Rambo. He contributed on year one. Does that make him a valuable pick? I'd say no. Maybe that contribution helps him down the road, but it'd be better if we had filled the safety spot in free agency last year and then Rambo could come off the bench.

I didn't think I would have to spell out a positive contribution.

And my statement had nothing to do with FA.

I mean its not a complicated or minority view I'm expressing here.

All things being equal getting a positive contribution from a draft pick in year 1 is better then not.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

I agree with this.  People fall in love with measurables, forty times, etc.  Aldrick runs a 4.3 and he can't beat press or run crisp routes.  

 

What I see in Grant is a guy who knows how to get open and catch the ball.  I don't expect his YAC to be great, but I do expect him to contribute.

Marques Colston comes to mind.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

I am out of likes.  THIS is the most accurate assessment of the posts I see on this board now, and agree 1000%.  It's amazing the draft crushes we develop. It is soooo easy to see who each poster wanted, and hear the critiques of our draft over and over, with absolutely zero professional football working knowledge.   I wanted Nix honestly, but I also know there is a reason we chose otherwise, and got over it quickly, as I am certain the people making the decision know FAR more than I do, or ever will, in this arena.  We post here and think WE know, but football is all our draft team does for a living.  Just football, 24-7.  They have a vision and a reason for their action(s), as it is their ENTIRE lively-hood and profession.  They (NOW; Vinny a vanishing memory) are pro's.  Let's let it play out. Sorry for the rant.  Being a fan entitles you to bemoan whatever you like, and I get that. However, for myself, I am going to give out new staff the benefit of the doubt.  Hell, I am a half full kind of guy anyway.  I even think we will win the NFC East this year-seriously. Anyway, good post. HTTR

Easy to say...tougher to prove.

When you see teams with a history of drafting well, and they are passing up players Skins management apparently covets, to draft players fan's believe in, it can put a hint of doubt in a fan's mind, considering the draft record under Snyder!

And for the record; many of the fan's that apparently know absolutely nothing, have been a heck of a lot more accurate about talent evaluation, then Skins management under Snyder's leadership! Just saying...

[DMVLeGenD]

Marques Colston comes to mind.

Colston has elite size and is primarily an outside receiver, while Grant projects to play in the slot.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

dg, I feel the need to commend you at this juncture through numerous threads. The restraint you've shown, amidst what I'm sure is MASSIVE frustration at your succinct points being either completely ignored or twisted in another direction is both admirable and something I need to take on board at times. 

 

I don't know how much more clearly or many more different ways you can say the same thing man but it's repeatedly falling of deaf, or closed, ears. 

 

Good luck getting through. 

Easy to say...tougher to prove.

When you see teams with a history of drafting well, and they are passing up players Skins management apparently covets, to draft players fan's believe in, it can put a hint of doubt in a fan's mind, considering the draft record under Snyder!

And for the record; many of the fan's that apparently know absolutely nothing, have been a heck of a lot more accurate about talent evaluation, then Skins management under Snyder's leadership! Just saying...

 

The 'Coaches/ Scouts/ FO et all know better' argument never fails to amuse me when it comes to the Washington Redskins. 

 

Folk have watched this continued cluster**** for the past two decades or so right?

 

Hail. 

[Thinking Skins]

And for the record; many of the fan's that apparently know absolutely nothing, have been a heck of a lot more accurate about talent evaluation, then Skins management under Snyder's leadership! Just saying...

As much as I appreciate threads like this one or the FA thread, its easy to put up a fan's likes/dislikes of a certain player and say they've got a good eye for talent. But if you want to talk about individual fans, I'd gamble that their hit/miss record would be just about if not worse than our front office - that is unless they're just the players they like in the top of the draft.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

That wouldn't be too surprising, I agree. Downside is that Grant doesn't seem to have a very high ceiling, and that aside from STs and 4WR sets doesn't project to see the field much. In addition to not liking some of the personnel we targeted, it bothers me that this was a draft where we absolutely should have walked away with 2-3 day 1 starters at positions of need, with long-term upside. Instead, we seem to have gotten depth, projects and ST upgrades.

That was my take on the day of the draft, we'll see if our draftees performance changes that perception over the coming year(s).

 

We didn't have a 1st round pick.  How are you going to get 2-3 Day 1 starters with long-term upside without a 1st round pick?  If a player is an immediate starter and still has longer-term upside, he's likely going in the 1st round in most draft years.

 

Saying you're upset that we didn't magically land several surefire, well recognized & hyped studs who would likely have gone in the 1st round in most drafts is ridiculous.

 

Our first 3 picks were #47, 66, 78.

 

Let's look at last seasons draft.  And how many guys who were drafted between #47 and the end of the 3rd round actually started for their teams.

 

2013 draft, picks #47 - 97 (so 51 picks).  18 of those 51 players were listed as 1st year starters by Pro-Football-Reference.  That also includes David Amerson who, while not technically starting, got more snaps than some starters on other teams.

 

Now how many of those 18 players could be considered Day 1 starters?  So we're looking for guys who started every game they played.  Eddie Lacy, Le'Veon Bell, Larry Warford, TJ McDonald.  That's it.  2 of them are RB's.  Two others, Tyrann Mathieu and Keenan Allen, got the starting nod in Game 2 or 3.

 

Your expectations of how many immediate starters can be drafted where we had picks, is unreasonable.  Current rumor out of rookie camp is that Spencer Long is competing for a starting spot.  IF, and this is a big if, he grabs that spot, then we'll have had a very good immediate success in the draft.  Simply getting a single Day 1 starter between the range of our draft picks is lucky.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Colston has elite size and is primarily an outside receiver, while Grant projects to play in the slot.

 

That's not really true, Colston plays in the slot more than he plays outside.  His bread and butter is the seam route.

[TSO]

 

If we are going to run with Chris Russell pumping up their want of an OLB early in the draft as proof they aren't per se going BPA at least early in the draft then I think its fair to go with the rest of the stuff that Russell said too.  That is, they liked multiple pass rushing OLBs who they thought would be there in the 2nd and third round, Russell mentioned in different segments they liked Murphy, M. Smith, Van Noy, Attaocho, and one other player forgot which one.   He also said in other segments they didn't like the potential depth of RT in the 2nd round, and also said they liked the top safeties in the draft but didn't like the depth after that.  

 

I am in the camp of why a pass rusher considering their other needs.  But I am not in the camp that they reached for this guy or there couldn't be a BPA component to this pick because Russell telegraphed that point, too.  Simply, it seems like they clearly thought OLB/pass rushers were a sweet spot in the 2nd round.   They also weren't too sweaty to grab one right away considering they traded down and picked up another pick.  

 

Your entire post was solid, but this is the part I wanted to emphasize. Like you, I don't understand the assumption that, because Russel/Keim were hearing that the FO was looking at OLB in the early rounds, the player picked there wasn't BPA. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one; so it's hard for me to believe we were pre-determining the position and just went with OLB no matter what, because then we'd have to assume Bruce Allen and Jay Gruden were blatantly lying when talking about BPA pre-draft.

 

The simpler explanation is that they felt there would be some really good OLBs in the 2nd/3rd round they had higher grades on than with any other position and so the news came out that they'd be looking at that position. 

 

The interesting thing for me is, knowing how Russel is wrong as much as he is right when it comes to moves the team is going to make, I wonder if they purposefully let that info out so as to get a team like the Cowboys to jump up and trade us some picks out of the fear that we'd take the pass rusher they liked. Pretty much what they did with Blaine Gabbert in 2011.

 

Either way, there's no way of really knowing unless they come out and say it. I can't put my foot in the ground and say that I believe 100% it was BPA at that spot for the FO, which is why I think it's unfair to assume it was pre-determined as well.  

 

[Dukes and Skins]

As much as I appreciate threads like this one or the FA thread, its easy to put up a fan's likes/dislikes of a certain player and say they've got a good eye for talent. But if you want to talk about individual fans, I'd gamble that their hit/miss record would be just about if not worse than our front office - that is unless they're just the players they like in the top of the draft.

 

Oh they are. I'm the furthest from being any bit good and my record is lower than the FO. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Your entire post was solid, but this is the part I wanted to emphasize. Like you, I don't understand the assumption that, because Russel/Keim were hearing that the FO was looking at OLB in the early rounds, the player picked there wasn't BPA. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one; so it's hard for me to believe we were pre-determining the position and just went with OLB no matter what, because then we'd have to assume Bruce Allen and Jay Gruden were blatantly lying when talking about BPA pre-draft.

 

The simpler explanation is that they felt there would be some really good OLBs in the 2nd/3rd round they had higher grades on than with any other position and so the news came out that they'd be looking at that position. 

 

The interesting thing for me is, knowing how Russel is wrong as much as he is right when it comes to moves the team is going to make, I wonder if they purposefully let that info out so as to get a team like the Cowboys to jump up and trade us some picks out of the fear that we'd take the pass rusher they liked. Pretty much what they did with Blaine Gabbert in 2011.

 

Either way, there's no way of really knowing unless they come out and say it. I can't put my foot in the ground and say that I believe 100% it was BPA at that spot for the FO, which is why I think it's unfair to assume it was pre-determined as well.  

 

 

Thanks.  As for Russell yeah he has been off the mark more often then right but I have to give him props this time, he was on fire before the draft and even during the draft making some good calls in advance of some of their picks.  And Trent Murphy was among the players he said in advance that they like.    

 

As for BPA, I get the point that if they are telegraphing OLB in advance then its a need based pick and I felt that way at the time but as I digest it I see a counter-view to it that's also strong.  Since you also got Russell making it clear they liked the depth of that position in the early rounds and had multiple targets they liked.  He also said they didn't like the potential depth at RT or safety unless there was a surprise fall.    Also when it was all said and done, they traded down.  So they weren't that sweaty about grabbing a specific guy.  

 

And if they liked the depth at pass rush, they grabbing one of multiple players they like in that round -- makes sense.    Now as for whether OLB is a legitimate major need -- that's a different argument, and personally I would have looked elsewhere.  But the idea of heck usually good pass rushers go earlier in the draft as opposed to later, and this happens to be a draft where they liked a bunch of them and saw it as an opportunity to grab one with an early pick -- makes sense to me if that was their agenda. 

[skinny21]

We basically agree then.

I was sold BPA but didn't see that at all.

I saw a FO that made some (artful) moves to fill their predetermined need.

And of course there are possible rationales and justifications. There are always maybes...or reasons why a team is 3-13 or whatever.

Its not that I don't understand their draft, I don't agree with their draft.

Again, any move can be rationalized. You could rationalize that OLB is a greater priority then SAF despite the fact that we have 2 young pro-bowl caliber OLB 1 on a franchise tag and with 2 years left on their contract along with a proven back-up and a draft pick.

At SAF we have 2 aging vets that are marginal to decent starters on 1 year contracts with unproven back-up and a draft pick....

All things being equal a pick that contributes in year 1 is better then a pick that contributes in year 2. All 32 teams have a 2nd round pick (or draft picks in general). The teams that get contributions from those 2nd round picks made their teams better. Hopefully we're in the boat that receives year 1 contributions from our draft picks.

Those are things that either I didn't mention or responded to because you mentioned in this post.

Having a plan and sticking to it shouldn't be lauded IF the plan is flawed.

I guess I am not sure how the bulk of your post is a response to my post. You seem to assume that because I don't like the draft I'm skeptical about the team in general.

My comments were about the draft specifically.

The first part of the post was directed toward you, the second part less so (hence starting that one paragraph with 'People').

To clarify a point I made... A playoff team could have more talent then we do, but still have more holes then we do (after our FA).

The one point of yours I didn't address was our FO placing more importance on the future of OLB than SAF. Could well be true, but it could also be that SAF was more important but they couldn't slot one in that made sense.

Wasn't really referring (intentionally anyway) to you in terms of team/roster skepticism, just that maybe the FO didn't see any spots that they either needed or could get a day 1 starter. I am surprised that some have criticized this draft for not bringing in multiple starters, particularly sans a 1st rounder

As for rationalizing, yeah - that's pretty much all we're doing on both ends, goes with the territory.

Sorry, I'd like to give a better go, but it's too much of a pain on my phone.

One last thing. I've liked a lot of what I've seen from the FO thus far, and if I use that info to try to defend the OLB 'telegraphing', I'd point to the possibility that the FO saw the best value for OLB in the second. Heck, maybe they hoped for Sua'Filo/Ward/Buchanon, and when those guys and the top corners didn't fall to them they went for the trade down and Murphy. Who knows. Doesn't mean I would have done the same, but without knowledge of their board, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt (for now).

Even judging this draft 3 years from now won't be easy because we won't know how much this staff (or other teams coaches) affects the good or poor development of players. It'll still be interesting to see though.

[RandyHolt]

Our "6 foot" and under receivers should be well tested facing press man with Breeland in the mix un-penalized in camp

 

Good practice for when we meet Seattle or find ourselves in big games and the refs let the boys play.

 

I think its wise to have aggressive players on defense but unwise to not let them play aggressive. 

[darrelgreenie]

.....He also said they didn't like the potential depth at RT or safety unless there was a surprise fall.    Also when it was all said and done, they traded down.  So they weren't that sweaty about grabbing a specific guy..... 

What else is a team gonna say though? And just because they say it doesn't make it/them correct. I agree with most of your post though. But I don't think trading down signals BPA. Teams often trade down because they are targeting a particular player or players and they believe they can still get them when they trade down. On balance I think a trade down is more an example of 'targeting' then of BPA.

[SWFLSkins]

Early signs are pointing to Breeland and Grant being the steals of our draft. I like the fact that Breeland is an in your face type of player. I knew my worries about Moses were for a reason. Very uneasy about him.

 

Don't get starstruck and forget about Seastrunk