2014 Comprehensive Nfl Draft Database

[darrelgreenie]

...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.

I don't know why I respond to these hypotheticals but I can see the above when the take Long and the very next pick the Ravens draft Terrence Brooks.

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

On both ends? I'm not sure what I've rationalized?

[Stormy]

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.

I don't disagree with much of your post, but I would point out a few caveats. First, this wasn't like any other draft, due to the fact that an unprecedented number of underclassmen declared for the draft. Scouts and analysts suggested throughout the process that the depth of talent available in this draft was unique. Combine that unprecedented depth with the fact that our picks were at the top of each round, and in actuality we had the rough equivalent of what would normally be late first talent at pick #34, late second talent at #66 etc... If you ascribe to the belief that this draft had unique depth, which I do, then it's reasonable to expect more impact talent than usual available throughout the draft.

Secondly, I mentioned the potential for 2-3 starters coming from this draft, which on the low end is just 1 more starter than you are saying is reasonable, so we're not light years apart in the projection of how many starters were reasonable to expect from this draft. Lastly, this is a 3-13 team with enormous holes at numerous positions, making it even more likely that a second or third round pick could displace a starter from an impoverished position like FS, SS, RG, ILB etc...

I'm not overtly critical of this draft, for the record. I don't like what seems to be a predetermined decision to go OLB with our first pick, and I don't like reaching for perceived need over BPA which I thought we did several times. However, there are things I do like too... I thought the trade back was a shrewd move. I like that we landed multiple OL early to address the right side of the OL. I like that we drafted high IQ guys who love the game and play with a chip on their shoulder. I like Breeland and Seastrunk and even Grant as day 3 picks, a lot. That doesn't mean I like everything about the process, or who was picked where.

You can land multiple year 1 starters from the second days of a draft, we did it just last year with Amerson and Reed, and some would argue we landed a third guy who started for better or worse in Rambo, and we were picking way deeper in each round from a much more shallow draft. So, it's far from unreasonable to expect the same from a far deeper draft like this years. I can think of several ways we could have gone that would have almost certainly netted us at least 2 guys who start from day 1. Just one example, Bitonio and Brooks, both picked after where we selected would likely already better than 4/5 of our OL, and any of our safeties at this stage of their careers. Just one scenario...

[darrelgreenie]

^^You could argue there were players taken after (sometimes immediately after) that would project either as starters or more immediate contributors then out selections:

DE Timmy Jernigan #48,

After pick 66:Billy Turner OT, Dezmen Southward FS, Marcus Martin C, Christian Kirksey ILB, Scott Crichton DE, Preston Brown ILB, Jay Bromley DT, Tre Mason RB, Travis Swanson C, Chris Borland ILB),

FS Terrence Brooks #79

[skinny21]

I don't know why I respond to these hypotheticals but I can see the above when the take Long and the very next pick the Ravens draft Terrence Brooks.

I almost mentioned the Brooks pick earlier because it's one you keep mentioning. Does drafting Long over Brooks signify to you that the FO doesn't place importance on the future regarding SAF?

On both ends? I'm not sure what I've rationalized?

Good call on rationalizing - actually had to look up the definition (sad, I know) - you certainly weren't rationalizing and I apologize. On the bright side, it turns out that coming up with plausible reasons for the FO drafting as they did isn't actually rationalizing. Rationalizing requires not analyzing true (or unconscious) motives. I try to see the good and bad reasons for an action, but then I tend to hope the answer stems from the good reasons (and argue against those that believe it must have stemmed from the bad).

Ah well. I'm quibbling. Point is, I can see multiple possibilities for why the FO behaved (picked) as they did. Bottom line though is that I don't see that we have enough info to draw a certain conclusion, so arguing won't achieve much IMO. Or maybe I'm just quitting because you're a tough debator. Thanks for responding though!

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

 

In terms of what is the team gonna say, which part of it are you referring to that they used a BPA approach?  I didn't say specifically that trading down means BPA -- but in this specific context, Russell said there are multiple guys they liked who are OLB who are pretty much mostly graded as 2nd rounders.  And Russell gave cues in advance as to which positions they thought there was good depth versus others.   And if they considered pass rushing LB as a good position for the 2nd round based on the fact there were a bunch of guys they liked, I think you can argue they had a BPA approach to a degree.   I agree that yeah you could like a player who plays another position even if you think a different position is deeper in that round, so we will never know.  

[DMVLeGenD]

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

You're right. What I should've said is that Colston is capable of playing the outside and the slot, while Grant will most likely be solely regulated to the slot.

[Thekyle1591]

You're right. What I should've said is that Colston is capable of playing the outside and the slot, while Grant will most likely be solely regulated to the slot.

Why would Grant be regulated to the slot when he has every making of an outside guy? People look WAY too much into whether a guy is 6"1 or 6"3 in today's NFL.

[skinny21]

Why would Grant be regulated to the slot when he has every making of an outside guy? People look WAY too much into whether a guy is 6"1 or 6"3 in today's NFL.

And there's Gruden's opinion that he can play both inside and out.

[darrelgreenie]

I almost mentioned the Brooks pick earlier because it's one you keep mentioning. Does drafting Long over Brooks signify to you that the FO doesn't place importance on the future regarding SAF?

Nope. I only brought up the Brooks selection because it stands in direct opposition to this hypothetical/specualtion you made in the previous post:

...it could also be that SAF was more important but they couldn't slot one in that made sense.

                                                                                                                                                                

 

Good call on rationalizing -..... On the bright side, it turns out that coming up with plausible reasons for the FO drafting as they did isn't actually rationalizing. Rationalizing requires not analyzing true (or unconscious) motives.

Many definitions for rationalize but I can't think of a more accurate way to describe what has been going on in this thread: trying to find an reason for drafting a back-up player at a position of relative strength with the first pick in the draft.  

 

rationalize-  to invent plausible explanations for actions that are actually based on less acceptable causes.

 

I try to see the good and bad reasons for an action, but then I tend to hope the answer stems from the good reasons (and argue against those that believe it must have stemmed from the bad).

My statements have only been about the reality. For some reason most  respond with speculations on reasons. Anyone can speculate on the reasons,and no offense, its pointless to speculate on the reasons, they don't matter. The result matters and the result is we drafted for depth, drafted for the future. Maybe it will work out. But, if I'm the GM of a 3-13 team it would seem more wise to draft for immediate contribution.

 

 Bottom line though is that I don't see that we have enough info to draw a certain conclusion...

Imho there are conclusions that can be made right now:

 

Conclusion:

1. FO drafted for 'depth' and for the 'future'

2. The first selection was a back-up OLB, and historically back-up OLBs don't play much (I know, I know Haslett is gonna pioneer a new scheme where the 3rd OLB produces at a starters level)

3. The best bet for an immediate starter is Spencer Long because imho if you draft a OG in the 3rd round and Chris Chester is penciled in as starter the 3rd round OG better beat him out

[darrelgreenie]

Skins-

What you describe seems more like BLA best linebacker available then best player available.

[skinny21]

Nope. I only brought up the Brooks selection because it stands in direct opposition to this hypothetical/specualtion you made in the previous post:

Many definitions for rationalize but I can't think of a more accurate way to describe what has been going on in this thread: trying to find an reason for drafting a back-up player at a position of relative strength with the first pick in the draft.

rationalize- to invent plausible explanations for actions that are actually based on less acceptable causes.

My statements have only been about the reality. For some reason most respond with speculations on reasons. Anyone can speculate on the reasons,and no offense, its pointless to speculate on the reasons, they don't matter. The result matters and the result is we drafted for depth, drafted for the future. Maybe it will work out. But, if I'm the GM of a 3-13 team it would seem more wise to draft for immediate contribution.

Imho there are conclusions that can be made right now:

Conclusion:

1. FO drafted for 'depth' and for the 'future'

2. The first selection was a back-up OLB, and historically back-up OLBs don't play much (I know, I know Haslett is gonna pioneer a new scheme where the 3rd OLB produces at a starters level)

3. The best bet for an immediate starter is Spencer Long because imho if you draft a OG in the 3rd round and Chris Chester is penciled in as starter the 3rd round OG better beat him out

Yes, but it's your opinion that Brooks made sense. If Long had a higher grade on their board though... Pretty sketchy to say that the FO is not concerned about SAF because they picked Long instead.

Anyway. I agree with your second two conclusions. The first may be correct as well (though drafting a backup is not the same as disregarding immediate needs or drafting for the future). Too much we don't know/aren't privy to to make that conclusion IMO. Unless the FO has said something about bypassing immediate contributors in favor of depth/the future?

[DMVLeGenD]

Why would Grant be regulated to the slot when he has every making of an outside guy? People look WAY too much into whether a guy is 6"1 or 6"3 in today's NFL.

It's not just about his height. I don't think he'll be able to seperate from the defense consistently over the top.

[Thekyle1591]

It's not just about his height. I don't think he'll be able to seperate from the defense consistently over the top.

Why not?

[DogofWar1]

Grant likely doesn't have the speed to be a deep threat on the outside, but that's not really necessary.  Jerry Rice didn't exclusively play from the slot, nor does Anquan Boldin.

 

If Grant can run every route on the tree, and have good hands, he'll fit great inside or out.  He doesn't need to be going over the top personally, we really only need *someone* stretching the field, and it could be the guy opposite Grant.

[Skinsinparadise]

Skins-

What you describe seems more like BLA best linebacker available then best player available.

 

Could be a hybrid approach is my point.    Lets move the analogy to food.  You got 10 bucks to spend, you quickly look at the menu on line and say to yourself this place is known for burgers and there are 6 or so types I like at $10.  You head to the restaurant and you end up with a burger.     If they thought in advance and they telegraphed this that the 2nd round seems like a good one to find a good pass rusher based on specific projections they had.  And in contrast based on what their board told them, other positions like safety and RT didn't look good based on who they thought would fall.  And it just so happens things fall like they expected, I can't really fault them for it.    The argument that this was BPA the way I see it is that the board broke down similar to their expectations.   These are the same guys that took Ryan Grant in the 5th round, even though the team isn't desperate for a WR especially at his size, and a kicker when we already had Forbath.  So there is some smoke to the fire of BPA.  

 

Am not saying I can vouch for Murphy being BPA, obviously there is no way to know, but I can see a scenario for it either way.   For me at least, there isn't one theory that's more compelling than another. 

[Thekyle1591]

Grant likely doesn't have the speed to be a deep threat on the outside, but that's not really necessary. Jerry Rice didn't exclusively play from the slot, nor does Anquan Boldin.

If Grant can run every route on the tree, and have good hands, he'll fit great inside or out. He doesn't need to be going over the top personally, we really only need *someone* stretching the field, and it could be the guy opposite Grant.

He has plenty of speed on tape, and he plays the ball in the air as well as anybody. Plays like he's 6"4. Either way, he is best suited to intermediate routes as Jackson will likely take up a majority of deep targets.

[Skinsinparadise]

If Grant can run every route on the tree, and have good hands, he'll fit great inside or out.  He doesn't need to be going over the top personally, we really only need *someone* stretching the field, and it could be the guy opposite Grant.

 

Cooley gushing on Grant today, said that McVay told him he is playing awesome in practice and is about as polished WR as he's ever seen at that age.  

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Cooley gushing on Grant today, said that McVay told him he is playing awesome in practice and is about as polished WR as he's ever seen at that age.  

Can't get much more positive than that.  Looking forward to watching him play.

 

When does TC start?

[darrelgreenie]

Yes, but it's your opinion that Brooks made sense. If Long had a higher grade on their board though... Pretty sketchy to say that the FO is not concerned about SAF because they picked Long instead.

 Objectively speaking do you agree that we can look at how the draft actually played out and use the draft itself to reflect a 'consensus' draft board? And being that Brooks was selected right after Spencer tells me objectively that league wide Spencer and Brooks have roughly the same grade?

Therefore, assuming the Redskins draft board is somewhere close the league wide consensus that IF safety was a priority they would have selected Brooks? Is that fair?

So when you say:

...it could also be that SAF was more important but they couldn't slot one in that made sense.

 

Does quite match up to the reality.

 

 The first may be correct as well (though drafting a backup is not the same as disregarding immediate needs or drafting for the future).

Too much we don't know/aren't privy to to make that conclusion IMO. Unless the FO has said something about bypassing immediate contributors in favor of depth/the future?

 “We addressed some positions that we needed to address with depth,” new coach Jay Gruden said. And when your starting OLBs are Rak and Ryan how else would you describe the drafting another OLB then as a selection for the future? Do you need the FO to tell you that Murphy is a back-up? (which btw they have)

Do you need the FO to tell you

[theboomking]

DG, back to Seastrunk for a second. For the record, if you go back and read my posts, I wasn't worried that we shouldn't choose Seastrunk because of his pass catching ability. I was worried that the FO wouldn't choose Lache because I thought they didn't perceive him as a pass catcher. I would have taken Lache significantly earlier than the 6th. Probably in the 4th. My worry about Seastrunk is more about his ability as a pass protector on 3rd down. I don't think he has to be able to run an entire route tree like Marshall Faulk. In our offense, if Lache can could probably make a living off of swing passes, screens and short dumps and still make a big impact.

What do you guys think about our teams focus taking "football players and high character guys"? I think that is great in the 1st, but I am disappointed that year after year we aren't taking shots on a lot of these late round high risk high reward picks. Taking low character and height/weight/speed guys in the 1st and 2nd makes you the Raiders. Doing it in the 5th through 7th is smart. Rounding out our drafts with developmental TE's, kickers, safety's and LB'ers in the 5th through 7th has seemed to bear little little fruit. We would have been smarter to have drafted Blount, Burfict, Da'Rick Rogers and Seantrel Henderson. The Bengals having been making a killing out of this for years.

[darrelgreenie]

Could be a hybrid approach is my point..........If they thought in advance and they telegraphed this that the 2nd round seems like a good one to find a good pass rusher based on specific projections they had.  And in contrast based on what their board told them, other positions like safety and RT didn't look good based on who they thought would fall.  And it just so happens things fall like they expected, I can't really fault them for it.    The argument that this was BPA the way I see it is that the board broke down similar to their expectations.  

It could be a lot of things. But when you go into the draft with reported intention of drafting an OLB and then you trade down when your pick comes up and after the trade down you select an OLB. Then BPA is gonna be a tough sell. It seems much more plausible that OLB was the target and they manuevered around to draft their OLB at a position of value. To me its much more likely that they thought 34 was too rich for the remaing OLB so they traded down acquired another pick and still got their BLA.

[darrelgreenie]

DG, back to Seastrunk for a second. For the record, if you go back and read my posts, I wasn't worried that we shouldn't choose Seastrunk because of his pass catching ability. I was worried that the FO wouldn't choose Lache because I thought they didn't perceive him as a pass catcher. I would have taken Lache significantly earlier than the 6th. Probably in the 4th. My worry about Seastrunk is more about his ability as a pass protector on 3rd down. I don't think he has to be able to run an entire route tree like Marshall Faulk. In our offense, if Lache can could probably make a living off of swing passes, screens and short dumps and still make a big impact.

Right, I remember. And my point then as now is that even if Lache never becomes a pass receiving threat his ability as a change of pace home run hitter to spell/complement Morris stil has value and made him a viable draft option.

I've read a report that Lache had one of the lowest scores on the wonderlic at tha combine and that may have hurt his draft stock along with his receiving question marks.

I was saying before that Lache's success could be dependent on whether the team has a plan to teach him the playbook (if he is slow on the uptake) and his work ethic.

I heard Cooley mention that on Sunday Lache was throwing with Griffin.

That's a good sign all around.

What do you guys think about our teams focus taking "football players and high character guys"? I think that is great in the 1st, but I am disappointed that year after year we aren't taking shots on a lot of these late round high risk high reward picks. Taking low character and height/weight/speed guys in the 1st and 2nd makes you the Raiders. Doing it in the 5th through 7th is smart. Rounding out our drafts with developmental TE's, kickers, safety's and LB'ers in the 5th through 7th has seemed to bear little little fruit. We would have been smarter to have drafted Blount, Burfict, Da'Rick Rogers and Seantrel Henderson. The Bengals having been making a killing out of this for years.

Its case by case imho. Its more important in some positions then others.

[theboomking]

It could be a lot of things. But when you go into the draft with reported intention of drafting an OLB and then you trade down when your pick comes up and after the trade down you select an OLB. Then BPA is gonna be a tough sell. It seems much more plausible that OLB was the target and they manuevered around to draft their OLB at a position of value. To me its much more likely that they thought 34 was too rich for the remaing OLB so they traded down acquired another pick and still got their BLA.

This is exactly what I think happened. The OLB they wanted at 34 wasn't there so they dropped back and took one 47. I am not as disappointed with Murphy as a player now. The steelers have made a lot of deep playoff runs with LB's that are strong, good with their hands and have good body control. I don't ever really remember a Steeler OLB that was like lightning around the edge with their 1st step. I am disappointed though with the strategy. Tuitt and less so, Hageman would have been better choices at 34 than Murphy was at 47. Jason Hatcher is 31, Cofield and Bowen are 30. Isn't that as pressing a need as Rak needing a new contract and maybe not quite being worth as large a contracts as he expects? I wonder if something else is up. What are the recent reports on Kerrigan? I wonder if his articular cartilage didn't look so good when they scoped that meniscus, or if he has had persistent swelling or pain.

[DMVLeGenD]

What do you guys think about our teams focus taking "football players and high character guys"? I think that is great in the 1st, but I am disappointed that year after year we aren't taking shots on a lot of these late round high risk high reward picks. Taking low character and height/weight/speed guys in the 1st and 2nd makes you the Raiders. Doing it in the 5th through 7th is smart. Rounding out our drafts with developmental TE's, kickers, safety's and LB'ers in the 5th through 7th has seemed to bear little little fruit. We would have been smarter to have drafted Blount, Burfict, Da'Rick Rogers and Seantrel Henderson. The Bengals having been making a killing out of this for years.

Completely agree. I think NFL teams are very wary of taking character risks though, but I would've at least took a shot on a player that has elite physical tools for his position and produced in college. I was hoping we'd draft Brandon Coleman and Morgan Breslin late.

[Dukes and Skins]

Can't get much more positive than that.  Looking forward to watching him play.

 

When does TC start?

 

Always gotta be careful with the reports too. Not that I dont believe what they say is true, but more so gotta always be careful