2014 Comprehensive Nfl Draft Database

[Larry]

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?

I think that that technique can be valid in one direction, but not in another.

If John Doe gets drafted in the 3rd round, then I think it shows a good consensus that nobody thought he was worth a 2nd. (Consensus, but not necessarily unanimous. Team X may have passed on him, not because they thought he wasn't worth a 2nd, but because they thought some other player was worth an even higher pick).

But, if John Doe gets drafted in the 3rd, it only shows that ONE team thought he was worth a 3rd. The consensus might have valued him as a 5th.

[nemocystem]

Just looking at the bigger picture, I really think the FO believed that we had done enough in FA to be "serviceable" at every perceived weakness. We acquired players at SAF, G, ILB, DT, & retained our guys at OLB. The chatter pre-draft iirc was that Allen had stated how they may even feel okay with giving Polumbus another year to prove himself.

I think they decided they were going to go after players they really liked, & who they believed they could mold into better players for our systems. They may have gone after some guys had they stayed at 34, but when the opportunity arose to move back & gain a 3rd rounder, they probably liked Murphy the most on their board.

I think they feel that whatever position they didn't address in the draft, they would add guys as UDFA's for the sake of competition (going with the "guys we can mold" chatter) to see if 1 or 2 guys can emerge.

We have a lot of guys filling those questionable spots on 1 year deals or on deals with little or no guaranteed money. So you can see how they figure..."hey, if those fillers don't resolve those position deficiencies, we can use our next Draft + FA to work on those."

I just feel that they look to have a more methodical, & calculated approach than maybe some of us are willing to give them credit for.

I myself will remain apprehensive until I see the plan produce W's. Alhough, i feel better when i can take a step back & see that having a plan is already a better plan than we've had in a while.

[FrFan]

Packers just signed Lyerla, they think he's worth the headache, I hope we won't regret it.

[inevitable]

Packers just signed Lyerla, they think he's worth the headache, I hope we won't regret it.

30 other teams could've signed him. There's a reason we didn't. There's a reason they (30 other teams) didn't. I wouldn't touch this guy with a 20 ft pole. Glad our organization thought similarly.

[darrelgreenie]

I really think the FO believed that we had done enough in FA to be "serviceable" at every perceived weakness....

I think they decided they were going to go after players they really liked, & who they believed they could mold into better players for our systems.....

I think they feel that whatever position they didn't address in the draft, they would add guys as UDFA's for the sake of competition (going with the "guys we can mold" chatter) to see if 1 or 2 guys can emerge.

Here's what I don't get. How can results/outcomes be rationalized with speculation about intention.

The intent doesn't matter the result matters. I don't care about intent (or more accurately your speculations about intent). The result is a back-up OLB was selected with our highest draft pick.

If we lack position X but intend to address position Y then proceed to address position Y. We still lack position X. Just because the intention was all along was to address position Y doesn't make that intention relevant.

The types of players you describe the FO as going after is rhetoric that applies to all teams and every team signs UDFAs the FO

We have a lot of guys filling those questionable spots on 1 year deals or on deals with little or no guaranteed money. So you can see how they figure..."hey, if those fillers don't resolve those position deficiencies, we can use our next Draft + FA to work on those."

Ahh, the crux of the matter. Before you said that the FO had done enough to be 'serviceable' but you also admit that there are questionable spots/deficiencies. I propose to you wouldn't it be better to address those areas you are talking about before addressing depth at OLB?

[darrelgreenie]

 Gonna restate my view since its been lost                                                                                      

 

I am not condemning the draft.

I am sure they had a plan and they drafted BPA on their board. (like every team does).

I couldn't possibly care less about the FO intentions.

 

But I do question the selection of a back-up OLB with our highest pick. 

It would have be beneficial to the team to have as many 1st year contributors as possible.

And using the highest selection on a back-up limits that.

Of the early pick Morgan Moses and Spencer Long look to have the best chance to start/contribute as rookies.

If Moses/Long start/contribute Imagine how much better the team would be if the 1st pick was also a starter/contributor?

 

That's all.

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

 

If you run completely with Chris Russell's stuff, and am sticking with him because he was the key person shouting that they will do this in advance -- they had an overall view of positional strength and weakness for BPA in the 2nd round, and that seems part of the reason why OLB stood out to them.  So what I mean by a hybrid approach is I gather if they for example didn't think there were really good OLB's in the 2nd round, they wouldn't have forced a pick in that direction.   

[darrelgreenie]

-- they had an overall view of positional strength and weakness for BPA in the 2nd round, and that seems part of the reason why OLB stood out to them.

But again, that isn't BPA. The draft itself will determine positional strength/weakness. Pre-determining a position as 'standing' out just sounds like rhetoric to explain choosing OLB as a target.

 

So what I mean by a hybrid approach is I gather if they for example didn't think there were really good OLB's in the 2nd round, they wouldn't have forced a pick in that direction.

I don't think they would force a pick and they didn't force the pick for an OLB at pick 34. They didn't select at pick 34 at all. They traded out. And like I said before they manuevered to select an OLB at position where they thought it had value.

Which to me isn't BPA, targeting.

[skinny21]

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:

Does quite match up to the reality.

I think you're misunderstanding me.

If Long was BPA on their board, would it make sense to draft Brooks instead? Also, how would drafting Long signal what they feel about safety?

“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

My quote again -

"Unless the FO has said something about bypassing immediate contributors in favor of depth/the future?"

Anyway, SkinsParadise has done a much better job than I have. Essentially there are other reasonable explanations for the Murphy pick (and not taking Brooks or another safety). Without all the info, we can't know why it played out the way it did.

Yes the FO drafted depth... but that's not the same as "The FO drafted FOR depth".

It can sound like rationalizing, but offering plausible alternatives ain't quite the same.

[darrelgreenie]

I think you're misunderstanding me.

If Long was BPA on their board, would it make sense to draft Brooks instead? Also, how would drafting Long signal what they feel about safety?

I understand you quite well. I think you are either ignoring or missing my points.

 

Where have I ever said that the Redskins didn't choose the BPA on their board? In fact I have clearly stated several times that I think most teams draft the BPA on their boards. The question is whether or not they were right in doing so.

 

And that is what I question. The result not the process.

 

Also, how would drafting Long signal what they feel about safety?

Again, I am responding to your comment below:

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

The Long-Terrence Brooks example shows that clearly there was a slot where SAF made sense based on how the draft actually played out.  A SAF was taken literally right after their selection at pick 78? So IF SAF was 'more important' then OLB as you hypothetically suggest they did indeed have opportunities to 'slot one that made sense' IF they did actually have SAF as 'more important'.

 

 

My quote again -

"Unless the FO has said something about bypassing immediate contributors in favor of depth/the future?"

Anyway, SkinsParadise has done a much better job than I have. Essentially there are other reasonable explanations for the Murphy pick (and not taking Brooks or another safety). Without all the info, we can't know why it played out the way it did.

Yes the FO drafted depth... but that's not the same as "The FO drafted FOR depth".

It can sound like rationalizing, but offering plausible alternatives ain't quite the same.

 

Our 1st pick was used on Trent Murphy.

Murphy is a back-up OLB.

Historically, back-up OLBs in a 34 don't play much.

Because Murphy isn't expected to play much our first pick isn't likely to contribute.

I believe the team would be better off if our 1st selection was able to contribute as a starter/rotational player.

 

And again, the reasons don't matter to me. I am talking results not reasons.

There are reasons for everything. And again I don't care why.

I am not talking about the 'why' or the 'reasons' because (a) its irrelevant and its ( b. ) unknowable.

[theboomking]

30 other teams could've signed him. There's a reason we didn't. There's a reason they (30 other teams) didn't. I wouldn't touch this guy with a 20 ft pole. Glad our organization thought similarly.

This is not the strongest argument. The same could be said for Blount and Burfict, or multiple players over the years who have had great careers after being chosen in the 6th or 7th, or not being drafted at all, such as London Fletcher. That being said, I wouldn't stand on a table for Lyerla, because I think he is especially crazy and couldn't even stay on his college team.

 

In this class the troubled guy I would have really have liked to take a flyer on is Seantrel Henderson. We could have taken him super late and if he turns it around, he is a major talent at a position of need. What do you lose, a 7th? The chance to draft a kicker? The risk/reward analysis clearly tilts in the favor of taking a big OT with 1st round physical talent. The worst that could happen is that he doesn't pan out and you cut him.  

DG, I couldn't care less about Seastrunk's wonderlic. I think RB is the position where that is least important. Point him in the right direction and tell him to go. I am also not sure how much stock I put in Seastrunk's wonderlic either. He seems well spoken enough. 

Encouraging to hear about Ryan Grant. I wasn't high on the pick, and based on name recognition might have preferred Antone Exum. That being said, sounds like the team had him as BPA and he has already been justifying that evaluation. If his routes are as crisp as Gruden has said, and he is as fluid and skilled as reported, then the lack of speed doesn't worry me as much. Garcon plays a very physical game and Deasean is quite slight of build. It would be nice to have some guys in the wings if we lose either of our top two for a substantial period of time. 

[Dukes and Skins]

Packers just signed Lyerla, they think he's worth the headache, I hope we won't regret it.

 

His former college coach didn't even give him a chance as a UDFA.......

[darrelgreenie]

DG, I couldn't care less about Seastrunk's wonderlic. I think RB is the position where that is least important. Point him in the right direction and tell him to go. I am also not sure how much stock I put in Seastrunk's wonderlic either. He seems well spoken enough. 

Ummm...okay....

[theboomking]

Ummm...okay....

Not sure what that means. How much stock do you put in the Wonderlic when evaluating RB's?

 

I think that the kind of problem solving intelligence evaluated by the Wonderlic is more important at every other position on offense.  In recent history, RB has been more of a plug and play position. Drafted players can step in and play immediately with the one exception that sometimes they have a hard time staying on the field on 3rd down based on their pass blocking, which often isn't as advanced coming out of college. As long as Seastrunk can learn the playbook he should be fine from an intelligence standpoint. 

[FrFan]

30 other teams could've signed him. There's a reason we didn't. There's a reason they (30 other teams) didn't. I wouldn't touch this guy with a 20 ft pole. Glad our organization thought similarly.

Same argument applied to Vontaze Burfict

In most of the draft there is a talented player dropping out of the board because he's a major headache and ultimately found a way to turn his life around. Signing Lyerla wouldn't have cost us much and at the first sign of trouble you just dump him, no risk.

[darrelgreenie]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000350332/article/projected-2014-starters-washington-redskins

 

Projected 2014 starters: Washington Redskins

 

They have both Morgan Moses and Spencer Long as starters!

 

I doubt Moses starts if for no other reason then the staff seems to like Tyler.

 

But that would be a great starting line-up and a great draft. (would be even better if the 1st selection was a contributor

Art Briles on 106.7 the fan right now....

[JamesMadisonSkins]

No other place to put this than here ... i've always liked Charlie Campbell's drafts over on Walter Football. He has the Redskins winning the NFC East and drafting 22nd in next year's draft. He has us taking the CB from Oregon ... "to pair with DeAngelo Hall" ... but not sure he is truly in-tune with the CB scenario, since I'd argue Amerson would be the guy you're drafting to pair with, not Hall.

[inevitable]

Same argument applied to Vontaze Burfict

In most of the draft there is a talented player dropping out of the board because he's a major headache and ultimately found a way to turn his life around. Signing Lyerla wouldn't have cost us much and at the first sign of trouble you just dump him, no risk.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but I think situations such as Lyerla need a strong/stable coaching/front office environment to succeed, as the packers do.

Conversely there was an article on PFT this morning about the dolphins picking up several players who fall into this mold and how they are setting themselves up for failure.

Now I'm not saying the redskins are the Packers or the dolphins, and there exceptions to this observation (Tyrann Matthieu, e.g.) but at this point in time I don't think the potential reward outweighs the risk for this organization.

[nemocystem]

Here's what I don't get. How can results/outcomes be rationalized with speculation about intention.

The intent doesn't matter the result matters. I don't care about intent (or more accurately your speculations about intent). The result is a back-up OLB was selected with our highest draft pick.

If we lack position X but intend to address position Y then proceed to address position Y. We still lack position X. Just because the intention was all along was to address position Y doesn't make that intention relevant.

The types of players you describe the FO as going after is rhetoric that applies to all teams and every team signs UDFAs the FO

Ahh, the crux of the matter. Before you said that the FO had done enough to be 'serviceable' but you also admit that there are questionable spots/deficiencies. I propose to you wouldn't it be better to address those areas you are talking about before addressing depth at OLB?

I'm not one who is satisfied with the draft, if you recall...I'm simply stating the alternative reality that this is likely where the FO envisions themselves. In this reality. ..I've come to the point where I'm not going to gripe about everything I disagree with until the cards play out.

I figure that this is the rope they have asked to be given... only later will we know if it's to save them from the pit, or to hang themselves with.

What I am done doing is speculating negatively. ..& have simply concluded that they will sink or swim with this philosophy, but at least they have one.

[PokerPacker]

I don't disagree with you in principle, but I think situations such as Lyerla need a strong/stable coaching/front office environment to succeed, as the packers do.

It also helps that there isn't much of a nightlife in Green Bay that can lead him into trouble. And maybe, if he returns to the team from his neck injury, Johnny Jolly can be a positive influence on him, having experienced drug problems of his own that derailed his career for three years that he has since overcome. (on a related note, I feel really bad for Jolly having just started getting his career back on track and then suffering a neck injury before he could get his post "prove it" contract).

[darrelgreenie]

I'm not one who is satisfied with the draft, if you recall...I'm simply stating the alternative reality that this is likely where the FO envisions themselves. In this reality. ..I've come to the point where I'm not going to gripe about everything I disagree with until the cards play out.

I figure that this is the rope they have asked to be given... only later will we know if it's to save them from the pit, or to hang themselves with.

What I am done doing is speculating negatively. ..& have simply concluded that they will sink or swim with this philosophy, but at least they have one.

I guess the answer to the question in my post is 'Yes'?

 

'Alternative reality' has nothing to do with my statements.

Responding to results with an argument based on speculation about intent is pointless.

I swear from now on in any discussion my sole arguments will be to present an alternative reality or argue based on speculation about intent.

 

I don't care what my opinion is labeled gripe, whine whatever.

Disagreeing with a decision isn't negative speculation.

I am not speculating that Trent Murphy is a back-up OLB on this team.

Heck, the HC even said Murphy is Rak and Ryan's back-up.

 

I'm not going sit here and agree or remain silent about a decisions just because 'they had a plan.'

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

 

They have both Morgan Moses and Spencer Long as starters!

 

I doubt Moses starts if for no other reason then the staff seems to like Tyler.

 

But that would be a great starting line-up and a great draft. (would be even better if the 1st selection was a contributor

Art Briles on 106.7 the fan right now....

 

That's an interesting projected lineup.  Nickel D, but we have only 1 ILB?  I guess this early in the process they just said, screw it, why bother trying to figure out which of the 4 ILB's wins the starting nod.

[darrelgreenie]

That's an interesting projected lineup.  Nickel D, but we have only 1 ILB?  I guess this early in the process they just said, screw it, why bother trying to figure out which of the 4 ILB's wins the starting nod.

Yeah they kinda screwed up the nickel by including an extra DL (Jenkins) instead of another ILB.

Who do you think starts next to Riley inside and who do you want to see (if different)?

[nemocystem]

The Murphy pick, in any reality, is by far the biggest head scratcher. Nor am I satisfied with the supposed reasoning, except to say that they seem to feel comfortable with the decision.

As far as speculation. ..suffice to say, I feel pretty safe/confident in weighing my skills for logical reasoning against the facts laid before us. As you say....call me crazy, speculate that I'm wrong, or ridicule my supposition...it makes no difference. I grow tired of arguing about how wrong they MAY be, & find myself much more interested in supporting the team, & hoping against hope for the best...as we Redskins fans are wont to do On a yearly basis.

I don't know why I seem to have struck a chord, but I think this offseason has gotten to you. When you come to LA, hit me up, & we'll hash it out over a few.

Cheers.

[darrelgreenie]

The Murphy pick, in any reality, is by far the biggest head scratcher. Nor am I satisfied with the supposed reasoning

Then you and I are no different.

Its the knee jerk reaction to my disagreement with this selection that has caused all the back and forth.

 

I grow tired of arguing about how wrong they MAY be, & find myself much more interested in supporting the team, & hoping against hope for the best...as we Redskins fans are wont to do On a yearly basis.

And I grow tired of responding to speculation and claims that I am not making.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone that supports the team more then myself.

 

I don't know why I seem to have struck a chord, but I think this offseason has gotten to you. When you come to LA, hit me up, & we'll hash it out over a few.

No chord struck, just tired of arguing about everything under the sun except what's actually in my posts. If I come to LA I'll look you up.