2014 Comprehensive Nfl Draft Database

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

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)?

 

No clue.  I don't even know what to think about that other ILB spot.  Will it be a timeshare for run stuffers, then more of a coverage guy on 3rd down?  What about the rumors that Murphy will get playing time in tons of spots, including as the 4th linebacker on the field with Riley/Kerrigan/Orakpo?

 

I don't know what to expect, and I guess we'll only find out more once training camp gets here.

[Est.1974]

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!....

It also notes Long as a likely top 60 pick pre injury.

[TheGoodBits]

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

 

Projected 2014 starters: Washington Redskins

 

 

First- why 3 CBs and 1 ILB? I guess they're putting in 3 WRs so that could be why. 

 

Second- Baker > Jenkins

Third- I'm hoping that Long and Moses both show well enough to win the starting job. Would also be fine with someone other than Lichtensteiger winning the job at Center too. 

 

[skinny21]

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:

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'.

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.

I'm left wondering at the disconnect vis a vis the Long vs Brooks pick. If Long is BPA, how does it make sense to take Brooks? How does a Guard being BPA over a safety tell us that OLB was more important than safety?

Also, saying only results matter - does this mean you think every other position they drafted was more important than safety (to them)? Doesn't that go against the BPA philosophy? That's the thing about BPA, the results don't accurately indicate what the FO (or any FO) feels about their team. Doesn't accurately portray the importance they placed on each position.

I know you hate people putting words into your mouth, but bottom line, for me, is that I think you believe

A) their board was flawed (though the easy argument is that no one can have a perfect board) and

they forced the Murphy pick (and perhaps others) and therefore did not fully embrace the BPA philosophy (and skipped over immediate contributors to pick him).

I won't (and can't) say you're wrong about either. However, I think there are other plausible reasons to think at least the second one may not be the case.

You mentioned Murphy as BPA is a tough sell. That's a good microcosm of the argument. I believe that Murphy, while not an obvious BPA pick, could still be so. Again, refer to SkinsParadise.

You seem to believe taking an immediate contributor vs a backup is common sense. If that's the case then this FO lacks common sense (which I accept could be the truth).

Personally I need more info (about their POV) to jump to that conclusion - mostly because, no matter how hard you argue against it, it's possible they felt that Murphy gave them the best chance to contribute this year. It's possible that they believed the dlinemen they liked would have been 5th or 6th on the depth chart, and therefore would have seen less than the snaps projected for an OLB (particularly if a starter goes down).

It's possible they really liked Brooks and really wanted a safety this draft but decided that Long had the best chance to be an immediate contributor.

The funny thing about all of this is I mostly agree with you, it's just that I can see alternate possibilities and therefore won't put my conclusions forward as actual conclusions. I would argue against anyone that said this draft was obviously all BPA, just as I would argue against anyone that would say it wasn't - and it's relatively easy to argue both sides given our lack of information.

[Voice_of_Reason]

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....

I think the chances of Long and Moses starting day 1 are pretty dubious.  Russell (and for whatever he's worth, Russell does seem to release information for the team) said he'd be shocked if Moses played for them early in the year, and that would be a bad thing.

 

I think C, RG and RT are all up for competition.  I think the most likely scenario is that Kory starts at C and Polumbus at RT, and it's a complete ? to who starts at RG.  I HOPE it's not Chester, because that means that somebody beat him out.  

 

That would give them 3 new positions (Kory being the third, moving from LG to C) on the OL out of 5.  I'm not sure that they really would like to change more than that right away. And then Moses comes in at some point down the road. 

 

On defense, that's exactly my prediction if they go 3-3-5, but generally don't they go 4-2-5 in nickle, and 3-4-4 in base?  

 

It's a good question as to who lines up at ILB next to Riley.  no idea who's going to win that competition.  Might even be somebody not on the roster.  

[Mr. Sinister]

Yeah I would expect Moses to redshirt for all intents and purposes in '14

[Skinsinparadise]

I think the chances of Long and Moses starting day 1 are pretty dubious.  Russell (and for whatever he's worth, Russell does seem to release information for the team) said he'd be shocked if Moses played for them early in the year, and that would be a bad thing.

 

At least when I listened to Russell on this point he wasn't talking to sources on it but taking it from his own opinion, he seems high on a bunch of the draft pick, but Moses isn't among them. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

If Moses and Long don't start, and Murphy gets limited snaps...then what the hell were we thinking?

 

I think at least one of those things has to happen to feel good about our draft, and it ain't gonna be Murphy.

 

As far as ILB, I'll be surprised if KRobinson isn't the starter beside Riley.  Jordan backs up KRob, Heyward backs up Riley, Compton stays for depth, and Sharpton misses the cut.

[ultravin]

for ilb, i just want someone who had the same fire as london.  he was the equalizer.  he was the one that if the opposing player taunted, he would make sure to punish that player.  he did that several times to brandon jacobs, cam newton, miles austin, and many more.  i want someone that would give the "not in my house" hit.  i kind of see that in riley, but not like fletcher.  fletcher to me was like our singletary.  he was our general of the defense.  

[Dukes and Skins]

If Moses and Long don't start, and Murphy gets limited snaps...then what the hell were we thinking?

 

I think at least one of those things has to happen to feel good about our draft, and it ain't gonna be Murphy.

 

As far as ILB, I'll be surprised if KRobinson isn't the starter beside Riley.  Jordan backs up KRob, Heyward backs up Riley, Compton stays for depth, and Sharpton misses the cut.

 

I'd expect it to be week one with Keenan Robinson and Perry Riley as the starting ILB's

[theboomking]

Let's say the Redskins had to take an OLB. Who do you guys like better, Murphy or Attaochu? I think Jeremiah looks a little stiff but is probably more explosive. Overall I think Murphy is better with his hands and is probably more versatile. If we had to go OLB at 47, did we choose the right one?

[Riggo'sRangers]

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!

 

 

 

You know what gets me stoked?  Seeing a skilled position set of Garcon, Jackson, Roberts, Reed, Almo, and a 100% healthy (MOTIVATED) RGIII.  Lets add a mince of Seastrunk, a dash of Grant & Helu; that's a hell of a recipe right there. How about a  a first time head coach, that is a players coach; hungry and smart?  Tasting better already-really good.  If we come together as a team, and by all accounts, looks good at this juncture, our offense may be unbelievably lethal.  Our crux is our fat boys....they have to ball out. We have arguably the best skill set in the NFL (offense), and if we get good motivated big's, we can go as far as we want. I have a really good feeling about this team, but, as always, I'm a "half full" kinda guy.  HTTR 

[KDawg]

You know what gets me stoked?  Seeing a skilled position set of Garcon, Jackson, Roberts, Reed, Almo, and a 100% healthy (MOTIVATED) RGIII.  Lets add a mince of Seastrunk, a dash of Grant & Helu; that's a hell of a recipe right there. 

 

I thought you were talking about skill guys, but then I lost you when I didn't see any linemen listed

[Riggo'sRangers]

I thought you were talking about skill guys, but then I lost you when I didn't see any linemen listed

 

That's the key (crux) of the matter.  All the skill is exciting, but fat boys win games.  THAT is who has to shine for it all to work.  HTTR  

[rk3025]

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)?

Keenan Robinson will be next to Riley and can cover which we missed last year.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm left wondering at the disconnect vis a vis the Long vs Brooks pick. If Long is BPA, how does it make sense to take Brooks? How does a Guard being BPA over a safety tell us that OLB was more important than safety?

Your questions here are pre-suppositions. They imply claims that I haven't made. Its tedious having to respond to questions and claims that don't apply to my points.

So again, the Long vs Brooks example was ONLY brought up in response to your statement here:

...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.

The Brooks vs Long was brought up as a counter example to the bolded notion. That's it.

I don't know whether or not you agree (because you didn't respond)

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?

but to me the fact that Brooks went off the board the very next pick tells me that the Brooks and Long's grades can't be that far apart.

Therefore IF SAF was more important like you suggest then Long's pick would have been a place to 'slot one in that made sense'.

 

I know you hate people putting words into your mouth, but bottom line, for me, is that I think you believe

Imho not in good form to argue based on what you believe I am saying when my points have already been stated. I wouldn't and haven't done that to your arguments.

 

You mentioned Murphy as BPA is a tough sell. That's a good microcosm of the argument. I believe that Murphy, while not an obvious BPA pick, could still be so. Again, refer to SkinsParadise.

Nope. Wrong again.I know you read this:

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.

 I am certain Murphy was the BPA on their board when they selected him.

According to Russell and Kiem the FO identified OLB as a need. I believe the FO maneuvered through  the draft (i.e. trading down) to select their predetermined area of need (OLB) at a place where they thought it would be close to BPA and represented value.

You seem to believe taking an immediate contributor vs a backup is common sense. If that's the case then this FO lacks common sense (which I accept could be the truth).

C'mon for real? You know what a strawman is?

 

 it's possible they felt that Murphy gave them the best chance to contribute this year. It's possible that they believed the dlinemen they liked would have been 5th or 6th on the depth chart, and therefore would have seen less than the snaps projected for an OLB (particularly if a starter goes down).

Your hypotheticals just get further and further out there.

Jay Gruden flat out said that Murphy is Ryan and Rak's back-up. There are only 2 starting OLBs on a team and they don't rotate like DL. There are 3 DL in a 34 and they rotate. I previously posted the snap distribution between the OLB vs the DL. Even if the DL they liked are 5th on the depth chart they would still get more playing time then the 3rd OLB. AND lets not pretend that our 3rd DL spots wouldn't be open to competition for a starting spot. So if the FO thought that Murphy would play more then a DL they need to look at their own snap totals from last year.

 

It's possible they really liked Brooks and really wanted a safety this draft but decided that Long had the best chance to be an immediate contributor.

Yes, we agree here.

 

The funny thing about all of this is I mostly agree with you, it's just that I can see alternate possibilities sand therefore won't put my conclusions forward as actual conclusions. I would argue against anyone that said this draft was obviously all BPA, just as I would argue against anyone that would say it wasn't - and it's relatively easy to argue both sides given our lack of information.

The difference isn't that I don't see alternate possibilitie its that alternate possibilites don't have anything to do with my point.  Just like the rest of your post doesn't have anything to do with my points.

And my points aren't 'my conclusions' they're the truth.

 

I'm gonna repost my statement again:

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.

Here's what I find tedious. Making a comment about results/outcomes that is being argued against/ 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.

I don't care why, the result is the same regardless of your speculation about intention.

[bedlamVR]

This back and forth is interesting and I see the arguments but I actually like the philosophy of the draft. We were very active in free agency we picked up a **** load of players and there will be competition at almost every slot - and what the team is doing is filling holes now and using the draft for tomorrow.

 

I don't like the idea of using picks to fill immediate holes just because we have holes. Brooks for example might become a real player, he may have been able to contribute, but we are already 3 deep at S and to think a rookie can come in and beat out established NFL starters, and guys who have had an NFL education,  at what is a tough position to play on the field is a tough sell. I far and away would rather bring someone who can contribute in the interior of the offensive line because we have less depth there and Long has positional flexibility . Brooks will be either a FS or a burger flipper in a couple of seasons. 

 

And this is the point of this draft - I can see almost everyone contributing, i don't think everyone will necessarily make the 53 but baring injury no one is being expected to start. They will but when they are ready and to me that is a better option than throwing guys to the wolves and hoping they can step up. Even those who succeed in the NFL normally need to transition at least and they get better and better from the day they entered the league as a rookie. I value NFL experience over NCAA potential.

 

One guy I really think is getting a hard time is Murphy - who has gone from second round draft pick to almost a bust within a week if you listen to the talk on here . Yes he is going to be a back up, just like Rob Jackson and we got to see a lot of 50 flapping his arms ineffectively plenty last season - backups do get onto the field A LOT. The other thing is - Orakpo is 29 this year I still expect him to sign a long term deal but for no more than 3 seasons (effectively) that would take him to 32 and the downside of his career. Even if we end up franchising him again next season he is only going to get older - Taking Murphy this year gives us options next year - maybe we will need to draft a Orakpo replacement next season high in the first, Right now options are very limited. This way you get a guy and can develop him and groom him for the NFL. If it doesn't work out, it is a hit but you have not got a guy you are relying on struggling out there as he adjusts to the NFL.

 

I know the popular opinion is you can take a 3rd round raw rookie and slot him into the lineup and he becomes a pro-bowler - and there are players who do that but more often than not it is normally year 2 or 3 when you see these players step up .

[browntim16]

Folks, can we please stop arguing as if everyone's draft board is the same. The "player X was taken right after player Y, so their grades must have been close" argument doesn't hold water. Yes we made some "interesting" picks, but for all we as fans know, Terrance Brooks, Jimmie Ward, Deone Buchanon and every other random safety might have all had 7th round grades on Allen's board. Not likely, but the point is the same. Just because the guy you wanted got drafted RIGHT AFTER the guy we actually took, does not mean their grades were similar on THE REDSKINS' board.

[skinny21]

So again, the Long vs Brooks example was ONLY brought up in response to your statement here:

The Brooks vs Long was brought up as a counter example to the bolded notion. That's it.

I don't know whether or not you agree (because you didn't respond)

but to me the fact that Brooks went off the board the very next pick tells me that the Brooks and Long's grades can't be that far apart.

Therefore IF SAF was more important like you suggest then Long's pick would have been a place to 'slot one in that made sense'.

It seems like you're responding as though my saying (maybe) Brooks didn't make sense is the same as saying Brooks wasn't worth a third round pick. Yes, I said its possible safety was more of a priority than OLB. Didn't say anything about guard though... mostly because I didn't think I needed to.

Some scenarios to try to explain -

1). Guard is more of a need than S - after weighing in need, Long is BPA so they draft him - wouldn't make sense to draft Brooks

Or

2). Safety and guard are equal needs - after weighing in need, Long is BPA so they draft him - wouldn't make sense to draft Brooks

Or

3) safety is a bigger need than guard - after weighing in need, Long is still BPA so they draft him - wouldn't make sense to draft Brooks

Or

4). The FO doesn't factor in need (or maybe they just ignore certain positions - QB for example) - Long is BPA so they draft him - wouldn't make sense to draft Brooks.

None of those speak to whether safety was more important (to the FO) than OLB. Heck, they don't even tell us if guard or safety were more important to the FO. Doesn't matter what the NFL consensus is at that point regarding Brooks. What matters is that it doesn't make sense to draft the lower graded player.

If you want to argue that you or other NFL teams had Brooks as BPA over Long... great! Got no problem with that.

[darrelgreenie]

It seems like you're responding as though my saying (maybe) Brooks didn't make sense is the same as saying Brooks wasn't worth a third round pick.

Nope.

...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.

The part I disagree with is the notion that there wasn't a slot where it made sense to draft a safety. IF the importance of the future safety was more then OLB there were slots where it made sense to draft a safety based on how the draft played.

Yes, I said its possible safety was more of a priority than OLB. Didn't say anything about guard though... mostly because I didn't think I needed to.

Guard/OT/WR whatever the position doesn't matter in this discussion. The idea that 'the importance of the future safety was more then OLB' yet a safety wasn't selected out of 7 choices because there wasn't a slot that made sense is incongruent. Given that a safety was drafted immediately following our selection of pick 78.

And just a reminder: I do believe the FO drafted Long as the BPA.

We are not arguing over whether the FO thought Long was the BPA he obviously was or else they wouldn't have drafted him. We both already agree on this regard, as I 've stated over and over and over.

When a team makes a selection they make the selection believing that player is the BPA on their board.

However; what I've also stated several times, is whether or not a team was were right to have player X as BPA over player Y is a question that can only be answered over time.

But back to your statement. Removing the Redskins from the equation. Lets say random team X draft player A then with the following pick random team Y selects player B.

Wouldn't you agree that player B could also have made sense for team X?

Since, I've responded to most of your questions and claims could you answer this one question for me?

 

Doesn't matter what the NFL consensus is at that point regarding Brooks. What matters is that it doesn't make sense to draft the lower graded player.

If you want to argue that you or other NFL teams had Brooks as BPA over Long... great! Got no problem with that.

I'm trying hard to keep us on point here.

And in this case it does matter where the Brooks was drafted because we're trying to establishing whether or not 'they could slot a safety in a place that made sense' especially operating under the assumption that safety is of higher future importance then OLB.

[skinny21]

Nope.

The part I disagree with is the notion that there wasn't a slot where it made sense to draft a safety. IF the importance of the future safety was more then OLB there were slots where it made sense to draft a safety based on how the draft played.

Guard/OT/WR whatever the position doesn't matter in this discussion. The idea that 'the importance of the future safety was more then OLB' yet a safety wasn't selected out of 7 choices because there wasn't a slot that made sense is incongruent. Given that a safety was drafted immediately following our selection of pick 78.

And just a reminder: I do believe the FO drafted Long as the BPA.

We are not arguing over whether the FO thought Long was the BPA he obviously was or else they wouldn't have drafted him. We both already agree on this regard, as I 've stated over and over and over.

When a team makes a selection they make the selection believing that player is the BPA on their board.

However; what I've also stated several times, is whether or not a team was were right to have player X as BPA over player Y is a question that can only be answered over time.

But back to your statement. Removing the Redskins from the equation. Lets say random team X draft player A then with the following pick random team Y selects player B.

Wouldn't you agree that player B could also have made sense for team X?

Since, I've responded to most of your questions and claims could you answer this one question for me?

I'm trying hard to keep us on point here.

And in this case it does matter where the Brooks was drafted because we're trying to establishing whether or not 'they could slot a safety in a place that made sense' especially operating under the assumption that safety is of higher future importance then OLB.

If, after factoring in need, player A is higher on your board than player B, how does it make sense to draft player B?

How does it make sense to say that the position player B plays must not have been as important as the the position player C plays (who was drafted a round earlier)?

The only way that would make sense is if the team was drafting by need and not BPA.

Edit: oh, and I think I discovered the disconnect on Murphy. Regarding Murphy as BPA being a tough sell was not about whether the FO believed he was the BPA, but whether he actually was the BPA (I'm assuming either in hindsight or based on other people's/teams boards). That makes sense.

One last thing, when you say an immediate contributor is more beneficial than a backup/future starter... is this a matter of looking at the BPAs and then selecting the one most likely to contribute immediately? Is this more or less of a factor based on a team's record/roster?

[darrelgreenie]

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree though.

If you want to believe that safety had higher future importance then OLB but there wasn't a place that made sense to draft one. More power to you.

[LadySkinsFan]

The infighting and arguing in this topic is senseless.

 

Unless you all know exactly what the Redskins' plan is now and going forward into the future, unless you all were actually in the draft room, saw the draft board, and listened to what the FO and coaching staff had to say about certain players and how they fit the plan, you know nothing.

 

I come to this topic daily hoping to see something more than this infighting and arguing.  One can't see the few posts that actually contribute to the topic.

[darrelgreenie]

If, after factoring in need, player A is higher on your board than player B, how does it make sense to draft player B?

Strawman and a pre-supposition. Where have I said that this scenario makes sense?

Hint...I haven't.

How does it make sense to say that the position player B plays must not have been as important as the the position player C plays (who was drafted a round earlier)?

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, but suffice it to say that its not my view either.

Are you gonna answer the question from my previous post?

[skinny21]

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree though.

If you want to believe that safety had higher future importance then OLB but there wasn't a place that made sense to draft one. More power to you.

Haha, not a matter of believing... simply a matter of accepting possibilities, which doesn't mesh with the idea that results matter and intent doesn't.

BTW, edited my last post, curious about your thoughts there.