Darth Tater Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 A big factor in determining BPA grade is impact both positionally and against team needs. Knowing your BPA is how you know you can trade back without fear of losing your BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Redskins need to draft better. So their BPA strategy or whatever they use isn't working. BPA doesn't mean jack if your scouting department doesn't give you a good BPA list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 Redskins need to draft better. So their BPA strategy or whatever they use isn't working. BPA doesn't mean jack if your scouting department doesn't give you a good BPA list. So how would you expect them to draft the best player at any given position, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 BPA with consideration to positional importance(for instance, a WR is more important than a FB) and what your holes are. So, for example if you're sitting at the #33 pick, and the BPA are a WR and a RT, but the RT grades out slightly higher than the WR, you still might be inclined to take the WR because it's a position that can contribute more directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 BPA with consideration to positional importance(for instance, a WR is more important than a FB) and what your holes are. So, for example if you're sitting at the #33 pick, and the BPA are a WR and a RT, but the RT grades out slightly higher than the WR, you still might be inclined to take the WR because it's a position that can contribute more directly. Why does a WR contribute more directly than an offensive lineman? This is a very concerning statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Why does a WR contribute more directly than an offensive lineman? This is a very concerning statement. I'd say it's more important in the game of today to have playmakers over stud linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'd say it's more important in the game of today to have playmakers over stud linemen. Morris, Garcon, Reed, Griffin are all playmakers offensively. We finished 3-13. Where were we weakest? Across the offensive and defensive fronts as well as special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 So how would you expect them to draft the best player at any given position, then? Get a better scouting department? It's hard to know who to blame for past drafts so I will keep an open mind for this one. If we draft 3 safeties, or 3 ILB's or 3 receivers I will know we still only know how to draft for need and don't rely on our scouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Redskins need to draft better. So their BPA strategy or whatever they use isn't working. BPA doesn't mean jack if your scouting department doesn't give you a good BPA list. If your scouting sucks your screwed whatever draft philosophy you use. I'm a BPA guy personally. BPA does not just mean the best player from a talent perspective though - the grade you assign is based on the physical talent, the fit with your scheme, your existing roster (so need does play some part). Its a complex process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 If we draft 3 safeties, or 3 ILB's or 3 receivers I will know we still only know how to draft for need and don't rely on our scouting. If that happens, I'll be right there with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Unless we start a QB or a LT to play LT, I'd say we are drafting for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Morris, Garcon, Reed, Griffin are all playmakers offensively. We finished 3-13. Where were we weakest? Across the offensive and defensive fronts as well as special teams. Poor quarterback play combined with an overall bad defense and downright dreadful special teams accounted for the 3-13 record. I'm not saying having playmakers = wins, especially when a team like this was as bad as it was overall. But, offensive and defensive lines are units that have to be cohesive. You can have a stud at RG, but your C and RT can still be getting beat like a drum on every play. The impact of that RG is not going to matter much if there are other holes in the line. A playmaking TE or WR generally is only concerned with how he can get open and make a play, and relies on his own personal skill more so than those of his teammates. If Hankerson is having a bad game, it's typically not going to reflect negatively on the overall play of the WR corps if Garcon and Reed are beasting out. You can get by with a mediocre O-line more than you can with a mediocre scoring offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 Poor quarterback play combined with an overall bad defense and downright dreadful special teams accounted for the 3-13 record. What factored into poor quarterback play? Besides Griffin not being 100% himself, what were some other issues? I think a big one was how often he was under duress, primarily due to the depth of the pocket (the area that the G/C/G is responsible for) being collapsed on his lap. That allowed the edge rushers a chance to get to the QB as well, because Griff got flushed. You do NOT build a team from the skill positions. You build it down the spine. Quarterback, Offensive Line, Defensive Line, Linebacker, Safety are your main positions. You need those to be at the very least "good". Not just "passable". Our special teams were certainly an issue, and that was due to poor resource management and a lack of ability to build the special teams thanks to the cap penalty. With the depth we've already acquired in free agency, I believe special teams will look a heck of a lot better this year. Probably still not great, but better. The defense was at times porous. Agreed. I noticed though, that you blamed the special teams (as a unit), the defense (as a unit) and then the quarterback for our record. Do you really believe the rest of our offense was good? I'd like to see any of our skill guys do anything without a line in front of them. What they had out there was better than nothing, that much I'll concede to. But it wasn't great by any means. Our OL needs significant help. And we may get it from within our own roster. I'm excited for that possibility. But if you're trying to sell that a WR brings more value to the team than an OL I can't get on board. I'm not saying having playmakers = wins, especially when a team like this was as bad as it was overall. But, offensive and defensive lines are units that have to be cohesive. You can have a stud at RG, but your C and RT can still be getting beat like a drum on every play. The impact of that RG is not going to matter much if there are other holes in the line. A playmaking TE or WR generally is only concerned with how he can get open and make a play, and relies on his own personal skill more so than those of his teammates. If Hankerson is having a bad game, it's typically not going to reflect negatively on the overall play of the WR corps if Garcon and Reed are beasting out. This is wholly incorrect on a lot of different levels. Yes, the offensive line is a cohesive group, but one "stud" certainly does help the line. It allows for a coordinator to scheme to help the weak links through various means based on what the defense gives them. With Trent and say a stud RG, we can scheme to help the LG, C and RT much easier than we can scheme to help the LG, C, RG, RT. The better the players you have, the better the communication you'll have as well. If they talk, understand their assignments and know the general idea of a play, then things are going to be much better. Word is that's what Monty didn't do very well. In that regard, a new center could help us dramatically on the line. Couple that with a talent infusion and we've now turned a weakness into a strength. If the OL can pass protect, that gives Griffin time to set his feet and throw. That goes a LONG way in developing a quarterback. Remember Patrick Ramsey? People thought he was going to be a very good quarterback for us, but he got beaten to a pulp pretty often. The quarterback and receivers do you very little overall good if the line isn't blocking. I'd also argue that because the line is more of a cohesive unit, it demands more resources, not less. A sub par player on the line leaves a blistering hole that can be attacked. Talent is more important in a position like that. The other point I wanted to touch on was that a receiver relies on individual skill. I totally disagree. A receiver's role, in a pass play, is to run his route. There are other routes to compliment that route. And if those routes are run incorrectly, it doesn't open things the way the coordinator intended. So in order for my route to be effective in many concepts, you have to run your route correctly as well. Especially to the same side of a pass concept. Not only do they rely on their receiver counterparts, but they rely on the quarterback to get them the ball. That means he has to be accurate and on time with his throw. That depends largely on being able to set his feet, transfer weight and deliver the football. And guess who the quarterback relies on to be able to be accurate and on-time with his throw? The offensive line. You can get by with a mediocre O-line more than you can with a mediocre scoring offense. This isn't the same argument as choosing a wide receiver over an OL, and this really opens Pandora's box. Scoring offenses largely depend on scheme/the coordinator knowing his players. The Ravens did just fine with a mediocre scoring offense. They had a strong defense and special teams and leaned on it. Their team philosophy was to let their defense and specs put them in good position and have their offense simply not lose the game. But what did that offense do well? Because they did succeed in a couple of things... They were first in the league in lost fumbles. Meaning that they didn't lose many. They were also 9th in total turnovers. And while they weren't a great scoring offense (14th) or yardage offense (16th) the managed to protect the football and RUN the ball. They were 5th in the NFL in rushing yards. Also keep in mind, their special teams/D gave them an average starting position of the 37 yard line (2nd best in the league I believe). A team is able to protect the football and not turn it over, and able to run the football for a few reasons. But one of the largest is offensive line play. It's imperative. Look at this year's Super Bowl. The Broncos OL looked awful. They have a ton of great scoring options. They have amazing playmakers. But their offensive line was pretty much beaten down by Seattle's front. To the point that the center was so nervous he snapped one over Manning's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 What factored into poor quarterback play? Besides Griffin not being 100% himself, what were some other issues? I think a big one was how often he was under duress, primarily due to the depth of the pocket (the area that the G/C/G is responsible for) being collapsed on his lap. That allowed the edge rushers a chance to get to the QB as well, because Griff got flushed. I didn't say the offensive line played well, or doesn't need upgrades. You do NOT build a team from the skill positions. You build it down the spine. Quarterback, Offensive Line, Defensive Line, Linebacker, Safety are your main positions. You need those to be at the very least "good". Not just "passable". Our special teams were certainly an issue, and that was due to poor resource management and a lack of ability to build the special teams thanks to the cap penalty. With the depth we've already acquired in free agency, I believe special teams will look a heck of a lot better this year. Probably still not great, but better. The defense was at times porous. Agreed. I noticed though, that you blamed the special teams (as a unit), the defense (as a unit) and then the quarterback for our record. Do you really believe the rest of our offense was good? I think the running game and receiver play of at least Garcon and Reed were good(the rushing offense was ranked #5 in yards after all). Not enough to overcome the rest of the shortcomings of the team, though. I'd like to see any of our skill guys do anything without a line in front of them. What they had out there was better than nothing, that much I'll concede to. But it wasn't great by any means. Our OL needs significant help. And we may get it from within our own roster. I'm excited for that possibility. But if you're trying to sell that a WR brings more value to the team than an OL I can't get on board. Again, I'm not saying the line play is fine the way it is or couldn't benefit from some help. But am I saying a WR can bring more value than individual line positions? Yes, and I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion. This is wholly incorrect on a lot of different levels. Yes, the offensive line is a cohesive group, but one "stud" certainly does help the line. It allows for a coordinator to scheme to help the weak links through various means based on what the defense gives them. With Trent and say a stud RG, we can scheme to help the LG, C and RT much easier than we can scheme to help the LG, C, RG, RT. The better the players you have, the better the communication you'll have as well. If they talk, understand their assignments and know the general idea of a play, then things are going to be much better. Word is that's what Monty didn't do very well. In that regard, a new center could help us dramatically on the line. Couple that with a talent infusion and we've now turned a weakness into a strength. I don't disagree with what you're saying. Absolutely an upgrade helps, but that wasn't my point. I'm only saying that it's difficult to mask glaring holes in an offensive line, especially when the QB is working from under center. But on the other side of the coin, a weak o-line can also be worked around by having a more fast paced offense that gets the ball out of the QB's hands quicker. One playmaking receiver can make up for lack of production elsewhere on the receiving corps. If the OL can pass protect, that gives Griffin time to set his feet and throw. That goes a LONG way in developing a quarterback. Remember Patrick Ramsey? People thought he was going to be a very good quarterback for us, but he got beaten to a pulp pretty often. The quarterback and receivers do you very little overall good if the line isn't blocking. Again, I don't disagree. I'd also argue that because the line is more of a cohesive unit, it demands more resources, not less. A sub par player on the line leaves a blistering hole that can be attacked. Talent is more important in a position like that. Precisely, and it takes a lot of resources to make that a reality. One or two playmakers also completely changes an offense. You don't need five great receivers/running backs to have a high octane offense. The other point I wanted to touch on was that a receiver relies on individual skill. I totally disagree. A receiver's role, in a pass play, is to run his route. There are other routes to compliment that route. And if those routes are run incorrectly, it doesn't open things the way the coordinator intended. So in order for my route to be effective in many concepts, you have to run your route correctly as well. Especially to the same side of a pass concept. Not only do they rely on their receiver counterparts, but they rely on the quarterback to get them the ball. That means he has to be accurate and on time with his throw. That depends largely on being able to set his feet, transfer weight and deliver the football. And guess who the quarterback relies on to be able to be accurate and on-time with his throw? The offensive line. I can't argue with the basic idea, but Pierre Garcon managed to be one of the top wideouts in the league despite a QB that wasn't playing as well, a below average o-line, and a supporting receiving corps that left a lot to be desired. His individual effort and skill made that possible more than the other factors. This isn't the same argument as choosing a wide receiver over an OL, and this really opens Pandora's box. Scoring offenses largely depend on scheme/the coordinator knowing his players. The Ravens did just fine with a mediocre scoring offense. They had a strong defense and special teams and leaned on it. Their team philosophy was to let their defense and specs put them in good position and have their offense simply not lose the game. But what did that offense do well? Because they did succeed in a couple of things... They were first in the league in lost fumbles. Meaning that they didn't lose many. They were also 9th in total turnovers. And while they weren't a great scoring offense (14th) or yardage offense (16th) the managed to protect the football and RUN the ball. They were 5th in the NFL in rushing yards. Also keep in mind, their special teams/D gave them an average starting position of the 37 yard line (2nd best in the league I believe). A team is able to protect the football and not turn it over, and able to run the football for a few reasons. But one of the largest is offensive line play. It's imperative. Look at this year's Super Bowl. The Broncos OL looked awful. They have a ton of great scoring options. They have amazing playmakers. But their offensive line was pretty much beaten down by Seattle's front. To the point that the center was so nervous he snapped one over Manning's head. I agree that a well balanced team doing well on many levels is a recipe for success. The 2013 Seattle defense is one of the greatest in NFL history, they were dominant in every facet of defense. The Broncos were good, no doubt, but there was no reason to suggest that that defense wasn't going to slow them down. Even San Francisco, with one of the best o-lines in football, couldn't move the ball at will against Seattle. Oddly enough, the Seattle o-line wasn't really impressive at all for the season, yet their defense carried them all the way to the trophy. A great offensive line is no guarantee of success. The 2012 Super Bowl winning Giants? 32nd in rushing offense. The 2011 Super Bowl winning Packers? Below average in both pass protection and rushing. But if you'll notice, both of those teams have QBs that get rid of the ball fast, which can makeup for bad o-line play. But I'm not trying to drag this out into a long argument. I'm fine with keeping my opinions knowing that they're not popular. I respect you, K-Dawg, and I recognize that I could be emphatically incorrect about what I'm saying. I certainly don't claim to be an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 You do NOT build a team from the skill positions. You build it down the spine. Quarterback, Offensive Line, Defensive Line, Linebacker, Safety are your main positions. You need those to be at the very least "good". Not just "passable". If we used our top picks on offensive and defensive lineman only in this years draft, I would celebrate. Until we start drafting our own lines we will never be a serious contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 This is what I love about the offseason. Gone are the arguments about "should we bench player X" and it gets more into football analysis type discussions here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 As much as I agree with what you said KDawg, I'll just say that I think it ultimately really bears down on who's doing your drafting, and even then I'd just say that the more picks you have the better. Lets just assume for the sake of argument that Mel Keiper's draft board is what's actually on some team's wall. They've done all the analysis on the player and given him a grade of where he should go, know the rumors about who else is interested in him, know what the drop-off is in terms of talent after him, etc. But it still remains that, drafting this player - whether it be for need or for BPA - is still a risk. You don't know how he'll handle the speed of the game, the attention, the injuries, the locker room stuff, the coaches, salary demands, people mooching off him, being able to get women galore - and I don't just mean on campus, but across the nation, etc. Ultimately its a crap shoot, a lottery ticket. That's why my favorite draft philosophy is what the Patriots do every year - try to get as many picks as possible with the understanding that half to maybe 2/3 of them will not amount to anything. If you get a good special teams player out of some, that's a bonus. You start getting time on offense and/or defense and you're playing with house money and will probably bust in the next draft. As the draft proceeds, the likelihood of a player catching on decreases. The question is what's the Goldilox of draft picks? Ideally, a team could have 7 first rounders and the least likelihood of drafting a bust. But nobody's going to be able to trade for 7 first rounders. So you can do like we did in 2008 and trade a first for 2 seconds or something similar and go for those players, particularly players with *first round grades* who dropped to the second. But then your risk increases because now you've got to question, "why did they drop", "how sure are you about your draft board"? The same thing happens as you go further down in the draft. So the other alternative is to do what Danny did when he first got here (and to a lesser extent what we're oing now) and invest in free agents. The trade-off there is that generally you know more about the player - he can survive in the league, you (generally) have film on him in an NFL scheme. But he's going to cost more, he may not play special teams, he may have been a player that excelled in a scheme different than yours, he may be more set in his ways, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 The other thing I wanted to say was something in support of drafting for need. I can think of a few drafts where a team went into the draft saying, "all I want today is to get player X and if I get him, I'll be satisfied". I look to New Orleans when they wanted Ricky Williams, or more recent with Atlanta and Julio Jones and us with RG3. In those cases teams certainly recognized a need at a position, recognized a player that fit that need and did all they could to ensure that they got that player. I think there's a lot to be said about that because as much as I support BPA, there comes a point where you have to take into account certain things like team needs and the uncertainty of a player. For example when you say BPA, are you saying highest potential upside, or highest worst case scenario, or can come in and start immediately? Are you taking into account the supply and demand at a given position? For example, if a draft is deep at WR and the top WR drops to us, I may choose to draft another position even though WR is BPA because I could still get the 5th best WR and (according to my draft board) the dropoff between the top 5 WRs isn't that much. I think that was the case for some teams the year when we drafted Orakpo and there were 4 offensive tackles supposed to go in the top 10 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Count me in the crowd who doesn't think bpa is well defined. I see the example if Landry vs Peterson bring thrown out, but that becomes a question of how much does your team value those positions? Then I see complaints about us not drafting linemen, but that same year, I wanted Okoye who was a bust. I think the phrase bpa is more of a term used in hindsight to try to explain things. For instance, I've seen Kelly named as a need pick. I don't see that. He had first round talent and dropped to the second because of injury concerns. Vinny (wisely) traded down instead of picking him in the first. But he saw the opportunity to get a possible first round talent in the second and took it. Why can't that be bpa? Because he didn't work out? The draft is a crapshoot and anybody who doesn't tell you that is selling you something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I like to think of it as having tiers of players, rather than a descend list of value. You'll have players grouped together that you think are around the same level, and when it comes to your pick, you choose a player from the top tier that best fits your needs. If there's a lot of players in there that you'd be equally happy to have, you can look at trading back a few spots if you find a willing partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Off the top of my head, I would apply something like the following rubric, which takes into account player grades, and also factors relevant to what to do with pick in light of player grades of those still available, and other factors): Player Grade: projected value to your team/scheme Adjusted by: positional value (e.g., a once in a generation center has less value than a perennial pro bowl qb, in part b/c of impact, and in part b/c salary cap hit of free agent is position-dependent (e.g., qb's salary cap hit is greater than that of free agent center, ) who is already on your team (taking into account total roster slots for that position, odds of injury/retirement/bad play, etc.--and I agree with many that this is relevant, but not to be given great weight, except in unusual circumstances) Strategy when it comes time to pick (or decide whether to trade up or back) requires considering the adjusted player value of those available at that pick, taking into account: how you perceive other teams' interest in drafting those players with greatest projected value to you (i.e., when you expect them to be drafted/still available, thus whether it's a wise gamble to move up or move back) relative value of the top available players compared to value of other players with only slightly less value to your team at those positions still available in draft, and to some extent still available in free agency value of what you would receive if you traded the pick (or traded to get the pick) the relative value of that pick, in terms of historical player value returns at that spot in draft compared to salary cap burdens (e.g., players at top of second round are not much worse than mid-first round players, but cost much, much less) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaozerker Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I feel like the first round is the only round that you can realisticly draft for a need as they have a good chance of starting right away, after that you need to go with BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 If we used our top picks on offensive and defensive lineman only in this years draft, I would celebrate. Until we start drafting our own lines we will never be a serious contender. Did you design my sig and if so, could you redesign it with more current players. Their are two parts to the sig. Old players and new players. The new players are no longer on the team and I'd like them changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Current Bleacher Report article on top 50 NFL DEs does not list a single Redskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Oops, just noticed article was on "4-3" DEs tho seceral 3-4 DEs were included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.