WP: No NFL team got more from 2015 draft class than Redskins, ESPN’s Mel Kiper says

[Dark Acre]

Preston Smith did not lead the league in sacks.  In fact, his 8 were just less than half J.J. Watt's 17.5.  However, he led all *rookies* in sacks, which is still pretty good.

[Going Commando]

I think that picking Smith over Rodgers was a justifiable decision at the time, that was only proven a mistake four years later. There is a reason coaches seem to be higher on Alex Smith when they talk about him than the general public. He is a very attractive QB for a coach because he never goes off script and thus rarely ****s up. Always checks down to what the defense gives him, and he has the speed to run for firsts when there isn't a window he isn't comfortable with. Coaches like that robotic dependability. But he also rarely makes plays, so nobody else really likes him.

[Burgold]

Consigliere,

 

Every rule has its exception and especially with hindsight (in the short term) this seems to be one of those cases.

 

The middle of our line was a sieve and every QB failed behind it. We could almost never convert 3rds and shorts except with trickery. Scherff went a long way to solving both those problems. Now, it's possible that any good guard could have produced a similar result, but when you add into the account that Fowler and White suffered significant injuries and were lost and will have to have their rookie seasons in their second year against how much our pass pro improved. It's nearly impossible to argue we didn't come out ahead.

 

More, if you believe as I do that it all starts with the lines, then getting a fixture on the line is a good thing.

 

I agree that traditionally you would never take a guard, center, punter, or kicker that high. Heck, I don't like taking a tight end or safety that high either, but I also am very pleased with the idea that we could have not a cog, but a force in the center of our line. Would you draft a Russ Grimm, Steve Hutchinson, or other elite guard high if you know what they would become? I would.

 

It's like writing music. It's useful to know the theory, but once you do... you get to occasionally break the rules and create something beautiful and new. McCloughan understands the history and theory, his foundation is solid, and thus he knows when to go outside mainstream thought.

[Wildbunny]

The fact that there's no safe pick, might be true to some extent. But some carry way more "If" and "But" than others, obviously.

 

Still, considering the way the Draft is done nowadays, you just can't miss on any picks. It was OK to bet on guys with questions marks, guys with "If they learn" or "if they're healthy" back in the days of when there was 13, 15, or 20 rounds. You had plenty of options to redeem yourself on whiffing on one pick.

 

Now you've only got 7 as a basis. And missing on a pick is a huge blow in your future. Especially when you whiff in rounds 1-4. On this forum alone we always complain about drafting X or Y while we could have had A or B that where way better. Those kinds of picks always come back to haunt ya. We're still having fun about this same organisation that used to draft guys like Andre Johnson, Desmond Howard, Heath Shuler, or Malcom Kelly, Devin Thomas and Sleepy...

 

So no. You have to go with the safest prospect, those that you know:

- Will be able to make the transition as they are coachable.

- Suits your team.

- Are football players.

- Will be going along well within the locker room.

 

You've got a bunch of 6 or 7 hundreds of players to go through. You've got dozens of scouts at your disposal to gather as much information as you want on any of them. You've got access to medical files, friends, family, coaches, teachers, postman, girlfriends and ex girlfriends, and even facebook or twitter. You've got tons of tapes to watch those guys play... At the end of the process, you have to know anything up to his favorite panties color.

 

Then, you absolutely have to go with those safest prospects that will suits the above requirements. Missing on one or two of them, and you've already screw one third of your whole draft. And that's not good to say the least.

 

That's how it works, that's how it's done.

If you were to be right, you bet someone would have drafted La'el Collins last year. Guy had a huge red flag incoming, and everyone stayed away from him the whole draft. Nobody gave it a try, even in the 7th round.

 

7 picks. You just can't miss them.

[Burgold]

I don't know if you go with the safest pick. I suspect you counterbalance potential with floor. In other words, how good they could be vs. how bad they might be. RGIII was the perfect example of that and we actually saw both ends of the equation. When RGIII was healthy, he was a game changing, dynamic, almost revolutionary QB and there were few QBs in the NFL better. However, he had a medical history, never ran a pro-style offense, and never even had a playbook in college... so, if he developed a physical hitch and had to fall back on traditional skill sets... his floor was pretty low. 

Shanahan always believed he could coach players up to their ceiling and so concentrated on watching their highlight tapes. That worked with Trent Williams who was a major reach where he was picked. The safe pick was Okung. Shanny proved to be right on that one. On RGIII, he was both right and wrong.

 

Scherff represents a guy with a floor that probably starts on the second story. He can become a pro bowl guard or a very good tackle, but the chance that he flops is low given his size, speed, agility, strength, work ethic, and grasp of the game. He was a top ten pick. Technically, he was picked a few slots high, but on the other hand, we kept him away from the Giants. We saw Eli struggle behind that line. We saw Kirk excel behind his. Coincidence?

[bobandweave]

1. You've mentioned it's his job on the line if he misses the fifth overall pick. I disagree he's just come in to take over a dumpster fire of a team, and he has a sterling reputation. Compare that to 2008 when all we could get was a QB coach to take over HC duties because nobody else would come near us. I think Snyder is aware of the stink around the franchise and when he's lucky enough to land McC, he's not going to overreact to one miss.

I don't remember 2008 coaching search to be like that. I recall Jim Fassel was the guy they wanted but the local reaction to that news changed the minds of Snyder so he promoted Zorn who he had already given the Offensive Cordiator postion to to head coach. Money talks in this game and I believe if you throw enough of it at a coach they will find a reason to come here. Snyder completely blew that hiring process and this was an embarassment to this frachise

 

 

I'd also argue that McC isn't obsessed with draft day safety, this is a guy who gave a five star review to Russell Wilson, a guy who broke a height issue QB trend that went back 55 years. If you're risk-averse, there's no chance in hell you'd recommend Wilson. McC isn't risk averse in my view, I just think he's a great evaluator and team builder (though I do think he has his flaws like any of these guys).

I think I see this in a slighty different view.

I bolded that because with me your talking to a 40 something year old man whos been obsessed with the NFL and this team for all of it. I study the game immensly as I'm OCD as well. So here's what I can tell you. Would I have had the balls in 2012 when we had the best rookie QB class since 1983 or 2004 to say then that I ranked Wilson that high No but Scot didn't either. He said that after Luck and Griffin he wanted to draft Wilson or Cousins which is really only above Osweiler, Weeden, and Tannehill - In who was drafted but that's what seperates him from everyone else.

While I couldn't have predicted that I would have told you then there were some signs and hints with Wilson that he was likely going to be better then people expected

First QB Height is an exaggeration! How many people doubted Drew Brees and said he was too short? Remember Doug Floutie? Same thing. Height is not something to strike a QB who played well in college from the trajectory of possible NFL QB. Wilson is the shortest QB in the league, but only an inch shorter then Drew Brees and Johnny Manziel. Height always will knock a players stock down in the draft and draft talk that is noise in reality. Height hurt Wilson that draft just like it does everyone who is under 6'3 league average but your talking about a difference of 4 inches and the over reaction to that is much more severe

Second there is a weird thing about QBs when it comes to Major League Baseball. Here is a list of QBs that were also taken in the MLB Draft before Russell Wilson was selected in the 2012 MLB draft - Tom Brady, Colin Kaepernick, Daunte Culpepper, John Elway, Dan Marino, Matt Cassel, Kerry Collins - That's a really good sign if you see a QB get drafted there they can play in the NFL as well.

Those are things Scot knows I'm sure but the average fan doesn't that you can use to spot guys like this

 

 

I didnt think Scherrf was a safe pick althought many people much smarter than me considered him one of the safest in the draft. he had some ugly game tape, Ross Tucker and Greg Cosell were a bit alarmed at what they saw and so was high, but just in terms of youtube vids in my case. There was also the concern that he was going to likely do a position switch which carries inherent risk. So a bit of concerning tape, can't play LT his natural former position, and can only play RT by switching and you accepting that its probably not him at his best. I do agree however that Scherff represented an opportunity to help protect developmental QB's.

Everyone poo-poo'ed Scherff because of two reasons

1. The thought is you don't draft Guards at the #5 pick.

2. Scherff was generally thought to have been drafted out of position

As for the first one, when Sebastian Janikowski was drafted in the first round in the 2000 draft everyone said the same thing. Kickers aren't supposed to be drafted in the first round. 15 years later he's still kicking for the team that drafted him and do you think they care they shouldn't have done that?

So why do what Scot did and go with contrarian thinking and draft a Guard at the #5 pick? Simple. When you see talent and the only thing stopping you is conventional thought like you shouldn't do something for no rational reason other then it's accepted thinking then it makes more sense to go contrarian then to go with the accepted thought because who ever does it and it will happen by someone if you don't then this way your reaping the rewards. Everyone predicted then that Scherff would fall to the 9 spot to the Giants.  It was a safe pick because no one thought then that Scherff couldn't play Guard, they wondered if he could play Left Tackle. Well he didn't need to play that position so the concern isn't valid.

 

 

I disagree fundamentally with you on first rounders, especially considering you're willing to completely ignore how players fall in draft and relative value

How players fall in a draft is an interesting subject. So when you see the draft go

1. Winston - Expected

2. Mariotta - Expected

3. Fowler Jr - Expected

4. Cooper - Expected

And your board says "#1 Cooper, #2 Fowler, #3 Schreff" you wanted us to go Williams there when on his board he was ranked lower? This is the same man you just said could spot Russell Wilson when no one else could, and the real issue is where Scot ranked him.

 

I don't get it, when you hire a talent evaluator you pay then to scout and evaluate talent. That's why this position exists. They evaluate talent and clearly Schreff has talent and Scot ranked him higher then Williams. Where Williams was projected to go on someone else's board didn't matter to him. He stuck to his board like he should have and he made a good choice there.

Now when you discuss something like Josh Gordon / Randy Moss falling because of weed, or the player who wasn't drafted at all because of a possible murder suspicion then I feel differently about that. I think even a potential murder subject was worth our very last pick in that draft since he wasn't ever accused of the crime before the draft. At worst you lost a 7th round pick you traded into at best you have a starting player in the 7th round which is very rare to see. My only problem with his first draft was not doing that, understand why not to do it, but really could have been a great pick now

I don't think there are perfect positions to draft in any round or perfect position to draft all players come in with an expected fail rate much larger then 50%, Life expectancy in the NFL is less then 3 seasons. He's better off playing it safe with the owners money then taking risks with the picks.

[HTTRDynasty]

Rodgers was a flat out stud at Cal. Set the consec completion record at Cal against #1 in the country USC in a game Cal came within 10 yards of winning when USC was the best team in the country by far. He was a monster at cal. It's actually revisionist history to pretend differently. Sure he may have needed some work, he was only a starter in college in '04 and in parts of '03 when he did lead Cal to a victory over USC. He was an immensely talented QB at the time, the reasoning for Alex Smith absolutely boggles the mind. I know the Niners weren't entirely set at the time, they were trying to trade down with Miami and other teams throughout the lead up to that draft but could not work out a deal, they were never set on either prospect, and it came down to the last minute on the choice, and the above is right in making note that Rodgers was a confident guy, and came across as such while Smith came across as much more mild mannered. 

 

McC made a mistake there just like the entire Niners brass, and I brought that up, as I did McC's awful '08 and '09 drafts not to rip McC, but to argue that there is no safety in the draft, if even McC can blow these things, and make mistakes like this, then there are no safe picks, it was not a "McC sucks, look at him blowing Rodgers", for gods sake the guy nailed Wilson when everyone was ripping the pick, it was his write up that probably helped motivate that selection (especially considering Seattle spent a ton of money on Flynn and should have been satisfied after spending that money, and also making that silly trade earlier for that SD QB that looked like Jesus). 

 

 

I'm not sure what you were replying to.  Maybe you quoted the wrong post?  All I posted was facts about what Nolan and McCarthy wanted - and that was Alex Smith.  Scott McCloughan was hired as Vice President of Player Personnel a whole two months before the 2005 draft.  You think he had any real voice on who the HC - who had final say on draft picks -, and the OC wanted as their QB of the future for the next decade?  To blame that pick on him is asinine.  

[Koolblue13]

Hey, if guys like you want to think that all the Redskins' success is just stumble-bum luck, knock yourself out.

 

You are the only one, who is making it this dramatic. Not one person has said it's all luck or that it's always luck. Not one poster.

 

What we are saying, is that we drafted a RT to play RT, who started the preseason at RT, but, because of a combination of Moses studying film, working hard, fixing his injury and being talented, it all came together and he took the job from Scherff, who was able to move to RG.

 

All those things coming together and working out for us, was lucky. To say that luck plays zero part in anything in the NFL, means that every player who works hard will be a success?

[SkinsGuy]

You are the only one, who is making it this dramatic. Not one person has said it's all luck or that it's always luck. Not one poster.

 

What we are saying, is that we drafted a RT to play RT, who started the preseason at RT, but, because of a combination of Moses studying film, working hard, fixing his injury and being talented, it all came together and he took the job from Scherff, who was able to move to RG.

 

All those things coming together and working out for us, was lucky. To say that luck plays zero part in anything in the NFL, means that every player who works hard will be a success?

 

Nobody said luck wasn't involved. You were the one acting in your earlier messages like it was exclusive to the Redskins' fortunes. That luck and luck alone was the only reason the Redskins got by with it when you wrote this:

 

it worked out, but we got lucky.

 

 

It wasn't just luck. Moses was drafted in the third round. They saw him playing on the line one day after his injury. Gruden praised him all last year for his work. They knew he could perform how he performed this year. That isn't luck. That's a plan.

 

Maybe Moses playing RT and Scherff playing RG wasn't "Plan A" (at least according to Jay and Scott's interviews), but they had plans for Moses. It wasn't exclusively luck.

[Koolblue13]

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT!!!!!

[Darrell Green Fan]

Once again, claiming someone can't play the position while only giving them two weeks camp and a couple of exhibition games to get used to pro speed is just stupid. No one else gets so little time to be evaluated at their position. Why Schreff at RT? Moses developed the way they hoped he did when he was drafted and be was better at RT, at that time, so Callahan moved Brandon inside. This is not an indictment on Schreff's ability to ever play RT.

Furthermore, people claiming McCloughan missed on Rodgers for Alex smith are playing revisionist history here. Rodgers was in no way ready to start day one, and in fact needed three seasons to sit and learn with coaches before he was ready to be a starter. The Niners needed a starter right away, and Rodgers would not have been likely to be successful starting day one.

This is nonsense. Rodgers was projected to go #1 overall and we now see why. He was clearly the better prospect and a clear miss by SM..

The only reason Rodgers sat for 3 years is because GB had a Hall of Fame QB in place. This is an exceptionally rare situation and says nothing about how ready Rodgers was. How you can claim that Smith was ahead of Rodgers from Day 1, considering how poorly he played until year 5 when the label "Bust" clearly applied, is really hard to understand. Which of course makes me questioin the rest of your post which was directed at me.

[daveakl]

Darrell, here is a great article about the lead up to that draft.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/24/aaron-rodgers-alex-smith-2005-nfl-draft

Saying rodgers was clearly the best prospect is false. There was no consensus on who to choose and as the article states many people were scared of rodgers because of Tedfords system and all the busts that had come out of it previously.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

Even if Scherff was a mediocre G, it was a huge upgrade for us with a massive ripple effect.

[Gamebreaker]

This is nonsense. Rodgers was projected to go #1 overall and we now see why. He was clearly the better prospect and a clear miss by SM..

First off, way to bring back an old post. Secondly, the only nonsense here is claiming Rodgers was supposed to be a #1 overall yet not acknowledging that he wasn't and many teams, not just Scot, passed on him. And why was that? Because he wasn't ready. Aaron and the GB coaches also knew this as well. You claiming he was a better QB than Alex Smith from day 1 is pure fantasy born out of your mind.

[Warhead36]

QBs are tough to evaluate. Even the best GMs whiff on them. Ozzie Newsome took Kyle Boller in the first round. Bobby Beathard drafted Ryan Leaf. The list goes on.

[goskins10]

This is nonsense. Rodgers was projected to go #1 overall and we now see why. He was clearly the better prospect and a clear miss by SM..

The only reason Rodgers sat for 3 years is because GB had a Hall of Fame QB in place. This is an exceptionally rare situation and says nothing about how ready Rodgers was. How you can claim that Smith was ahead of Rodgers from Day 1, considering how poorly he played until year 5 when the label "Bust" clearly applied, is really hard to understand. Which of course makes me questioin the rest of your post which was directed at me.

 

 

Here are a few mock drafts from 2005 before the draft. A Rogers was not projected to go #1 overall  by anyone. As a matter of fact they all had Alex Smith #1 going to the 49ers. I did not just search for ones that agreed. I literally took the first 4. If you can find a mock or anything that says A Rogers was expected to be #1, please post. I looked but could not find anything.

 

Finally. Scot M. had just barely joined the 49ers and he was the Director of Player Personnel not the GM. He had some input, but the decision was not his to make. So we don't know if that was who he wanted or not.

 

 

http://walterfootball.com/draft2005.php

 

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2005/mock2005.html

 

http://www.draftking.com/nfl/2005/mockdraft.shtml

 

http://www.draftcountdown.com/archive/2005/2005-Mock.php

 

Here is an article right after the draft:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft05/news/story?id=2044273

 

Interesting quote from Mike Nolan:

"Smith, who is just 20, was considered the quarterback with the

best chance to become a star, fitting for a team that had Hall of

Famers Joe Montana and Steve Young but slipped to 2-14 last year.

He was the fifth straight quarterback taken with the first pick.

 

"We felt that Alex was the one that most fit what we want our

team to look like," said new coach Mike Nolan, who got

decision-making power over personnel when he took the job. "He

brings discipline, competitiveness and intelligence to the table.

He is off the charts in all three areas.""

[Warhead36]

Smith isnt that bad of a QB either. Hes no Rodgers but hes a top 15 guy.

[TheGreek1973]

Even if Scherff was a mediocre G, it was a huge upgrade for us with a massive ripple effect.

And this post for me says it all. Every argument against picking Scherff and not Williams is totally dumb for the simple reason we have solidified the right side of the line for the next 7 to 10 years.  I will go even further by saying if these two guys continue to get better as they should, with Trend on the other side we are a good to great C away from having a top 3 OL in this league.  Tell me if that is not worth a 5th overall pick to get us towards that goal.  Combined with Kirk C ability to get the ball out fast, I also see us being perennial top 5 in sacks allowed.  The only thing we need to fix is our running game and here you have a hell of a OL coach to get us there.  Bottom line getting Scherff propelled us to this point and no one can tell me there was a Guard in this draft in the second round with his talent to do exactly this.

[The Consigliere]

Darrell, here is a great article about the lead up to that draft.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/24/aaron-rodgers-alex-smith-2005-nfl-draft

Saying rodgers was clearly the best prospect is false. There was no consensus on who to choose and as the article states many people were scared of rodgers because of Tedfords system and all the busts that had come out of it previously.

 

 

My memory of the time, including local reporters and local radio and all (I'm from the bay and moved that previous fall to Lake Tahoe but went down to the bay a ton and read the papers daily) was that the Niners simply had a murderous time figuring out which one to choose, were early pointed towards Rodgers, but over time moved to Smith, but their #1 priority was to trade down, they just were nervous that Miami would take Smith, and so we're nervous about what to do. In the end no biters, and went with Smith. I have no idea how much McC was involved, thought I think it's crazy to argue that he didn't have voice, and maybe equally crazy to say the pick was all him. As another poster mentioned in criticizing me, new coaches typically do get to tab their QB, as one can see with Norv and Shuler, and history in general, it's only when GM's have a particularly strong role and control, that they can ignore hire's. I criticize McC there not to say that he's fully to blame, but to argue, as he himself has, that no matter how good you are at these evaluations, you are at best, a less than 50/50 proposition on your best day because the leap from college to the pro's is so enormous, especially at QB (and TE for that matter). Which is why I argue he can make some big mistakes (that was one, though it may not be fully or even half him to blame for it), and why I don't think it's weird to continue to believe Scherrf was a mistake. 

 

So far, a very interesting draft, Smith looks like a great pick, Jones is underrated due to line issues to me, Crowder should be a long term slot option, Kouandijo is a nice piece to develop as is Spaight, and I was totally wrong about Jarrett, and as for Scherff, I hated the pick but am not about to argue that he won't be a solid to good or better guard for us. I just didnt want a guard, especially a converted one, when there were to my mind, much better options available there. Of course if he turns into the next John Hannah, I'm wrong, or potentially for any in a number of other ways to look at it, if your arguments are compelling. 

[zoony]

No doubt Scott had a better draft last year than this team has had in years, but i caution everyone that the draft is still a crapshoot. Your only real hope as a GM is to mitigate risk.

I don't know if our current FA strategy is as good as everyone seems to think it is. We have a ton of holes on this team and you need talent to win. There is no guarantee at all that we will find any in the draft.

As for the "gurus", until you are man enough to show us your board ahead of time, excuse me while I yawn at your level of expertise.

[The Consigliere]

I don't have a board, I just have guys I like, which I do post about.

I wouldn't call it a crap shoot, since historically certain teams are consistently better during certain periods with certain GM's, then other teams led by other GM's. It's pretty consistent. That being said, the overall differences over huge sample size appear to suggest that the crap shoot argument has some merit. Takd a big enough sample size of draft's and the only thing that consistently seems to make a difference is the number of picks you have, and considering McC clearly believes in that philosophy of utilizing about 9-10 picks a draft o better his chances, he definitely seems like a believer in the perhaps alternative "Educated" crap shoot theory.