Which position would you like to see the Redskins address with their first round pick?

[Skins199021]

Im completely on the trade back to the 20s, pick up a 2nd and draft Taven Bryan bandwagon

[freakofthesouth]

58 minutes ago, Dan73 said:

Why 70-30 about Brown?

 

I really hope we can bring him back, he’s a great athlete and it went so well last season, why not just pay the man?

[BleedBNG]

1 hour ago, Dan73 said:

Why 70-30 about Brown?

 

OK, maybe 60-40. He'll want around $10M or more which is the average of the top LB's. Not sure we'll want to go that high unless there is some kind of favorable structuring. If we do lose him, Smith would be a good replacement. 

[Dan73]

1 minute ago, freakofthesouth said:

 

I really hope we can bring him back, he’s a great athlete and it went so well last season, why not just pay the man?

I am ok with paying him but he is limited in coverage. 

 

9 million a year seems fair.

3 minutes ago, BleedBNG said:

 

OK, maybe 60-40. He'll want around $10M or more which is the average of the top LB's. Not sure we'll want to go that high unless there is some kind of favorable structuring. If we do lose him, Smith would be a good replacement. 

I think it depends on what happens in FA with getting a real nose tackle.

[Voice_of_Reason]

28 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

Im completely on the trade back to the 20s, pick up a 2nd and draft Taven Bryan bandwagon

We need impact players.  We don’t need more effort/very good players at the top of the draft. We need a few guys who can change a game.  

 

We we have enough 8-8 talent guys. To win SB, you need 2-3 impact players on each side of the ball.  We have 1 on defense (Norman) with a possible second in Allen, and zero on offense.  Trent is the closest, but it’s tough for an OT to be that guy.  Reed could be one if he wasn’t hurt 8-10 games a season.  Same for CT. 

 

This isn’t a cut on Bryan.  Just we need to use 13 to get a physical beast that can change games.  Those are easier to find at 13 than 20.  Unless you get super lucky.

1 hour ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

QB. Draft the future for Smith for tutor and give us some hope..I think there is plenty of talent to be had at DLine 2-4th rounds..

None of the top QBs will be there when we pick, except MAYBE Baker Mayfield, and that’s a disaster waiting to happen.

13 minutes ago, freakofthesouth said:

 

I really hope we can bring him back, he’s a great athlete and it went so well last season, why not just pay the man?

He’s not worth a top 5 LB contract.  I’d let him test the market.  I imagine it will be soft, and if it is, you can sign him in the FA period.  

 

I think 3-5 mil is reasonable.  Increase from last year but he’s just not a top 5 ILB because he’s such a liability in coverage.

[freakofthesouth]

@Voice_of_Reason I’m not really aware of what’s being mentioned money wise, I just felt like he played very well, has great speed and is physical.  Certainly though we shouldn’t pay too much, this is a good point.

[carex]

3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

We need impact players.  We don’t need more effort/very good players at the top of the draft. We need a few guys who can change a game.  

 

We we have enough 8-8 talent guys. To win SB, you need 2-3 impact players on each side of the ball.  We have 1 on defense (Norman) with a possible second in Allen, and zero on offense.  Trent is the closest, but it’s tough for an OT to be that guy.  Reed could be one if he wasn’t hurt 8-10 games a season.  Same for CT. 

 

 

 

This isn't the NBA, you can get impact guys all over, especially since there's so many different positions and so many different skill sets asked for

[CommanderDOOM]

Drafting impact fat boys will allow others to make an impact.

[Peregrine]

Its 1000% DL.  To have any hope of a season you have to have a dominant DL who can help out the now weaker DB core, and give the offense a chance.

 

You need a dominant NT to pair with Jonathan Allen.

6 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think 3-5 mil is reasonable.  Increase from last year but he’s just not a top 5 ILB because he’s such a liability in coverage.

You seriously want to suggest that A. We can get Brown for 3 mill per year, and that B. Hes only worth 3 mill per year?  

 

Thats not even close to reasonable.

[Mr. S]

Pay Brown market value; that is needed.  Draft the best OL or DL available followed by CB.  RB's can be found in rounds 2-4 with good success; it rarely makes sense to draft one in the first.  However, good OL, DL, and DB's are always a premium after QB.  I've been shifting to a BPA approach overall; that tends to give flexibility in the long run.  I used to be more focused on need only but you look at how other teams have approached the draft in rebuild modes and the ones that go with BPA typically are better suited to rebuild and be competitive sooner.

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Mr. S said:

Pay Brown market value; that is needed.  Draft the best OL or DL available followed by CB.  RB's can be found in rounds 2-4 with good success; it rarely makes sense to draft one in the first.  However, good OL, DL, and DB's are always a premium after QB.  I've been shifting to a BPA approach overall; that tends to give flexibility in the long run.  I used to be more focused on need only but you look at how other teams have approached the draft in rebuild modes and the ones that go with BPA typically are better suited to rebuild and be competitive sooner.

My only problem with the RB thought is that what the Redskins offense needs more than anything is a weapon. I am wary of drafting a WR with a 1st because of developmental time and we just need someone who threatens a defense.So, if you see a game breaking, take it to the house running back in the first or second, I'd be tempted to nab him. That is, unless, you think Perrine is set to make a big jump or the problem really was entirely on run blocking and we think we can fix that.

 

I think my preference at first is a running back, inside linebacker or a three down nose tackle (if such a thing exists).

 

Really, this team needs offensive speed. Davis and Thompson right now can provide some, but Thompson's coming off a broken leg and who knows how that will impact his speed and Davis is at that age where his speed could fall off a cliff.

[markmills67]

16 minutes ago, Mr. S said:

Pay Brown market value; that is needed.  Draft the best OL or DL available followed by CB.  RB's can be found in rounds 2-4 with good success; it rarely makes sense to draft one in the first.  However, good OL, DL, and DB's are always a premium after QB.  I've been shifting to a BPA approach overall; that tends to give flexibility in the long run.  I used to be more focused on need only but you look at how other teams have approached the draft in rebuild modes and the ones that go with BPA typically are better suited to rebuild and be competitive sooner.

Brown is terrible in coverage, 6m per year tops in my opinion. 

 

HTTR 

[OVCChairman]

14 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

We need impact players.  We don’t need more effort/very good players at the top of the draft. We need a few guys who can change a game.  

 

We we have enough 8-8 talent guys. To win SB, you need 2-3 impact players on each side of the ball.  We have 1 on defense (Norman) with a possible second in Allen, and zero on offense.  Trent is the closest, but it’s tough for an OT to be that guy.  Reed could be one if he wasn’t hurt 8-10 games a season.  Same for CT. 

 

This isn’t a cut on Bryan.  Just we need to use 13 to get a physical beast that can change games.  Those are easier to find at 13 than 20.  Unless you get super lucky.

None of the top QBs will be there when we pick, except MAYBE Baker Mayfield, and that’s a disaster waiting to happen.

He’s not worth a top 5 LB contract.  I’d let him test the market.  I imagine it will be soft, and if it is, you can sign him in the FA period.  

 

I think 3-5 mil is reasonable.  Increase from last year but he’s just not a top 5 ILB because he’s such a liability in coverage.

10000% with you except for Brown.  I feel like 3-5 is not going to be enough.  It's reported that last year he was looking to get around $6mil, and he came out and led the world in tackles for most of the year.  I'd imagine that will be their starting point again... If we can get him around $5.5mil I'd say it was an absolute steal.  I'd imagine someone would give him closer to $7mil per... based on what the other ILBs are getting.  

[skinny21]

20 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

10000% with you except for Brown.  I feel like 3-5 is not going to be enough.  It's reported that last year he was looking to get around $6mil, and he came out and led the world in tackles for most of the year.  I'd imagine that will be their starting point again... If we can get him around $5.5mil I'd say it was an absolute steal.  I'd imagine someone would give him closer to $7mil per... based on what the other ILBs are getting.  

Tend to agree here.  Brown was definitely a good addition to this defense and we’ll miss him if we don’t wind up with a replacement.  Paying Brown anywhere between 5.25-7 makes him the 8th highest paid ILB (weird drop off in money there).  

 

With that said, while we were lauding him early in the season, it’s apparent now that the D turned around on the backs of Allen and Ioannidas.  A versatile dlineman shores up the line and means we have a better chance at success if Allen or Ioannidas go down.  

 

In short, I’m valuing DL over ILB... though an ILB that can cover might help our 3rd down issues, which would be big.  

 

Would be tempting to try to sign Logan and re-sign Brown - opens up the draft a bit and allows us to focus mostly on the offense.  

[OVCChairman]

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Tend to agree here.  Brown was definitely a good addition to this defense and we’ll miss him if we don’t wind up with a replacement.  Paying Brown anywhere between 5.25-7 makes him the 8th highest paid ILB (weird drop off in money there).  

 

With that said, while we were lauding him early in the season, it’s apparent now that the D turned around on the backs of Allen and Ioannidas.  A versatile dlineman shores up the line and means we have a better chance at success if Allen or Ioannidas go down.  

 

In short, I’m valuing DL over ILB... though an ILB that can cover might help our 3rd down issues, which would be big.  

 

Would be tempting to try to sign Logan and re-sign Brown - opens up the draft a bit and allows us to focus mostly on the offense.  

I don't hate it.. In a perfect world, we would get Payne at no. 13, and would have already re-signed Brown.  I feel like a lot of Browns coverage issues had to do with Foster being injured... I would assume Tomsula and co. would prefer Foster be the coverage ILB and Brown would be more of a blitzing, run defender.  PFF rates Foster in the Top 10 in coverage against completion %.  Having him back in the fold could open a lot up for the defense, just by letting Brown focus on the LOS. 

[skinny21]

@OVCChairmanLot of options in the draft.  Presuming Nelson and Fitzpatrick are gone, having Logan and Brown in the fold makes trading down more tempting, allowing us to possibly recoup our 3rd rounder (or more).  Given our needs, that seems a solid option to me.  

 

For example, trade back (once or twice), take a good back/receiver/interior olineman in the 1st and 2nd, and then maybe look at corner, qb or TE in the 3rd and 4th.  Think there’s a good chance we could wind up with 3 starters/contributors on offense in that scenario, plus maybe a decent developmental qb.  

[OVCChairman]

Just now, skinny21 said:

@OVCChairmanLot of options in the draft.  Presuming Nelson and Fitzpatrick are gone, having Logan and Brown in the fold makes trading down more tempting, allowing us to possibly recoup our 3rd rounder (or more).  Given our needs, that seems a solid option to me.  

 

For example, trade back (once or twice), take a good back/receiver/interior olineman in the 1st and 2nd, and then maybe look at corner, qb or TE in the 3rd and 4th.  Think there’s a good chance we could wind up with 3 starters/contributors on offense in that scenario, plus maybe a decent developmental qb.  

I'm with ya.  In an impossibly perfect world (similar to Allen falling to 17) Mayfield would fall to 13 and Buffalo would freak out.. giving up 21 AND 22 to go up and get him.  I don't think it happens because the threat to take him isn't til 15, so GB would actually have all the leverage there, but a guy can dream can't he?  

[CutPryorNow]

7 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

@OVCChairmanLot of options in the draft.  Presuming Nelson and Fitzpatrick are gone, having Logan and Brown in the fold makes trading down more tempting, allowing us to possibly recoup our 3rd rounder (or more).  Given our needs, that seems a solid option to me.  

 

For example, trade back (once or twice), take a good back/receiver/interior olineman in the 1st and 2nd, and then maybe look at corner, qb or TE in the 3rd and 4th.  Think there’s a good chance we could wind up with 3 starters/contributors on offense in that scenario, plus maybe a decent developmental qb.  

 

If we could afford the luxury of trading back in the 1st I would be all for it, but trading back just to recoup our 3rd round pick is short sided imo. If we have the choice of getting a genuine impact player at #13 or trading down just to get back our 3rd I would take the impact player every down and even on 4th down. I would rather draft 1 stud player than 3 starters. I want players who scare the opposing team

[Bonez3]

More DL please, I don't care what position as long as it's BPA on DL. I would not be least be upset with Roquan Smith. 

 

I wrote in another thread that the BPA draft philosophy is becoming archaic. Teams can't draft for depth with rookie contracts sometimes only 3-4 years. They're simply going to be lost to FA. You have to build in windows of 4-5 years. Thinking you can stash depth for 6-7 years while developing players is a joke and fallacy anymore.

 

BPA is great in philosophy, not reality. Teams really have to draft for the now more than ever. Teams really need to be built on the fly and repeat process every 3-5 years. 

[OVCChairman]

4 minutes ago, CutPryorNow said:

 

If we could afford the luxury of trading back in the 1st I would be all for it, but trading back just to recoup our 3rd round pick is short sided imo. If we have the choice of getting a genuine impact player at #13 or trading down just to get back our 3rd I would take the impact player every down and even on 4th down. I would rather draft 1 stud player than 3 starters. I want players who scare the opposing team

This is where I'm at.  I don't hate the idea of trading back, if the right guys aren't there.  Picking someone at 13 to say we have a top 15 player is not what I want to do.  I want us to get the right guys, at the right times.  Theres probably 4 people I think are worth of that 13th pick... Barkley (will be gone), Nelson (also likely gone), Roquan Smith, Da'ron Payne (fingers crossed).  If none of those guys are there, I'm completely open to trading back and trying to then increase the value.  

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

This is where I'm at.  I don't hate the idea of trading back, if the right guys aren't there.  Picking someone at 13 to say we have a top 15 player is not what I want to do.  I want us to get the right guys, at the right times.  Theres probably 4 people I think are worth of that 13th pick... Barkley (will be gone), Nelson (also likely gone), Roquan Smith, Da'ron Payne (fingers crossed).  If none of those guys are there, I'm completely open to trading back and trying to then increase the value.  

I would add Fitzpatrick to that list.  Assuming he, Nelson and Barkley are gone, my scenario of re-signing Brown and adding a DL like Logan makes the picks of Smith and Payne less impactful.  Hence my trade down mindset there.  

 

@CutPryorNowI don’t want to pass on an elite prospect, but picking up a 3rd or 2nd (or more) could be a huge help to us.  Our cap space is pretty limited for the foreseeable future and we have plenty of holes, so we could use those extra picks.  

 

We’ve also been doing quite well with our 3rd round picks, so the idea of missing out on a guy like Fuller/Moreau hurts - we need those guys.  

 

Sure, you want a difference maker in the 1st, but trading back doesn’t mean you miss out on one.  We could grab one of the best wideouts, backs or the top TE and then have more ammo for an impact guy later.   

 

Now, if a top guy falls to us at a position of need (say Nelson, Smith if we don’t re-sign Brown, Payne if we don’t get a good FA DL), then sure, pull the trigger.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 hours ago, Peregrine said:

You seriously want to suggest that A. We can get Brown for 3 mill per year, and that B. Hes only worth 3 mill per year?  

 

Thats not even close to reasonable.

My understanding is that he made $2.5 million this past year.  That was coming off of the pro-bowl year he had in Buffalo (where he made $1.5M), and couldn't find a team willing to pay him big money because in Buffalo he didn't even play on 3rd downs.  If memory serves, he went looking for a big deal, and the best he got was the 1 year, $2.5 with the 'Skins.  

 

This year with the 'Skins, he showed why he wasn't put on the field in 3rd downs, as he struggles in pass coverage.

 

What I said is that they should let the market dictate price, I wouldn't just jump and pay his asking price.  He's probably looking for $8-10 million, and I'd be willing to bet that he isn't going to get that on the open market because he didn't get it last year off of a pro-bowl season.  I'd let him test free agency, and see what happens.  

 

So, is $3-5 really unreasonable?  Maybe $3 is a little low, but I am guessing he signs for $5 or less somewhere.  I could be wrong.  But history suggests I'm not.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

10000% with you except for Brown.  I feel like 3-5 is not going to be enough.  It's reported that last year he was looking to get around $6mil, and he came out and led the world in tackles for most of the year.  I'd imagine that will be their starting point again... If we can get him around $5.5mil I'd say it was an absolute steal.  I'd imagine someone would give him closer to $7mil per... based on what the other ILBs are getting.  

Maybe.  But the way the league looks at him is essentially a 2 down player who struggles in coverage.  That's not worth $6-8 million.  The way I know this is that nobody was willing to pay him that after the 2016 season where he led the league in tackles and made the pro bowl.

 

So, this year he did the same thing, and struggled in coverage, so why would the league as a whole think that he proved anything other than they were right? 

 

But remember this: we are so starved for defensive players with talent that when we see a good player with talent, we treat them like a great player with talent.  Brown is a good player.  He's got a ton of speed.  But he's not a great player. He essentially had an identical season in 2017 as he did in 2016, and the league spoke.  I think that if he's allowed to test the market, he's going to find out that the league will speak again, and say the same thing.

 

I could be wrong. 

 

And if the 'Skins had to pay him $6 or $7 million, eh, I wouldn't crush them for that if they did it after the FA period started.  But if they did it before the period started, I think they would be over-paying based on market value.  Which was set last off-season.  

[Wyndorf25]

I hate the idea of targeting a "position" in the draft, especially while performing this exercise before FA has even begun. I mean, if the Redskins resign Brown and have already locked up Foster, then even if Raquon Smith fall to pick 13, would you REALLY want to use that pick on him if a DL like Via or Payne is still on the board? Again, unless a stud WR  is plucked from FA, I wouldn't be mad if the Redskins drafted WR Ridley at #13. I would like OG Nelson as well. 

 

[OVCChairman]

14 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Maybe.  But the way the league looks at him is essentially a 2 down player who struggles in coverage.  That's not worth $6-8 million.  The way I know this is that nobody was willing to pay him that after the 2016 season where he led the league in tackles and made the pro bowl.

 

So, this year he did the same thing, and struggled in coverage, so why would the league as a whole think that he proved anything other than they were right? 

 

But remember this: we are so starved for defensive players with talent that when we see a good player with talent, we treat them like a great player with talent.  Brown is a good player.  He's got a ton of speed.  But he's not a great player. He essentially had an identical season in 2017 as he did in 2016, and the league spoke.  I think that if he's allowed to test the market, he's going to find out that the league will speak again, and say the same thing.

 

I could be wrong. 

 

And if the 'Skins had to pay him $6 or $7 million, eh, I wouldn't crush them for that if they did it after the FA period started.  But if they did it before the period started, I think they would be over-paying based on market value.  Which was set last off-season.  

I have to agree... Let him get to free agency and see what his market actually is.  If someone hits him with a crazy offer... don't bite.  We need more interior skill, as well as end depth.  Allen and Ioan are great, but we saw what happened when Allen went out.  I'm leaning more toward your thinking about how a plus DT could have more of an impact.   

I do still believe Foster was meant to be the coverage guy, and Brown was meant to attack the line... thus alleviating that soft spot in his game.