Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A Needs-based draft

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

The eternal debate between best player available and need goes on. This year through the first three rounds, it seems like the Redskins chose need. We needed a QB, we needed a speed edge rusher, and we needed a receiver especially a fast one. Not only did we choose player's by need, but we traded up to get one (Sweat.) Now, they all seem to be very good picks, but you could almost have created a needs chart and imagine the Redskins ticking off boxes.

 

Fairly happy with the draft so far despite the fact that I didn't really want us to grab a first round QB. I still would like us to find a left guard, some back up o linemen and a prospect at free safety, but given that we're now in the middle to late rounds what I'm really hoping is that we switch from needs-based back to best player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jericho

Jericho

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The eternal debate between best player available and need goes on. This year through the first three rounds, it seems like the Redskins chose need. We needed a QB, we needed a speed edge rusher, and we needed a receiver especially a fast one. Not only did we choose player's by need, but we traded up to get one (Sweat.) Now, they all seem to be very good picks, but you could almost have created a needs chart and imagine the Redskins ticking off boxes.

 

Fairly happy with the draft so far despite the fact that I didn't really want us to grab a first round QB. I still would like us to find a left guard, some back up o linemen and a prospect at free safety, but given that we're now in the middle to late rounds what I'm really hoping is that we switch from needs-based back to best player.

 

This team essentially needs everything, so it really could have picked virtually anyone and you could argue it's a "need". But if you look at some of the more well known draft lists out there (hardly definitive of anything mind you), they also would have listed Haskins and Sweat as excellent value picks and Mclaurin as solid value. So it's not like this is a clear needs over value type move either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hoover-ball said:

No team in the history of the draft has not considered its needs while drafting. The talk of best player available is always just that...talk. 

 

While I agree needs play a big role most ever GM will say it's a mistake to reach too far and pass better players.  If it was all just talk how do how explain the drafting of Kirk Cousins?  Clearly that was a BPA over need, or in this case perceived need.  Teams do this all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KDawg

KDawg

Posted
Posted

Let me add this:

 

BPA isn’t a flat “best player, take them” theory. 

 

Its weights position need, systemic fit, hit rates in specific rounds, etc.

 

BPA is NOT a blind “grab the best player and don’t consider anything else” strategy. 

 

I could argue we’ve been BPA for every pick so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carex

carex

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

While I agree needs play a big role most ever GM will say it's a mistake to reach too far and pass better players.  If it was all just talk how do how explain the drafting of Kirk Cousins?  Clearly that was a BPA over need, or in this case perceived need.  Teams do this all the time.

 

well it wasn't really.  Because besides the fact that some teams had managed to pull the sit for a few years then trade thing, the only QBs we had on the roster at the time were Grossman and Beck and Beck had shown he was not an NFL QB the year before

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
  • Author
Posted
57 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

HTTR!..I love the Washington Redskins and have since birth... Sorry nothing to see here carry on..

It’s funny. Most seem to reading the OP as a negative post. I simply meant it as observation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Green Fan

Darrell Green Fan

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, carex said:

 

well it wasn't really.  Because besides the fact that some teams had managed to pull the sit for a few years then trade thing, the only QBs we had on the roster at the time were Grossman and Beck and Beck had shown he was not an NFL QB the year before

 

You have already forgotten the name RGIII?    They had just invested huge on the guy, at the time  a young QB was the last position of need for that team as they had committed to Griffin. Yet they took a QB in the 4th because he was the BPA, Shanny was clear about that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carex

carex

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You have already forgotten the name RGIII?    They had just invested huge on the guy, at the time  a young QB was the last position of need for that team as they had committed to Griffin. Yet they took a QB in the 4th because he was the BPA, Shanny was clear about that.

 

 

 

No I haven't forgotten him the only reason drafting Kirk was notable was because of him, my point was we really needed two QBs, because carrying Grossman and Beck we may as well have only had one QB on the roster

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OVCChairman

OVCChairman

Posted
Posted

What I feel it boils down to is this.

 

Is there a player on the board that can upgrade your team?  If the answer is yes, you take him.

 

If there are 20 players on the board that can upgrade your team, you take the one that upgrades it the most.  If you think its more than that, you're going to be constantly reaching, and end up near the middle of the pack regarding talent.

 

The Redskins need a LG.  There was not a LG on the board worth 15 when it was our pick.

The Redskins need a QB.  There WAS a QB on the board at our pick. 

 

You don't take a 2nd round G in the 1st round simply because of 'need'

 

That's also why we don't take an RB in the 2nd round simply because they are 'graded' the highest.  They may have the highest grade, but they may not offer the same level of an upgrade at our current situation as a TE or WR.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bakedtater1

bakedtater1

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Burgold said:

It’s funny. Most seem to reading the OP as a negative post. I simply meant it as observation. 

I dont think I even read the post.... Something about the Redskins and something about drafting.. just wanted to get my two cents in lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillBill26

KillBill26

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Let me add this:

 

BPA isn’t a flat “best player, take them” theory. 

 

Its weights position need, systemic fit, hit rates in specific rounds, etc.

 

BPA is NOT a blind “grab the best player and don’t consider anything else” strategy. 

 

I could argue we’ve been BPA for every pick so far. 

Agreed 100%.  Well said.

 

With our first 3 picks, we did fill immediate needs, but we got great value as well.  These guys had to be towards the top of many teams overall board at the time they were selected.  None of them was a reach.  In fact, I'd say all three fell further than anyone expected (mclaurin is debatable, but after reading up on him, I have no idea how he made it to the 3rd). So when players are falling to your pick and filling our most pressing needs, that is a pretty sweet draft.  Hopefully a LG that they love falls to them today, and this will be the best draft in recent memory in terms of need meeting BPA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillBill26

KillBill26

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Burgold said:

 I still would like us to find a left guard, some back up o linemen and a prospect at free safety, but given that we're now in the middle to late rounds what I'm really hoping is that we switch from needs-based back to best player.

 

33 minutes ago, Burgold said:

It’s funny. Most seem to reading the OP as a negative post. I simply meant it as observation. 

I don't interpret your post as negative.  However, when people say a team drafted for need, it's usually implying they ignored bpa and reached for players due to a short term mindset.  As you know, that way of drafting is generally poor over the long haul.  

 

While I agree with you that each of our early picks satisfied some of our most pressing immediate needs (and I also wasn't thrilled with the Haskins selection), I disagree with you that there is a need to switch approaches "from a needs based approach back to best player", bc I feel they have been drafting best player all along (considering factors @KDawg mentioned), it just so happened they also were huge needs.  I like how this draft has unfolded for the skins!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hoover-ball

Hoover-ball

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

While I agree needs play a big role most ever GM will say it's a mistake to reach too far and pass better players.  If it was all just talk how do how explain the drafting of Kirk Cousins?  Clearly that was a BPA over need, or in this case perceived need.  Teams do this all the time.

I think for the most part we are all saying the same thing. It is a mix of need and who is there and who we think will be there. 

 

Love that Green announced the third pick. 

 

HTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted

For the last two years they've telegraphed their needs and what they want out of the draft and or beat guys who cover the team scream what they've heard the FO says they need.

 

I am a BPA guy.  So I disagree with it in theory.  However, for the last two drafts their needs married well to the strengths of the draft.  So I think its worked out fine.

 

If we are sticking to the need drill as for the rest of the draft.

 

Jay's made the case they need a TE.  IMO the best left is Foster Moreau

 

Beat guys have said they want a safety.  You got some bigger name safeties left including one from their man crush college, Alabama.

 

We've heard MLB.  Also a big name from Alabama is left.  Though Volsmet has me sold on Cashman.

 

We've heard OG.  Samia, Jordan?

 

Personally I think they can still use another WR but don't know what they think on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wildbunny

Wildbunny

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, KDawg said:

Let me add this:

 

BPA isn’t a flat “best player, take them” theory. 

 

Its weights position need, systemic fit, hit rates in specific rounds, etc.

 

BPA is NOT a blind “grab the best player and don’t consider anything else” strategy. 

 

I could argue we’ve been BPA for every pick so far. 

I can't wait for a team to go for the worst player available. That debate BPA vs needs as always been stupid to me.

You just summed it up perfectly.

 

And I'm probably one of the only guys that is not a big fan os this draft. But it's still way too early to tell if they'll succeed or not.

 

Day 3 is on us, we're due for a WTF moment :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zCommander

zCommander

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Hoover-ball said:

No team in the history of the draft has not considered its needs while drafting. The talk of best player available is always just that...talk. 

 

Yes or no really. You go for need and if that need is selected then you go for best player when you are not able to move up or down. Moreover, if there is a BPA on the board you didn't think would be available then you could Trump your need at that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...