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

Welcome to the Commanders Emmanuel Forbes CB Mississippi State

zCommander

By zCommander
in The Stadium

 Share

Recommended Posts

skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

That would be fun to watch those camp match ups. Iron sharpens iron, right?

Yep.  I’m hoping the same idea applies to the oline… though I’m worried it might be more like rock dulls iron (and the rocks get scarred up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
SpacePenguin

SpacePenguin

Posted
Posted (edited)

Dobbs was so bad that I can't really take anything away from that game.  I think Josh Johnson or the Ravens backup are better. Amazing that the Commies played poorly enough to make it a game, but at least they still resemble the Redskins in that regard.

 

Forbes could end up being a good corner, he certainly has the athleticism. Too early to say, though.

Edited by SpacePenguin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

No OL were left available that would have been worth taking at 16. I think our real target was Darnell Wright the RT from Tennessee but he was taken a few spots before.

Yep, and that would have been huge for us IMO - nail down RT and move Wylie to compete at RG… sigh.

(He went 10th BTW)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

No OL were left available that would have been worth taking at 16. I think our real target was Darnell Wright the RT from Tennessee but he was taken a few spots before.

 

You are allowed to trade back.  

 

You trade back and get somebody at a spot that does make sense.  Several OL that were drafted after 16 started yesterday and looked pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhead36

Warhead36

Posted
Posted
Just now, PeterMP said:

 

You are allowed to trade back.  

 

You trade back and get somebody at a spot that does make sense.  Several OL that were drafted after 16 started yesterday and looked pretty good.

We've gone through this already multiple times. Nobody wanted to trade up. They asked around. In fact there was not another trade in the first round until pick #24 where the Jags moved up to from #27. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

We've gone through this already multiple times. Nobody wanted to trade up. They asked around. In fact there was not another trade in the first round until pick #24 where the Jags moved up to from #27. 

 

So the Jags would move up to #24 but not #16?  And it was the Giants the moved up.  The Jags moved back.  So it would be the Giants would move up to #24 but not to #16?

 

And your answer is that the value for trading from #25 to #16 is not the same as trading to #25 to #24.

 

The problem with that is that gets based on these charts and values.  But in reality, any given pick is only worth what somebody else is willing to give you for it.  Assuming the Giants weren't willing to throw anything else in to move up to 16, the trade would have been the Commanders pick at 16 for the Giants first round pick at 25 and their 5th and 7th round pick.  You can say that's poor value for the 16th pick but if that's the best deal you can get for the 16th pick, that's what the 16th pick is worth.

 

Now maybe you (they) think that Forbes has more value than that.  And that's fine, but that's different than there were no OL that made sense to take with the 16th pick and nobody would trade up for it. 

 

The truth isn't that nobody would trade up.  The truth is that nobody would trade up for the value they assigned to the 16th pick.  And we don't really know what the value was.

 

(I'm not really anti-Forbes.  I think he could be really good.  The problem is using a DB on both the top picks.

 

I'm also anti-the idea that you have to take a player where your pick is and that it makes any sense to value draft picks by some larger historical average or chart of value and not based on what other teams are actually willing to give up for them/it.)

 

They valued Forbes and Martin than any trade that could be made with those picks to get an OL.  I don't have an issue with either pick individually, but combined that thinking was dumb.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhead36

Warhead36

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

So the Jags would move up to #24 but not #16?  And it was the Giants the moved up.  The Jags moved back.  So it would be the Giants would move up to #24 but not to #16?

 

And your answer is that the value for trading from #27 to #16 is not the same as trading to #27 to #24.

 

The problem with that is that gets based on these charts and values.  But in reality, any given pick is only worth what somebody else is willing to give you for it.  Assuming the Giants weren't willing to throw anything else in to move up to 16, the trade would have been the Commanders pick at 16 for the Giants first round pick at 25 and their 5th and 7th round pick.  You can say that's poor value for the 16th pick but if that's the best deal you can get for the 16th pick, that's what the 16th pick is worth.

 

Now maybe you (they) think that Forbes has more value than that.  And that's fine, but that's different than there were no OL that made sense to take with the 16th pick and nobody would trade up for it. 

 

The truth isn't that nobody would trade up.  The truth is that nobody would trade up for the value they assigned to the 16th pick.  And we don't really know what the value was.

 

(I'm not really anti-Forbes.  I think he could be really good.  The problem is using a DB on both the top picks.

 

I'm also anti-the idea that you have to take a player where your pick is and that it makes any sense to value draft picks by some larger historical average or chart of value and not based on what other teams are actually willing to give up for them/it.)

You don't trade down eight spots for something so meager as a 5th and 7th. That's just awful value and the FO would be eviscerated for that and rightfully so. 

 

You're saying the team should have forced a trade down to take a lesser player to fill a position of need. Those are the types of moves bad teams make. Forbes is a talented player at a premium position that was a need for us anyway(you need three starting caliber CBs in today's NFL, best case scenario we had two with Fuller and St. Juste)and that isn't even factoring in Juste's concussion history and Fuller being a FA next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowhunter

bowhunter

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You are allowed to trade back.  

 

You trade back and get somebody at a spot that does make sense.  Several OL that were drafted after 16 started yesterday and looked pretty good.

I wondered about that, in particular JMS and the Giants getting annihilated last night. I really liked JMS and hated to see him go to a division rival. Have you heard how he fared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhead36

Warhead36

Posted
Posted
Just now, bowhunter said:

I wondered about that, in particular JMS and the Giants getting annihilated last night. I really liked JMS and hated to see him go to a division rival. Have you heard how he fared?

I saw him botch a snap. I don't think there is any discernible difference between JMS and Stromberg at this very moment. We'll see how they develop in a couple years or so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You don't trade down eight spots for something so meager as a 5th and 7th. That's just awful value and the FO would be eviscerated for that and rightfully so. 

 

You're saying the team should have forced a trade down to take a lesser player to fill a position of need. Those are the types of moves bad teams make. Forbes is a talented player at a premium position that was a need for us anyway(you need three starting caliber CBs in today's NFL, best case scenario we had two with Fuller and St. Juste)and that isn't even factoring in Juste's concussion history and Fuller being a FA next year.

 

Why is it awful value?

 

If that's the best you can get, it is the value.  (We don't actually know if that's the best they could get.)

 

The best deal you can get can't be awful value.  To claim it is is nonsensical.  It isn't just illogical.  It doesn't make any sense.

 

Like I said, I don't really have an issue with the Forbes pick.  It is the combination of DBs with both the top 2 picks.  Not doing something in the top 2 rounds of the draft to get a OL that potentially reasonably be a starter this year was a mistake.  Bad teams do things like leave their 2nd year 5th round QB get hammered to death because they didn't have the sense to bring in some good OL, creating a situation where the guy has no chance to actually develop.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tmandoug1

tmandoug1

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

We've gone through this already multiple times. Nobody wanted to trade up. They asked around. In fact there was not another trade in the first round until pick #24 where the Jags moved up to from #27. 

We should have traded up to 14 and given ourselves a decent shot. Then we should have still gone with Stromberg in the third. We didn't and we look stupid as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhead36

Warhead36

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why is it awful value?  If that's the best you can get, it is the value.  (We don't actually know if that's the best they could get.)

 

The best deal you can get can't be awful value.  To claim it is is nonsensical.  It isn't just illogical.  It doesn't make any sense.

 

Like I said, I don't really have an issue with the Forbes pick.  It is the combination of DBs with both the top 2 picks.  Not doing something in the top 2 rounds of the draft to get a OL that potentially reasonably be a starter this year was a mistake.  Bad teams do things like leave their 2nd year 5th round QB get hammered to death because they didn't have the sense to bring in some good OL, creating a situation where the guy has no chance to actually develop.

Just because its the best deal you can get doesn't mean its good value. Its like the people wanting to trade Chase Young when the best you're gonna get is like a 4th round pick. The return on investment sucks. And on top of all that, I'm not even sure anyone offered even that much. The fact is they called around and were not receiving reasonable offers. Yeah they could have traded down 10 spots for a 7th rounder as well, but again, that's piss poor value. If that's the best you can get, you take the guy that's on top of your board. For them, that was Forbes.

 

Ultimately its way too early to tell if they should have taken an OL or not with either of those picks. You don't draft guys for what they'll do in Week 1 of their rookie years, you draft them with an eye on how they'll develop after 2-3+ years.

Just now, tmandoug1 said:

We should have traded up to 14 and given ourselves a decent shot. Then we should have still gone with Stromberg in the third. We didn't and we look stupid as usual.

I believe there were rumors we were trying to trade up, but it was for Lukas Van Ness at least according to Kevin Sheehan. Not sure how much juice that rumor has though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Just because its the best deal you can get doesn't mean its good value. Its like the people wanting to trade Chase Young when the best you're gonna get is like a 4th round pick. The return on investment sucks. And on top of all that, I'm not even sure anyone offered even that much. The fact is they called around and were not receiving reasonable offers. Yeah they could have traded down 10 spots for a 7th rounder as well, but again, that's piss poor value. If that's the best you can get, you take the guy that's on top of your board. For them, that was Forbes.

 

Ultimately its way too early to tell if they should have taken an OL or not with either of those picks. You don't draft guys for what they'll do in Week 1 of their rookie years, you draft them with an eye on how they'll develop after 2-3+ years.

 

Why isn't good value?  If it is the best you can get, why isn't it good value?  Why?

 

With respect to Chase Young, you're employing the sunk cost fallacy.  It doesn't matter what you gave up for him (the 2nd pick).  There is no ROI.  There's only the cost that we paid for him.    That doesn't matter.  What matters is what he's worth today.  Now, he has some value to the team (like Forbes did), and it is possible (and even likely) what he's worth to us is essentially the same as what he's worth to other teams.  In which case, it might make sense to keep him just like it might have made sense to draft Forbes.  (I'm the guy that said if they can get a 4th for him, they should take that trade, and they should.)

 

Again, the problem isn't really the Forbes pick alone.  It is not getting an OL especially in the context of trying to protect and develop Howell.

 

Except for maybe at QB and some of the OL positions because the length those guys seem to be able to play and the franchise tag, in today's NFL, you need to take guys at the top of the draft with an eye on what they'll do year 1.  Rookie contracts are too valuable and too many guys make impacts in year 1 to not.  Other than QB, a guy that can't contribute either because he's not ready or you don't have a spot for him shouldn't be take in the first 2 rounds.  If you are, then you're putting yourself at competitive disadvantage that year for what is essentially a crap shoot (2-3 years out for guys that are drafted close together aren't very different based on draft order  It isn't like historically the 16th pick is a lot better than the 19th pick to take a guy at the 16th pick because you think he's going to be not as good in year 1 but be better in year 2-3 rather than the guy you would pick at 19.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Acre

Dark Acre

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

You are allowed to trade back.  

 

You trade back and get somebody at a spot that does make sense.  Several OL that were drafted after 16 started yesterday and looked pretty good.

Absolutely!  You can always easily trade down from #16, to say, #25 for a 7th.  Someone will cough it up.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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