Official Pick

[skinsfan#33]

How can you give up on Kelly, Thomas and Davis after one season? Randle El should be gone. Talk about stealing a check. There will be a quality OT or OG later in the draft. Trade down and pick up a second. Oh yeah, cut Vinny.

I agree that we can't give up on our 08 2nd rounders. We need OL!

I proved in another post that ARE isn't stealing his pay. Statistically he is above average as a #2 WR, but he would be better at #3.

[skinsfan#33]

We have to draft for need (shut up Vinny!). We desperately need an infusion of youth in both lines, but I would love to see a stud OL at 13.

Agreed

Or if they really like a guy that they can get, at a lower spot, then try and trade down, but our first player taken MUST be a play maker and be at a position of need.

So, here's a hypothetical... and it addresses the issue that Vinny has raised with drafting for need...

You get to the 13th pick. The positions you have identified as the greatest need are, say, OT, DT, OG. The best player of any of those positions, you have on your board as the 34th best availible talent. I'm not going to give him 13th pick money, so that is out. I'm satisfied with the talent I have on my team at the positions that are comensurate talent with the 13th pick. I try to trade down... no takers.

What are you going to do? Are you going to use the pick on a player that you don't believe is worth this level of pay? Or are you going to choose the best availible player. Just because you have a high pick doesn't mean that the talent in your particular area of need will match up with it. Nor can you count on being able to trade down.

Taking the best availible talent is how we selected Laron Landry. Was that a bad move? I'm willing to bet your answer is no.

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Landry was in an area of need, as was Taylor when we drafted him, and Rogers.

Are we sure we're at #13, shouldn't this be one of those coin flip deals with Denver for the #12 spot?

[skinsfan#33]

I'm not arguing either way... I'm just trying to help people understand the reason for the concept of drafting the best availible. When need and availibility match up, that's super... but it doesn't always work that way. And you don't select based on need if it will force you to reach, or to pay too much for a given level of talent.

Last year was a good example. None of the talent availible at our #1 pick was assessed as equivalent talent. We either had to trade down, or take best availible... we traded down, and got players that were on most boards as worth those picks. 2 were in positions of need (WR's), and one was a best availible pick (Davis). They may pan out, they may not... but hindsight is always perfect.

So let's say Crabtree was there at 13 and the "best availible" we should take him??

In the top half of the draft a WR (I don't care who he is) should NEVER be listed as the best available athelete.

WR aren't that important. Funny how our WR were getting open when they were healthy and the OL was playing well.

However, I could change one player and make our OL, WR, an RB better. Insert Brady, Manning (either), Rivers, Brees, Pennington, and even (gag me) DMac and the OL and WR would imediately get better. Hell ARE might even be a better QB than Campbell right now.

Sure our OL and WRs need to improve, but Campbell suffers from failure to launch. When he looks, he may see a guy open, but refuses to throw the ball because he might make a mistake or he doesn't rust what he is seeing (maybe he needs glasses).
Right or wrong, make just decide what to do. Campbell is way too slow for an NFL QB at making a decision.

[SKINFAN]

I'm not arguing either way... I'm just trying to help people understand the reason for the concept of drafting the best availible. When need and availibility match up, that's super... but it doesn't always work that way. And you don't select based on need if it will force you to reach, or to pay too much for a given level of talent.

Last year was a good example. None of the talent availible at our #1 pick was assessed as equivalent talent. We either had to trade down, or take best availible... we traded down, and got players that were on most boards as worth those picks. 2 were in positions of need (WR's), and one was a best availible pick (Davis). They may pan out, they may not... but hindsight is always perfect.

So let's say Crabtree was there at 13 and the "best availible" we should take him??

Absolutely YES!

If Crab is there you gotta take him. We found Kendall, hopfully we can find another proven guy. If we draft an Oline guy, it'll take 2-3 years before he starts making an impact, meanwhile his contract will be huge for someone sitting on the bench (assuming a 1st rounder salary) We can spend that in a proven Vet, maybe not a pancake meat eater lineman but someone who is a bit better than what we have. We need to let either Moss or ARE go, trade Betts, see what we can get for ey... I love capt. chaos but the direction we are going we are just wasting his talent. We go to him and he produces, but then we conveniently forget he's there and never go back to him again. We find something that works, put it aside and stick to something tha doesn't, it sucks.

[wormer]

Maybe the Redskins should just disband? There seems to be very little hope based on what I have been reading.

It does not matter what they do they always do it wrong right? So really, what's the point anymore. Close up shop and call it a day.

[SKINFAN]

Maybe the Redskins should just disband? There seems to be very little hope based on what I have been reading.

It does not matter what they do they always do it wrong right? So really, what's the point anymore. Close up shop and call it a day.

it's always like this bro. Sky is falling, I'm just lad it is over.

[Countertrey]

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Like to argue? Here's the point. For weeks now, lots of folks on this board have been demanding that Vinny select an OT, OG or DT with his first pick. For weeks, now, we have expected that our pick would be in or near the 20's. That meant that there was a strong likelyhood that the talent would not have been there to justify such a pick.

The proverbial worm, however, has turned, and left us with a disaster of a second half of our season, and improving our pick. My post offered a HYPOTHETICAL for a reason. What do you think HYPOTHETICAL means? I fully expect there to be significant talent across the board when we pick... there should be no reason we can't hit on a talented player to also fit a need.

BTW, I agree that NO wideout should ever be considered "best availible talent" that early, with very rare exceptions. This year does not provide one of those exceptions.

[El Mexican]

If we draft another WR with our first pick, you can bet we go the Matt Millen-team-structure-success.

We need better talent on the Oline and Dline. Stockpile a bunch o picks, trade down, and take your chances with a bunch of rooks.

This team is not one or two players away from being elite. We need a plethora of picks. Maybe some of them will pan out and make us keep them instead of bringing in overpriced free agents.

Man, Vinny makess me nervous.

[DEHog]

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Like to argue? Here's the point. For weeks now, lots of folks on this board have been demanding that Vinny select an OT, OG or DT with his first pick. For weeks, now, we have expected that our pick would be in or near the 20's. That meant that there was a strong likelyhood that the talent would not have been there to justify such a pick.

The proverbial worm, however, has turned, and left us with a disaster of a second half of our season, and improving our pick. My post offered a HYPOTHETICAL for a reason. What do you think HYPOTHETICAL means? I fully expect there to be significant talent across the board when we pick... there should be no reason we can't hit on a talented player to also fit a need.

BTW, I agree that NO wideout should ever be considered "best availible talent" that early, with very rare exceptions. This year does not provide one of those exceptions.

Totally agree...the problem is with what Vinny said about drafting best available...I think you have to put "need" into the equation. You may want OL to be your first pick but if a secondary area of need say LB or DL is the best availible I think you take that person.

[El Mexican]

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Like to argue? Here's the point. For weeks now, lots of folks on this board have been demanding that Vinny select an OT, OG or DT with his first pick. For weeks, now, we have expected that our pick would be in or near the 20's. That meant that there was a strong likelyhood that the talent would not have been there to justify such a pick.

The proverbial worm, however, has turned, and left us with a disaster of a second half of our season, and improving our pick. My post offered a HYPOTHETICAL for a reason. What do you think HYPOTHETICAL means? I fully expect there to be significant talent across the board when we pick... there should be no reason we can't hit on a talented player to also fit a need.

BTW, I agree that NO wideout should ever be considered "best availible talent" that early, with very rare exceptions. This year does not provide one of those exceptions.

Totally agree...the problem is with what Vinny said about drafting best available...I think you have to put "need" into the equation. You may want OL to be your first pick but if a secondary area of need say LB or DL is the best availible I think you take that person.

Under that logic, if a QB is available, we should draft him.

I'm tellin' ya, Vinny is making me nervous four months before the draft.

[riggofan]

Under that logic, if a QB is available, we should draft him.

I'm tellin' ya, Vinny is making me nervous four months before the draft.

I don't know about the logic or whatever, but if we have the 13th pick it is not unlikely that one of the top QBs would be available. A lot of those teams picking in the top 10 have decent QBs already.

I definitely don't want a first round QB this year. If we can add a really beastly player to the d or O lines, I will be extremely happy.

[Countertrey]

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Like to argue? Here's the point. For weeks now, lots of folks on this board have been demanding that Vinny select an OT, OG or DT with his first pick. For weeks, now, we have expected that our pick would be in or near the 20's. That meant that there was a strong likelyhood that the talent would not have been there to justify such a pick.

The proverbial worm, however, has turned, and left us with a disaster of a second half of our season, and improving our pick. My post offered a HYPOTHETICAL for a reason. What do you think HYPOTHETICAL means? I fully expect there to be significant talent across the board when we pick... there should be no reason we can't hit on a talented player to also fit a need.

BTW, I agree that NO wideout should ever be considered "best availible talent" that early, with very rare exceptions. This year does not provide one of those exceptions.

Totally agree...the problem is with what Vinny said about drafting best available...I think you have to put "need" into the equation. You may want OL to be your first pick but if a secondary area of need say LB or DL is the best availible I think you take that person.

I'm pretty sure that the quotes attributed to Vinny, that have everyone so up in arms, were specific to the last draft, and were an explaination of why we didn't select Calais Campbell or another DE with our first round pick. From what I remember, it wasn't intended as the definitive draft philosophy of Vinny Cerrato... He is already on record as saying that he was leaning towards trading down. Of course, that was a few days ago... our draft status has changed some. The quality of the availible pool at our pick just got significantly better.

[DEHog]

Obviously if you can't trade down, then you take the best available player in an area of need. There is no way there isn't a top flight OT, OG, DE, DT, or OLB available at #13. Heck if the top QB is there I would consider drafting him.

Like to argue? Here's the point. For weeks now, lots of folks on this board have been demanding that Vinny select an OT, OG or DT with his first pick. For weeks, now, we have expected that our pick would be in or near the 20's. That meant that there was a strong likelyhood that the talent would not have been there to justify such a pick.

The proverbial worm, however, has turned, and left us with a disaster of a second half of our season, and improving our pick. My post offered a HYPOTHETICAL for a reason. What do you think HYPOTHETICAL means? I fully expect there to be significant talent across the board when we pick... there should be no reason we can't hit on a talented player to also fit a need.

BTW, I agree that NO wideout should ever be considered "best availible talent" that early, with very rare exceptions. This year does not provide one of those exceptions.

Totally agree...the problem is with what Vinny said about drafting best available...I think you have to put "need" into the equation. You may want OL to be your first pick but if a secondary area of need say LB or DL is the best availible I think you take that person.

Under that logic, if a QB is available, we should draft him.

I'm tellin' ya, Vinny is making me nervous four months before the draft.

How do you figure that??? No one mentioned QB as a position of need??

[El Mexican]

Vinny said you should draft the best player available, regardless of need.

I don't have the link right now, but the quotation is well documented.

Remember some years ago we had Brunell and Ramsey and drafted Campbell anyway.

Stranger things have happened.

[DEHog]

Vinny said you should draft the best player available, regardless of need.

I don't have the link right now, but the quotation is well documented.

Remember some years ago we had Brunell and Ramsey and drafted Campbell anyway.

Stranger things have happened.

I'm hoping he meant best player available that you have a need for...

If you can get a better player at a position you need , not your #1 need,
but a need, I think you take it...I hope that's what Vinny means.

[El Mexican]

I hope too, man, but I remember the interviewer asking him bettween the two instances (need vs. best player available) and he said you should always draft the best guy on your board.

I don't understand his logic. If this were a team with one or two deficiencies then I'd agree, but we have a ton of problems.

[DEHog]

I hope too, man, but I remember the interviewer asking him bettween the two instances (need vs. best player available) and he said you should always draft the best guy on your board.

I don't understand his logic. If this were a team with one or two deficiencies then I'd agree, but we have a ton of problems.

"on your board" not on the board...translation the best guy on the teams list.

[El Mexican]

I hope too, man, but I remember the interviewer asking him bettween the two instances (need vs. best player available) and he said you should always draft the best guy on your board.

I don't understand his logic. If this were a team with one or two deficiencies then I'd agree, but we have a ton of problems.

"on your board" not on the board...translation the best guy on the teams list.

Is this called a "circular argument"?

Vinny will surely explain it again before the draft comes up. We'll see.

[rbrhett]

The Skins should draft one of the following players, in this order:

Ray Maualuga LB USC
Gerald McCoy DT OK
Terrence Cody DT AL
Eugene Monroe OT VA

I would love to see any of the top three and at the very least McCoy should be available.

The Skins should try to sign only two FAs the next two seasons: Haynesworth and L. Fitzgerald. Otherwise, they should be looking to the draft for OL, LB, CB, and DL depth and impact players.

Unfortunately, they don't have much to trade, so they have to live with the few picks they have this year and hope that their talent evaluation will allow them to pick up a few gems in the lower rounds.

[Thundersloth]

13th is not too shabby. Don't you wish we hadn't given up 2nd and 6th

19th is horrible for not having made the playoffs.

WR Percy Harvin out of Florida might be there at 13, he's a weapon I'd take. But if its at all possible we'll probably try to trade back and gain picks which will leave us with more less than adequate players just like this years draft class

We needed to lose today and we did, Great Job Skins

G4L, isn't that 6th rounder next years, if you're referring to the Taylor deal?

[Wahoo McDaniels]

How can you give up on Kelly, Thomas and Davis after one season? Randle El should be gone. Talk about stealing a check. There will be a quality OT or OG later in the draft. Trade down and pick up a second. Oh yeah, cut Vinny.

On the drive home for work today, I heard Czaban say on Redskins radio that the Skins trainers are worried that Kelly's knee my be chronically arthritic and may never be the same.

Chalk another one up for Vinnie! Hey Vin, the reason Kelly dropped so low was every other team took him off their draft board because of concerns about the knee.

I have come full circle, we should trade away every pick because our talent department is so bad this is the only way that we can get value for them.

[Skinsfan55]

Chalk another one up for Vinnie! Hey Vin, the reason Kelly dropped so low was every other team took him off their draft board because of concerns about the knee.

I have come full circle, we should trade away every pick because our talent department is so bad this is the only way that we can get value for them.

I want a GM who gambles now and then.

Also, no major news source is saying Kelly's knee is a chronic problem.

[Wahoo McDaniels]

Chalk another one up for Vinnie! Hey Vin, the reason Kelly dropped so low was every other team took him off their draft board because of concerns about the knee.

I have come full circle, we should trade away every pick because our talent department is so bad this is the only way that we can get value for them.

I want a GM who gambles now and then.

Also, no major news source is saying Kelly's knee is a chronic problem.

Read my post, I said that there is concern from Redskins Park...as stated by Czaban on Redskins Radio. Also, they stated that Kelly will be visiting Shawn Springs' orthopedist in Toronto to get another look at it. This is odd, as the Skins have the best orthopedist in the world, Dr. James Andrews, on retainer and he attends every game.

Now, does that sound good to you?

[Countertrey]

Chalk another one up for Vinnie! Hey Vin, the reason Kelly dropped so low was every other team took him off their draft board because of concerns about the knee.

I have come full circle, we should trade away every pick because our talent department is so bad this is the only way that we can get value for them.

I want a GM who gambles now and then.

Also, no major news source is saying Kelly's knee is a chronic problem.

Read my post, I said that there is concern from Redskins Park...as stated by Czaban on Redskins Radio. Also, they stated that Kelly will be visiting Shawn Springs' orthopedist in Toronto to get another look at it. This is odd, as the Skins have the best orthopedist in the world, Dr. James Andrews, on retainer and he attends every game.

Now, does that sound good to you?

Maybe... maybe not. It does no harm to have another excellent surgeon look at the knee... even the best miss something from time to time. Orthopaedics is as much an art as a science.

I'm more concerned that he was unable to shake the recurrent pain and swelling through the year.

I suspect that the trainer's concerns are well founded, as this is a kid with a reputation for working hard, and certainly was chomping at the bit to get playing time.

[Wahoo McDaniels]

Chalk another one up for Vinnie! Hey Vin, the reason Kelly dropped so low was every other team took him off their draft board because of concerns about the knee.

I have come full circle, we should trade away every pick because our talent department is so bad this is the only way that we can get value for them.

I want a GM who gambles now and then.

Also, no major news source is saying Kelly's knee is a chronic problem.

Read my post, I said that there is concern from Redskins Park...as stated by Czaban on Redskins Radio. Also, they stated that Kelly will be visiting Shawn Springs' orthopedist in Toronto to get another look at it. This is odd, as the Skins have the best orthopedist in the world, Dr. James Andrews, on retainer and he attends every game.

Now, does that sound good to you?

Maybe... maybe not. It does no harm to have another excellent surgeon look at the knee... even the best miss something from time to time. Orthopaedics is as much an art as a science.

I'm more concerned that he was unable to shake the recurrent pain and swelling through the year.

I suspect that the trainer's concerns are well founded, as this is a kid with a reputation for working hard, and certainly was chomping at the bit to get playing time.

Agreed. Just not a good sign overall. The other point that they made on the radio was the fact that the word from Redskins park throughout the year was that none of the three new receivers (Thomas, Kelly, or Davis) were getting the offense or understood it well enough to play.

Czaban stated (and I agree) that this is not the players' fault but the coaches. It's like a teacher failing the entire class and saying that the kids didn't learn enough to pass. At some point it has to fall back on the coaching staff for not effectively teaching the players.