Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

This is a great read, so we know more whats going on in the draft room! Scot McCloughan mentor
http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/pag ... &is_corp=1
Packers general manager Ted Thompson will be conducting his 11th draft in Green Bay.
The need for … need

Ted Thompson doesn’t ignore need, but he insists it carries less weight with him than with other teams. After back-to-back terrific drafts, it’s worthwhile to recall the rare times when he may have let need influence him too much.

By JASON WILDE
jwilde@espnwisconsin.com
GREEN BAY – One of the great misconceptions about Ted Thompson’s approach to the NFL Draft – much like the belief that the wry, close-to-the-vest Green Bay Packers general manager never says anything important or interesting during his annual pre-draft Q&A sessions – is that need doesn’t factor into his decisions.

It does. The proverbial best player available might be Thompson’s ideal, but need won’t be completely ignored in the Packers’ draft room during next week’s 2015 NFL Draft, which will be Thompson’s 11th as the Packers’ decision-maker.

"You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations,” Thompson said during his annual pre-draft news conference Wednesday. “There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need, but I am adamant that that's not the way to draft. The way to draft is to take the best player.”

That’s because, Thompson has long argued, you never know when a position of strength can morph into a position of need.

“This isn’t play time or anything like that. This is real life. People get banged up, injuries happen. Life happens,” Thompson continued. “What you think you’re strong at, you’re not necessarily strong at. If you take good, solid players that you know can contribute – albeit at a position that’s maybe a little bit heavier – as long as you’re taking good, solid players you’re getting some value there.

“If you reach and take something that’s not quite as good, then you may not be getting the same value. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s true. That’s what we do.”

That said, Thompson hasn’t been above reaching – or being more influenced by need than he’d care to admit – in the past. Sometimes, it’s worked out. Others, it has not.



During his press briefing before the 2009 draft, Thompson conducted something of a guided tour of the setup of his board – explaining how each position is listed across the top of the grid to create vertical columns, and the seven rounds are listed along the left-hand side of the grid to create horizontal rows.

“Should I do that again?” Thompson jokingly asked Wednesday.

That wasn’t necessary, but because he sets his board up that way, need is factored into his decisions. When the Packers go on the clock on April 30 for their first-round pick at No. 30, Thompson should have multiple players still left on his board with first-round grades. (If he doesn’t, he and his staff will likely be working the phones, looking to trade back into the second round and accumulate more selections.)

If one of those remaining players with a first-round grade happens to play a position of need – say, inside linebacker – Thompson will be able to factor that in, even though he insisted Wednesday that he feels no added pressure to fill obvious roster holes with draft picks.

Nevertheless, with some clear needs on his team – not that Thompson would ever publicly acknowledge them – this year’s draft class will have to deliver some immediate contributors to a team that was minutes away from a berth in Super Bowl XLIX.

“There’s no more pressure on our part,” Thompson said. “The pressure, in my view, is making sure we take good players.”

That’s something Thompson has certainly done the past two years, having added eight players who’ve either started or logged vital snaps the last two seasons: Running back Eddie Lacy, left tackle David Bakhtiari, inside linebacker Sam Barrington and safety/nickel defensive back Micah Hyde from the 2013 draft, and safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, wide receiver Davante Adams, tight end Richard Rodgers and center Corey Linsley from last year’s class.

Of those eight players, only one – Clinton-Dix – was a first-round pick, which speaks to Thompson’s selection savvy the last two years.

“The beauty of this particular business is the uncertainty,” said Thompson, who holds nine picks – one in each round, plus two additional sixth-round compensatory selections – but has frequently added additional picks through trades. “Because there’s always that gasp when a name is called and they go, ‘He picked who?’ And you hope that you don’t do that, [where] other teams go, “Who’d Thompson pick?’ You don’t want that kind of criticism.”



In retrospect, Thompson’s 2011 and 2012 drafts merit such criticism. He has long said that it takes three years to properly evaluate a draft – a belief he reiterated yet again Wednesday – and the Packers have little to show for those two drafts at this point.

From the 2011 draft, only Pro Bowl wide receiver Randall Cobb, a second-round pick, remains on the roster, as first-round pick Derek Sherrod’s career was derailed by a gruesome leg injury and poor play, and cornerback Davon House, a fourth-round pick who was the only other player from that draft to play a snap for the team last season, departed for Jacksonville as a free agent.

Meanwhile, only three of the eight players Thompson drafted in 2012 remain with the team: Outside linebacker Nick Perry, the team’s first-round pick; cornerback Casey Hayward, a second-round pick; and defensive end Mike Daniels, a fourth-round pick.

While Daniels has emerged as one of the team’s top players on defense, Perry was a part-time player last season and Hayward saw only limited action in sub packages, although he’s in line to start this season following the free-agent departure of veteran cornerback Tramon Williams.

“Quite frankly, sometimes it just doesn’t work out. As much as you’d like to have some sort of magic pill to take before I pick up the phone and draft somebody, we don’t have that,” Thompson said. “We just have to depend on our work and what we thinks going to happen in the future with [each] young man in this organization. Sometimes it doesn’t work out.”

With his team coming off a spectacular late meltdown in their 28-22 overtime loss to the Seattle Seahawks in the NFC title game, Thompson will need picks at a few positions to work out this year. The team severed ties with three inside linebackers who started for them last season – 2006 first-round pick A.J. Hawk, Brad Jones and Jamari Lattimore – and as a result the position is the team’s most glaring area of need. The Packers are also thin at cornerback and tight end, and could use quality depth on the defensive line and at running back.

“You don’t hit on all of your decisions you make in the draft,” Thompson admitted. “Sometimes, those decisions are who we’re picking. Sometimes, those decisions are, ‘Should we trade out?’ Sometimes, those decisions are, ‘Should we trade up?’ You never know how it’s going to turn out.”



What got Thompson in trouble in 2012, though, was drafting for need – even though he would deny such a charge – because his defense finished the 2011 season ranked dead last in the 32-team NFL, as the offense carried Green Bay to a franchise-best 15-1 regular-season record before the top-seeded Packers lost at home in the NFC Divisional round to eventual the Super Bowl-champion New York Giants.

In that 2012 draft, not only did Thompson use his first six selections on defensive players, he made three trades up. How out of character was that? Having not executed a single trade last year, Thompson enters his 11th draft in Green Bay having made 27 draft-day trades – with 20 of them having been backwards to accumulate more selections.

After those three trades up in 2012, Thompson even joked at one point, “I'm not my father's son anymore.” The next year, he made four draft-day trades, three of which were backwards.

Thompson’s trades upward were to take defensive end Jerel Worthy and Hayward in the second round and to take inside linebacker Terrell Manning in the fifth round. Worthy, Manning and fourth-round pick Jerron McMillian, a safety from Maine, were all washouts; last season, they played a combined one – one! – regular-season defensive snap: Manning’s one play for the Giants.

Unlike 2009, when the Packers switched to Dom Capers’ 3-4 defense and Thompson went after two critical positions for the scheme in the draft – he took nose tackle B.J. Raji at No. 9 overall and traded back into the first round to take outside linebacker Clay Matthews at No. 26 – trading up proved to be a mistake in 2012.

Whether he keeps that draft in mind next week will be interesting to see. The proof will be in his approach.

“Certainly, you go over and you examine history,” Thompson said. “So you do that self-examination stuff. You don’t sit around and waste a whole lot of time on this, but you do a self-examination of how we got to there, how could we do more, that sort of thing. Yeah, we do that.

“You may throw in a ‘darn it,’ too. A ‘dadgum.’ [But] what are you going to do? But you examine, and you say, ‘That’s not anybody else’s fault. That’s my fault.’”

Listen to Jason Wilde every weekday from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on “Green & Gold Today” on 540 ESPN, and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jasonjwilde.
User avatar
Bishop Hammer
Hog
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:33 am

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by Bishop Hammer »

Good read, thanks for posting! Before McCloughan came here I always believed in drafting for need. Now I agree BPA is the way to go.
I don't have to sell my soul,
He's already in me,
I don't need to sell my soul,
He's already in me.
I wanna be adored
I wanna be adored.

Stone Roses
I wanna be adored
User avatar
riggofan
HereComesTheDiesel
HereComesTheDiesel
Posts: 9460
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by riggofan »

Some good stuff in there, thanks for sharing.

This quote was really good btw:
"This is real life. People get banged up, injuries happen. Life happens,” Thompson continued. “What you think you’re strong at, you’re not necessarily strong at."


Yeah pretty much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax
"We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

riggofan wrote:Some good stuff in there, thanks for sharing.

This quote was really good btw:
"This is real life. People get banged up, injuries happen. Life happens,” Thompson continued. “What you think you’re strong at, you’re not necessarily strong at."


Yeah pretty much.


Haha yea thats a good one! This was a website I clicked on for the whole story. But, I think we're in great hands!
http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsbl ... fting-need
If you want to get some insight into the draft philosophy of Scot McCloughan beyond what he did in his six years calling the shots in San Francisco (2005-2010) it might be instructive to take a look at his mentor, Ted Thompson. He has been the Packers’ general manager since 2005 so he has 10 drafts in Green Bay to examine.

McCloughan worked under Thompson in two different organizations. He was a regional scout for the Packers from 1994-1999 while Thompson was the director of player personnel. They both were in Seattle from 2000-2004 when Thompson was the VP of football operations and McCloughan serving as the director of college scouting.

Thompson’s draft philosophy, which has built a Packers team that has a Super Bowl title and is annually in contention to get another one, is simple—take the best player available. But what about team needs?

They are considered, said Thompson, but only as part of the equation.

"You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations,” Thompson said during his annual pre-draft news conference Wednesday, via Jason Wilde of ESPN Wisconsin. “There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need, but I am adamant that that's not the way to draft. The way to draft is to take the best player . . . If you reach and take something that’s not quite as good, then you may not be getting the same value. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s true. That’s what we do.”

Not coincidentally, this is very similar to what McCloughan has said about filling needs vs. taking the best player available. He referred to Thompson when he talked about how he builds his roster during his introductory press conference in January.

“Everybody says, ‘Well you need this, this, this and this,’ which I understand,” he said. “You know, a lot of times in pro free agency, you can address those needs a little bit, but I learned from Ron Wolf early on, I learned from Ted Thompson early on, I learned from John Schneider, you can never have enough good football players on your team. If you keep adding that, you’re going to have your couple of two, three superstars that are going come out and become stars.”

The few times that Thompson has abandoned his core philosophy the results have not been good. Wilde points to the 2012 draft as one that didn’t work out because the GM went for need. The Packers had finished the 2011 season ranked dead last in defense. Even though they went 15-1, they were carried by the offense and were one and done in the playoffs, losing at home to the Giants.

In 2012 Thompson used his first six picks on defensive players and traded up three times, a maneuver that is highly out of character for him. Only three players from that draft remain with the team. That is a serious issue for a Packers team that acquires players almost exclusively through the draft.

The issues created by the poor returns from 2012 were compounded by the fact that 2011 was not a strong draft for Green Bay either either. Only one player of the 10 Thompson drafted that year, second-round pick Randall Cobb, is still on the roster.

It doesn’t look like Thompson particularly reached for need in the 2011 draft. He took four defensive players and six on offense. What happen to that draft?

“Quite frankly, sometimes it just doesn’t work out. As much as you’d like to have some sort of magic pill to take before I pick up the phone and draft somebody, we don’t have that,” Thompson said. “We just have to depend on our work and what we thinks going to happen in the future with [each] young man in this organization. Sometimes it doesn’t work out.”

It’s also possible that 2011 was just a bad draft year. The Redskins had 11 picks and only two, Ryan Kerrigan and Niles Paul, are still on the roster.

I recommend reading the entire article if you want some good insight into how Thompson operates and, by extension, what McCloughan might do when things get rolling at the draft a week from today.
Last edited by EA7649 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fredp45
Hog
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by fredp45 »

Thompson said this after being asked about need versus BPA -- But what about team needs? They are considered, said Thompson, but only as part of the equation.

For all those posters (and you know who you are!!!) who blasted me for saying, "NEED has to be part of the equation, even when drafting BPA over need" Read what is said about Need -- "They are considered"

The way I look at drafting BPA versus need, is -- don't reach for need.
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

fredp45 wrote:Thompson said this after being asked about need versus BPA -- But what about team needs? They are considered, said Thompson, but only as part of the equation.

For all those posters (and you know who you are!!!) who blasted me for saying, "NEED has to be part of the equation, even when drafting BPA over need" Read what is said about Need -- "They are considered"

The way I look at drafting BPA versus need, is -- don't reach for need.


I agree I think need has to be considered. But its not a clinching decision. It all depends on how close player grades are.
User avatar
fredp45
Hog
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by fredp45 »

EA7649 --

Agreed. I never said, it's the over-riding factor, I just said it was a component, a part of the decision...others here have taken BPA to be absolute, concrete, regardless of needs. In other words, Needs does NOT enter the equation.

I use the example that a CB is the BPA every time you pick, do you pick 7 of them?
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

In the past I always felt need rather than just value. Even some people with mock drafts its a lot with need not value. Shows how some football experts are head of others. Yes I think positions need to be addressed. For your example, pick a few cb's you like and have an idea when they will be available. Address other positions that are close in value.

This example would NEVER happen...lets say there are plenty of CB in each round with grades 85-100. And every position through out the draft has a grade of 40-80. Then the logical action would be picking up a lot of CB's.
User avatar
Deadskins
JSPB22
JSPB22
Posts: 18395
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by Deadskins »

Yes, and then the article goes on to show the pitfalls of when he let need factor into his draft choices. He regrets having made need a priority.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

Exactly! And I'm sure Scot is aware about it.
User avatar
riggofan
HereComesTheDiesel
HereComesTheDiesel
Posts: 9460
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by riggofan »

fredp45 wrote:For all those posters (and you know who you are!!!) who blasted me for saying, "NEED has to be part of the equation, even when drafting BPA over need" Read what is said about Need -- "They are considered"


Whatever, man. I've followed all of those conversations and literally NOBODY has said that. You've been blasted by posters for statements like: "Hey! We signed Pot Roast so now we don't need to draft Danny Shelton."

I agree 100% that NEED is part of those equation. Its just shouldn't be THE factor when you're drafting BPA. We all know this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax
"We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
User avatar
markshark84
Hog
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by markshark84 »

In our situation, drafting for need is not a good idea. I have never been a fan of drafting for need, personally. HOWEVER, there are certain isolated situations where I would not consider 1 or 2 positions if we were (1) stockpiled with YOUNG talent at the position, who (2) had cap friendly long term deals, that (3) were in positions where they wouldn't "blow up" and sit out for a renegotiated deal. So ---- it is a VERY isolated situation where I wouldn't draft a particular position.

Then again, there are certain position that I don't consider as "valuable" as the others, like RB, FB, NT, MLB, TE where I wouldn't waste a 1st rounder on them. So there are a ton of variables, but ultimately I would remove those positions until about the 3rd round (2nd for certain positions in very isolated situations), remove any positions that meet the isolated 3 reqs above, and then take best player available.

But in our current situation, we need talent everywhere. I see no reason why Scot wouldn't take ANYONE at ANY POSITION (absent RB, FB, NT, MLB, or TE --- because they lack value) in the 1st or 2nd rounds (now, I would take a STUD RB, TE, MLB, or NT in the 2nd, but they'd have to be VERY dynamic; it would be a very isolated case and I don't see any in the current draft). And after round 3 why anyone would draft for need is beyond me. That is just plain stupid.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.
User avatar
riggofan
HereComesTheDiesel
HereComesTheDiesel
Posts: 9460
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by riggofan »

markshark84 wrote:But in our current situation, we need talent everywhere. I see no reason why Scot wouldn't take ANYONE at ANY POSITION (absent RB, FB, NT, MLB, or TE --- because they lack value)


I agree with what you're saying though I'm not sure why you're devaluing NT so much. That's such a key position in the 3-4. If there is really an elite guy available in the first round at that position, I'd have no problem with the team taking him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax
"We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

Isn't it a deep rb and wr draft? If that's the case pick them up later. Early on draft positions that have dynamic players with little depth in that position.
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

But I wouldn't be upset if Cooper is drafted at 5. It is what it is. Scot has the grades...

This feels like Madden drafting with franchise mode. Buy the player grades and find out if they will be a superstar. Lol. Something the Redskins didn't have much with in the past. I'm excited for Thursday!!
User avatar
riggofan
HereComesTheDiesel
HereComesTheDiesel
Posts: 9460
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by riggofan »

EA7649 wrote:Isn't it a deep rb and wr draft? If that's the case pick them up later.


Its deep. But that doesn't mean that drafting Sammie Coates in the 3rd round is as good as drafting Amari Cooper in the first. :)

EA7649 wrote:Early on draft positions that have dynamic players with little depth in that position.


I actually agree with what you're saying though. If you don't get one of those pass rushers early in the draft, you're not likely to find anyone nearly as good later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax
"We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

riggofan wrote:Its deep. But that doesn't mean that drafting Sammie Coates in the 3rd round is as good as drafting Amari Cooper in the first. :)

I actually agree with what you're saying though. If you don't get one of those pass rushers early in the draft, you're not likely to find anyone nearly as good later.


Its highly likely that Coates* will be a better wide receiver. But the same could be said for any position. Likely, higher the pick, higher the upside. Gotta choose your battles.
User avatar
fredp45
Hog
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by fredp45 »

Riggofan -- Not sure why I bother, as you're always right --go read the posts again!
Prowl33
Hog
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:56 am
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by Prowl33 »

The thing id love to know, but we never will, are what things are on Scots scale and how they are weighted.

Im sure you got things like, measurables (ht, wt, etc) film, workout performance, external interviews, player interview and personality, position value, and then need.

Factoring in need and drafting for need are different. Need may only be 10% of the score where film is 40% and the players personality is 20%.

I guess if I made my own it would be something like this...

Film 40%
Personality (from interviews, etc) 20%
Measurables 15%
Combine/workouts 15%
Need 10%


Then in the first round id cross off a few positions entirely.
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

^ Very true! From reports it seems that film and potential is a lot.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by SkinsJock »

no matter what 'formula' Scot uses. we have a lot more chance of adding players that will contribute following Scot's way of drafting than we have had in the past

need is a factor - this franchise needs better players - so that will certainly factor into Scot's thinking :lol:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
EA7649
||||||
||||||
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Below the Appalachian Trail
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by EA7649 »

http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsbl ... s-top-pick
With four days to go before the NFL draft, are the Redskins zeroing in on the player they will take with their top selection?

John Keim of ESPN talked with some people familiar with the way that Redskins general manager Scot McCloughan operates in the first round. McCloughan’s patterns point towards him picking one of the top two edge rushers in the draft with the fifth overall pick.

It was surprising to learn that McCloughan, who is well known for his “big players win” philosophy, values speed over size in the first round. That doesn’t matter a whole lot when you’re talking about Florida edge defender Dante Fowler Jr., who has both good size (6-3, 261) and speed (4.60 in the 40 at the combine). But it could be good news for Redskins fans who like edge defender Vic Beasley of Clemson. He is a bit undersized at 6-3, 246 but he was among the fastest edge players timed at the combine with a 4.53 in the 40.

There are a couple of wide receiver who are top-10 talents who have good size and speed. But based on his blueprint he isn’t likely to take either Amari Cooper or Kevin White at No. 5. The Redskins are pretty well set at wide receiver with Pierre Garçon and DeSean Jackson as the top two. Although White or Cooper could help some this year and certainly could help in 2016 and beyond as Garçon and Jackson get older and their contracts become more expensive, McCloughan doesn’t like to stack positions in the first round. In other words, as Keim put it, “in the first round McCloughan likes to draft best player—at area of need.”

And going by the blueprint you can forget about McCloughan rolling the dice and taking the talented but red-flag-laden Randy Gregory. The Nebraska edge rusher may be the most talented pass rusher in the draft and he has excellent speed (4.64) but a positive test for marijuana at the combine plus a few other issues make Gregory something of a gamble early in the draft. And McCloughan is adverse to taking character risks in the first round.

It should be noted that none of this is set in stone. But it’s safe to say that going by what McCloughan has done in the past is a better way to predict what he’ll do next Thursday than going by what he says. His actions in the past point towards the Redskins turning in a card with the name of Fowler or, if he’s gone, Beasley written on it. It would seem that Fowler would be McCloughan’s first choice because of his size advantage but he could be taken in the first four picks. If that happens, Beasley could well be the guy holding up a Redskins No. 1 jersey in Chicago on Thursday.
User avatar
markshark84
Hog
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by markshark84 »

riggofan wrote:
markshark84 wrote:But in our current situation, we need talent everywhere. I see no reason why Scot wouldn't take ANYONE at ANY POSITION (absent RB, FB, NT, MLB, or TE --- because they lack value)


I agree with what you're saying though I'm not sure why you're devaluing NT so much. That's such a key position in the 3-4. If there is really an elite guy available in the first round at that position, I'd have no problem with the team taking him.


It's not that I don't value the position, it is just that I don't think the differing talent levels amoung college NTs vs. impact deserve a pick at #5 or #38. We have pot roast, but he's under a 1 year deal, so that is no reason not to take a NT high ---- it's more that I don't see the talent level of the best NT vs. the 3rd best to be that different, combined with the fact they aren't "impact" type guys.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.
User avatar
riggofan
HereComesTheDiesel
HereComesTheDiesel
Posts: 9460
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by riggofan »

markshark84 wrote:It's not that I don't value the position, it is just that I don't think the differing talent levels amoung college NTs vs. impact deserve a pick at #5 or #38. We have pot roast, but he's under a 1 year deal, so that is no reason not to take a NT high ---- it's more that I don't see the talent level of the best NT vs. the 3rd best to be that different, combined with the fact they aren't "impact" type guys.


Gotcha, you might be right about that. I was more curious why you wouldn't consider drafting one in the first round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax
"We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
Prowl33
Hog
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:56 am
Contact:

Re: Draft value over need. We heard it...Still questions?

Post by Prowl33 »

I will say you guys are wrong. A NT may not show a direct statistical impact, but their impact on the players around them is bigger than any other front 7 player.

A monster NT draws 2-3 blockers, makes the 2 outside linemen create more pressure, in turn that allows thr OLOLB to make more pressure, and finally if you bring an ILB in and that NT is eating up the middle space then he has a free lane to the qb.
Post Reply