The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Best Redskin picks within recent memory:

- Art Monk: WR and RB. Did the Redskins need a receiver in 1980? A "nice to have", since Charlie Taylor and Roy Jefferson had retired, while Frank Grant had been a "one-season" wonder. But the first first-rounder since the '60s?

- Darrell Green: Who? The Redskins needed a QB to train and replace Joe Theisman. U of Maryland's Boomer Esiason was available, but the Redskins drafted a 5-9 inch corner from a little college in Texas.

- Sean Taylor: Why? Did the Redskins need a DB? Everyone knew that a great athlete at LB might control the game, as Lawrence Taylor had done, or Junior Seau, but why draft a safety?

Let's give this draft a few months before concluding that the team bungled this draft.

many are still confused by the way Scot and this FO are rebuilding this franchise - they do not look at needs - these guys are looking ahead and taking/adding players they feel will help this franchise, regardless of position - this is not how most franchises go about building a franchise or managing a draft - Scot and this FO have earned (in a very short time) the right to wait and see how things work out ...


btw - we were a playoff franchise more by virtue of the other franchises making a complete mess of the season than by our superior play

this is going to be an interesting year as we determine if both Gruden and Cousins are a part of the future here - I'm a lot more confident about Cousins than Gruden but both have something to prove - we now seem to have a good number of draft picks going into the next draft - that could prove to be helpful

SkinsJock wrote:many are still confused by the way Scot and this FO are rebuilding this franchise - they do not look at needs - these guys are looking ahead and taking/adding players they feel will help this franchise, regardless of position - this is not how most franchises go about building a franchise or managing a draft - Scot and this FO have earned (in a very short time) the right to wait and see how things work out ...

I think you're dead right on that, SJ. Tandler wrote about this really well this AM:

If you haven’t figured it out after two drafts I don’t know if you can be helped. Scot McCloughan doesn’t care what you think, what I think, what Mel Kiper, Mike Mayock or any other draft analyst thinks, or what anyone else thinks. He is going to do things his way.

Immediate needs are not on his to-do list when he approaches the draft. Even though most viewed someone who can play nose tackle as their most pressing issue, he didn’t take a defensive lineman in the first round. Or in the second, third, or fourth rounds. The defensive lineman he took in the fifth may or may not play nose tackle.

It’s more important to him to get a good player who fits what they do not just in terms of scheme but also in terms of the culture the organization is trying to build than it is to plug a hole with a player who doesn’t really fit. If you make a habit out of that you will find yourself shopping for another player to fill that hole a couple of years later.

Again, if you haven’t figured this out by now you possibly never will and you’ll probably be perpetually disappointed in the Redskins’ drafts for as long as he’s here.

Pretty well said, eh?

SkinsJock wrote:this is going to be an interesting year as we determine if both Gruden and Cousins are a part of the future here - I'm a lot more confident about Cousins than Gruden but both have something to prove - we now seem to have a good number of draft picks going into the next draft - that could prove to be helpful

Probably a topic for another thread. I know you're not a huge Gruden fan, but barring an epic coaching meltdown this year I don't see any reason to expect the team to move on from Gruden anytime soon. From what I've read he seems to have a good relationship with Scot and there doesn't seem to be a lot of daylight between them. Judging from the past year, it looks like a pretty good working relationship. Scot gets the players, and Gruden coaches them to win the NFC East.

riggins5124 wrote: HAIL TO THE CHIEFS

Ummm... I see.

riggins5124 wrote:i like doctson as well ,, but unless desean or garçon traded at deadline how many snaps is he gonna see ....

LOT'S in the Red Zone... and they will create ways to get him on the field. I won't be surprised if one of the ones you mentioned gets traded.

Countertrey wrote:

riggins5124 wrote:i like doctson as well ,, but unless desean or garçon traded at deadline how many snaps is he gonna see ....

LOT'S in the Red Zone... and they will create ways to get him on the field. I won't be surprised if one of the ones you mentioned gets traded.

I'll be surprised if we see much of Doctson until after the bye week. This team is transitioning from the 'hope this works' to the calculated 'I know this will work' attitude you get after countless repititions and Doctson proves himself without any surprises. Scott is going to keep Garcon to teach Doctson .

Interesting that SM said this morning that had Tunsil fell to 21 there would have been a conversation about taking him. I'm sure he would have been BPA on their board, I'm guessing the conversation would have been about character.

DEHog wrote:Interesting that SM said this morning that had Tunsil fell to 21 there would have been a conversation about taking him. I'm sure he would have been BPA on their board, I'm guessing the conversation would have been about character.

Interesting indeed. I also read that Ryan Kelly was the guy they were ideally targeting in the first round. Probably kind of surprised that the Colts took him ahead.

I have heard from some people I consider to be reliable and have read from some media types that the Redskins’ top target in this draft was Alabama center Ryan Kelly. If he had been there when pick No. 21 came up McCloughan would have turned in a card with his name on it.

To be clear, I’m not quoting a sourced report here or anything like that. I’ve seen and heard it from enough reliable people to believe it but I certainly understand if others are skeptical.

But let’s assume that it’s true. Most would figure that if he was going to draft a center in the first round he must have considered center to be a position of need.

If it is a position of need, however, you would think that the Redskins would draft a center somewhere along the line. But they didn’t draft a center in the second round. Or the third. Or the—, well, you get the idea. Six centers went in the draft and none went to the Redskins. Jack Allen of Michigan State, a center who could well have gone in the middle or later rounds, went undrafted but the Redskins did not bring him in as a free agent. They didn’t draft a guard they might convert to center either.

In fact, if you go back to free agency, McCloughan didn’t sign a center then, either.

McCloughan didn’t want just any center; he wanted Ryan Kelly on the team. As the draft went on he tried to find players that had the same traits that Kelly has—toughness, leadership, dedication—whether or not he played center.

Yes SM confirmed that they were high on Kelly, this was the pick ey wanted.

Optimistic view. We just drafted ...

1 Odell Beckham, Jr.

2 Cam Chancellor

3 Brandon Flowers

5 JJ Watt

6 Big Ben

7 Bo Jackson

7 London Fletcher

Sorry about my spelling.

riggins5124 wrote:riggins5124
WE are repeatly told defense esp run stopping needing addressing was this really addressed? We were told DEfENSE was the strength of the draft ..did we really use it.
We were told we wanted to come away with more draft picks instead we watch many teams do just ...this in fact we ended up with less picks ..of the 7 picks we added to
to our playoff team perhaps 1 only will be an impact starter this year with the others seemingly moves to counter free agency in 2017.. thank god we got Norman before
the draft.HAIL TO THE CHIEFS
Top
Post a replyQuick Reply 1 post • Page 1 of 1

I don't think you understand how Scot drafts or how effective drafting works overall......

One of our primary needs may have been DL, but (and I agree with Scot) that you take the most talented player. If you are a true skins fan, you should know that history has show us (in a very harsh way) that depth and talent are more important than merely filling needs. After analyzing this draft, I can see now what Scot is trying to do and it is awesome. Cravens for example, can play LB or DB --- so if we have an injuries like we did last year in our secondary, he can fill in at DB and Hall can move to CB or whatnot. Now will he be a starter --- I don't know as I am not that familiar with him, but based on what I have heard, he could very well start at DB.

Meanwhile our #1 AND 2 WRs are in their contract years. It is inevitable that 1 will not return in 2017. Smart GMs don't wait until the emergency --- they prepare so it doesn't happen. Drafting Doctson gives us the ability to help the cap in 2017 by only signing 1 (or none) of Garcon and Jackson in 2017 while keeping a decent WR core of Jackson/Garcon, Doctson, Crowder, Ross, Grant. If we wait, we'd be desperate and now forced to overpay. That is just dumb.

And when you have depth at DT like you did in this draft ---- you don't use your #1 there. You want VALUE --- if the difference in talent/production between your Rd1 and Rd3 picks are marginal (even if your Rd1 pick is the "best at the position in the draft"), you wait and pick later. You want your Rd1 pick to be a clear cut above any other player you are going to get in Rd2 and beyond. And you never draft a "run stuffer" in Rd1, since there is value at this position as late as Rd4. In Rd1, you take the best talent at the most valued position. Those positions are typically QB, OT, DE/3-4 pass rush OLB, CB, WR --- and of the first 26 picks, 22 picks were taken at one of those positions. Scot is no fool. He knew how to work a draft. He got a WR who was a clear cut above the next 2-3 taken at the position. And I believe that Scot thought a DT would be available at 53 --- after all you would have to have predicted that 7 of the next 30 would be taken on DTs, which isn't likely; but it did and therefore the "gamble" didn't work out. Instead we got a potential starting DB, another area of need.

For example, Scot could have:
1. Draft Doctson, Cravens, trade 120 for Ioannidis and a 2015 5th (what happened) --- best scenario.
2. Draft Doctson, Cravens, and Billings at 23, 53, and 120 --- not bad; or
3. Draft Doctson and then, trade for GB's 48th pick, draft Reed, and giving up our 53 and 120. Then we wouldn't have gotten Cravens, Ioannidis or the 2017 5th rounder --- basically sacrificing a starting caliber DB, depth at DT/DE, and a draft pick for a non-3 down run stuffer;
4. Draft one of the 4 or 5 DTs prospected to be a 1-2 rd pick (Robinson, Reed, Nkemd, Butler, Billings, Clark) and Cravens (as you would have liked it) --- which is CLEARLY the worst case as we could have drafted another player with our Rd1 selection and gotten the same value 25 picks later.....

We also came away with 3 additional future picks without sacrificing much. And he did this for a specific reason --- the 2017 salary cap. With Norman counting for $20M and Cousins suspectfully in the $20+ range as well as Reed, Jackson, Garcon, and Galette resigning, cap casualties will be made next year --- so we need low cost, high return players to step in in the form of mid round draft picks. It was honestly a smart move.

DEHog wrote:Yes SM confirmed that they were high on Kelly, this was the pick ey wanted.

Kelly, from what I have heard, would have been ideal for us. People were saying he is the best C to come out in quite some time.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Interesting that SM said this morning that had Tunsil fell to 21 there would have been a conversation about taking him. I'm sure he would have been BPA on their board, I'm guessing the conversation would have been about character.

Interesting indeed. I also read that Ryan Kelly was the guy they were ideally targeting in the first round. Probably kind of surprised that the Colts took him ahead.

I have heard from some people I consider to be reliable and have read from some media types that the Redskins’ top target in this draft was Alabama center Ryan Kelly. If he had been there when pick No. 21 came up McCloughan would have turned in a card with his name on it.

To be clear, I’m not quoting a sourced report here or anything like that. I’ve seen and heard it from enough reliable people to believe it but I certainly understand if others are skeptical.

But let’s assume that it’s true. Most would figure that if he was going to draft a center in the first round he must have considered center to be a position of need.

If it is a position of need, however, you would think that the Redskins would draft a center somewhere along the line. But they didn’t draft a center in the second round. Or the third. Or the—, well, you get the idea. Six centers went in the draft and none went to the Redskins. Jack Allen of Michigan State, a center who could well have gone in the middle or later rounds, went undrafted but the Redskins did not bring him in as a free agent. They didn’t draft a guard they might convert to center either.

In fact, if you go back to free agency, McCloughan didn’t sign a center then, either.

McCloughan didn’t want just any center; he wanted Ryan Kelly on the team. As the draft went on he tried to find players that had the same traits that Kelly has—toughness, leadership, dedication—whether or not he played center.

I wonder what Scott's 'Plan B' is? I expected him to go after Allen, if he went undrafted can he be brought in for another looksee? If I read Scott right he is the kind of guy that makes a decision and moves on from there, he won't go back. I am certain he has thought this thru and knows of a free agent or a trade is in the works.

Most would figure that if he was going to draft a center in the first round he must have considered center to be a position of need.

If it is a position of need, however, you would think that the Redskins would draft a center somewhere along the line. But they didn’t draft a center in the second round. Or the third. Or the—, well, you get the idea. Six centers went in the draft and none went to the Redskins.

Not if you understand how SM drafts BPA and not for need.

Mel Kiper likes this Redskin draft...which worries me. Details:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... -kiper-jr/

Deadskins wrote:

Most would figure that if he was going to draft a center in the first round he must have considered center to be a position of need.

If it is a position of need, however, you would think that the Redskins would draft a center somewhere along the line. But they didn’t draft a center in the second round. Or the third. Or the—, well, you get the idea. Six centers went in the draft and none went to the Redskins.

Not if you understand how SM drafts BPA and not for need.

That was the point of Tandler's article. Most fans still don't seem to get it.

I wonder if that's true league wide or specific to DC?

welch wrote:Mel Kiper likes this Redskin draft...which worries me. Details:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... -kiper-jr/

He gave Scot an A- last year too. Wouldn't worry about it.

look no further than ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr, who called the Redskins’ draft “one of his favorite classes.”

Last year, Kiper graded the Redskins’ draft an A-, marking the first time since 2008 that he gave Washington a grade higher than a C+. Despite the Redskins not addressing their needs along the defensive line early in the draft and taking a player in Fuller coming off microfracture surgery on his right knee, Kiper praised McCloughan’s draft for a second consecutive year. He gave the Redskins an A-, tied for his second-highest grade.

You kind of have to give Mel some credit. He's made a living making a list of the most obvious best college players every year. Its not a huge risk for him to say that McCloughan drafted well this year or any other year.

At least these writers see the sense in hindsight. They tell us we need players A, B or C, in positions X, Y or Z, then when go in a completely different direction they realise that we've done things pretty well.

I have to admit that last year I did some head scratching over Scott M's draftees. At the end of the year, 6 of them were contributing starters. I also did some head scratching with this years draft but learned from last year that Scott M knows what he is doing far better than I could. If he can build a team like he did in Green Bay, Seattle and San F, I will be a happy camper. All three of those teams have been mentioned as Super Bowl contenders for years. San F is the exception because the way they have drafted since.

Oh, dear Lord, let us have a team that is mentioned as a Super Bowl contender every year.

aswas71788 wrote:I have to admit that last year I did some head scratching over Scott M's draftees. At the end of the year, 6 of them were contributing starters. I also did some head scratching with this years draft but learned from last year that Scott M knows what he is doing far better than I could. If he can build a team like he did in Green Bay, Seattle and San F, I will be a happy camper. All three of those teams have been mentioned as Super Bowl contenders for years. San F is the exception because the way they have drafted since.

Oh, dear Lord, let us have a team that is mentioned as a Super Bowl contender every year.

I liked the 2015 draft class last year overall, but I thought there were 2 main headscrathcers:
1. Picking Scherff (knowing he was a guard) over Williams --- who I thought was the BPA at #4. Williams is more of a 4-3 DT, but Bowles runs both a 3-4 and 4-3 depending on the situation. Williams was able to produce in both. That being said, I am not unhappy with the Scherff selection, he has improved greatly since week 1 and hopefully this will continue as he is still not as far along as we need him to be. He has proven he is worth a Rd1 selection for sure, but whether he was worthy of a #4 selection is yet to be determined.
2. Drafting Even Spencer. Nothing in his prior college indicated he'd be a contributor. Because OSU was stacked at WR, Scot may have thought he was getting a diamond in the rough, but Urban Meyer is a VERY good coach and talent evaluator --- Spencer would have had more production at OSU if he had the talent.

Outside of those 2 the draft was very good:
- Smith had Rd1 production
- Jones had his fumbling issues and if he can work those out be a #1 RB,
- nothing needs to be said about Crowder's production,
- Koujaidia (SP) is a local product and stepped in decently last year.
- Jarrett played very well in nickel and was a contributor (as a 6rd pick)
- Spaight got hurt
- Mitchel got hurt
- Reiter is still here as a 7rd pick
In that draft, we got 4 players that are starting caliber and 2 (Jarrett and Kou) that could be significant contributors. I also feel Spaight can be a contributor as well. That's a very good draft.

As far as this draft, I see as many as 5 contributors and 3 starters within a year. That isn't too bad either.

As far as the Kiper comments --- I find him to be one of the better "pundits" out there. McShay is a total joke --- I have more experience evaluating football than him. If McShay likes our class, then I'll be worried; Kiper, not so much. At least Kiper sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Scot and this FO have earned the respect of their peers and the attitude associated with this franchise has changed dramatically

since Dan Snyder bought this franchise, we have been widely regarded as one of the 5 worst in the NFL - the end of 2014 was a low point

the people in charge now have earned (in a very short period) the time it takes to properly evaluate the players they have added



not long ago we were wishing and hoping good things were going to happen - now we expect it

riggofan wrote:

welch wrote:Mel Kiper likes this Redskin draft...which worries me. Details:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... -kiper-jr/

He gave Scot an A- last year too. Wouldn't worry about it.

look no further than ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr, who called the Redskins’ draft “one of his favorite classes.”

Last year, Kiper graded the Redskins’ draft an A-, marking the first time since 2008 that he gave Washington a grade higher than a C+. Despite the Redskins not addressing their needs along the defensive line early in the draft and taking a player in Fuller coming off microfracture surgery on his right knee, Kiper praised McCloughan’s draft for a second consecutive year. He gave the Redskins an A-, tied for his second-highest grade.

You kind of have to give Mel some credit. He's made a living making a list of the most obvious best college players every year. Its not a huge risk for him to say that McCloughan drafted well this year or any other year.

I had never heard of Kiper before the draft in which the Redskins took Heath Shuler, Tampa Bay took Trent Dilfer, and the Colts skipped QBs to take Marshall Faulk. About 1994, a draft that will live in infamy around here. The Colts had dumped "star" QB Jeff George, so Kiper insisted that the Colts had to draft either Dilfer or Shuler. Kiper thought Dilfer and Shuler were future all-pro QBs. Faulk was just a running back...no big deal.

Didn't Kiper claim that the Colts had insulted him by ignoring his advice?

right you are welch - Kiper has always been so full of himself and his I know better than anyone attitude is tiring

here's the you tube deal ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK_ABNHjbk4

markshark84 wrote:1. Picking Scherff (knowing he was a guard) over Williams --- who I thought was the BPA at #4. Williams is more of a 4-3 DT, but Bowles runs both a 3-4 and 4-3 depending on the situation. Williams was able to produce in both. That being said, I am not unhappy with the Scherff selection, he has improved greatly since week 1 and hopefully this will continue as he is still not as far along as we need him to be. He has proven he is worth a Rd1 selection for sure, but whether he was worthy of a #4 selection is yet to be determined.

Its not even close for me. I'd still take Scherff over Williams in a heartbeat. McCloughan set the tone with that pick on what type of players he wanted and what type of team he was planning to build. He's the blueprint. Look at Docston - same type of guy. If Ryan Kelly had been the pick, same thing.

I like Williams but didn't we get basically the same production or more out of second round pick Preston Smith?
Williams 2015: 63 COMB tackles, 29 tackles, 34 ast tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 fumbles recovered
Smith 2015: 35 combined tackles, 24 tackles, 11 ast. tackles, 9 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 1 fumbles recovered

Smith played like 300 fewer snaps on defense than Williams too.

riggofan wrote: I like Williams but didn't we get basically the same production or more out of second round pick Preston Smith?
Williams 2015: 63 COMB tackles, 29 tackles, 34 ast tackles, 3 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 0 fumbles recovered
Smith 2015: 35 combined tackles, 24 tackles, 11 ast. tackles, 9 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 1 fumbles recovered

Smith played like 300 fewer snaps on defense than Williams too.

Last year was just a taste. This year, McCloughan established that he is a very different kind of draft manager. I bet we get even better results this year than last.
There is not a single mock that got a damned thing right, but, once done, the experts are, like, "yeah... that makes sense"... Next year, the challenge for these mocks will be "who is best available on Scot's board". Let's see who rises to the occasion.