Let the 2015 mock draft begin....

[SkinsJock]

Scot is not taking a WR with our first pick in this draft - that's crazy ....

[SkinsJock]

I don't agree that need is not a factor. Said without all the negatives....I believe "need" enters into all personnel decisions.

A lot of posters are taking everything they hear so literally and emphatically.

"We will be a running team" - does that mean we won't ever throw the ball?
"We will play a 3-4 Defense" - does that mean 4 guys won't have their hands in the dirt occasionally?

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5, who some is saying a top player in the draft? Does Scot even value WRs that high? Look at Seattle's WRs. Again, BPA is based on a *sh$t* load of stuff!!!

the most important thing to keep in mind is that Scot and Jay will be drafting more for who can help this franchise long term rather than who they need this coming season - most franchises are refining their rosters - we're building ours

we need 4 starting offensive linemen and roughly 7+ defensive starters over the next 3 drafts - we also might need a starting QB and a starting WR over that same period

P A T I E N C E

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

Heres the deal.. we jave Djax Garçon and Moss/Roberts/Grant...
If White is perceived as the best player on the board when we pick, if his athleticism and skills set him apart from an ok lineman or what not.. even if its close I think Scott takes the best player- White.

[Prowl33]

I don't agree that need is not a factor. Said without all the negatives....I believe "need" enters into all personnel decisions.

A lot of posters are taking everything they hear so literally and emphatically.

"We will be a running team" - does that mean we won't ever throw the ball?
"We will play a 3-4 Defense" - does that mean 4 guys won't have their hands in the dirt occasionally?

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5, who some is saying a top player in the draft? Does Scot even value WRs that high? Look at Seattle's WRs. Again, BPA is based on a *sh$t* load of stuff!!!

the most important thing to keep in mind is that Scot and Jay will be drafting more for who can help this franchise long term rather than who they need this coming season - most franchises are refining their rosters - we're building ours

we need 4 starting offensive linemen and roughly 7+ defensive starters over the next 3 drafts - we also might need a starting QB and a starting WR over that same period

P A T I E N C E

The fact that we are starting fresh and everyone minus 2 players (kerrigan and trent) are expendable... Scot could pick literally any position at almost any time (obviously 1st round is a little different) so positions like RB, WR, QB, TE, C, CB etc...etc...etc... are all possibilities. Scot wants the right players that start as, and stay as redskins, and are guys he evaluates to be the best.

So be prepared for what looks like headscratching moves now... but 4 years from now youll look back and say ok I see why he took that WR or RB in the 2nd round, or TE or Center in the 3rd.

[SkinsJock]

I have changed my mind as a result of this from JSPB ...

Right, and are you not going to draft Jerry Rice because you already have Charley Taylor, Art Monk, Randy Moss, and Calvin Johnson on your roster? You can never have too many great players, even if they are at the same position.

that's a very good point and I understand that these guys have to look at each and every position not just as to who is here now but who will be here and still playing well in 3 years

again - like we've been saying - it's not about next season or 2016 - it's about 2017 ... at the earliest

so yes - Scot and Jay will be taking players that may not make 'sense' to the 'win now' crowd - that is because they understand that this is not Fantasy Football, it's about building a franchise with a winning attitude and not a losing altitude like we have had for over 10 years

[PulpExposure]

I have changed my mind as a result of this from JSPB ...

Right, and are you not going to draft Jerry Rice because you already have Charley Taylor, Art Monk, Randy Moss, and Calvin Johnson on your roster? You can never have too many great players, even if they are at the same position.

that's a very good point and I understand that these guys have to look at each and every position not just as to who is here now but who will be here and still playing well in 3 years

again - like we've been saying - it's not about next season or 2016 - it's about 2017 ... at the earliest

so yes - Scot and Jay will be taking players that may not make 'sense' to the 'win now' crowd - that is because they understand that this is not Fantasy Football, it's about building a franchise with a winning attitude and not a losing altitude like we have had for over 10 years

Also this post from Rich Tandler via CSN:

For one thing, there is a good chance that a WR will be the best available player. Kevin White of West Virginia is 6-3, fast, and can jump out of the stadium. Amari Cooper of Alabama is 6-1, fast, and one of the most NFL-ready receivers to enter the draft. It’s easy to see how either one of those receivers could grade out to be the top player on the board when the Redskins are on the clock.

And such a pick would not be a “luxury” pick for the Redskins. There is a very real need at wide receiver. Let’s look at the short term for a moment.

The Redskins have not had a true red zone wide receiver in years. The facts are that bigger receivers do better in the compressed area as teams get closer to the goal line. White is an obvious candidate to be an immediate red zone star. So is DeVante Parker of Louisville, also 6-3 and the other top receiver in the mix with Cooper and White. Cooper is not an obvious red zone threat but with his accurate route running the quarterback will always know where he is.

But the draft is really about the longer term so let’s look at the needs at wide receiver that will pop up over the next couple of years.

Starters Pierre Garçon and DeSean Jackson will both be 29 before the coming season ends. They both have big contracts; they will count a combined $19 million against the cap this year and in 2016, the last year of both of their deals, they will count nearly $20 million.

When their contracts are up after the 2016 season both will be 30 and possibly looking for one more big deal in their careers. If the Redskins are building through the draft those deals should not come from them.

In short, it seems likely that the Redskins will keep both Garçon and Jackson for the 2015 season. Beyond that, all bets are off.

Behind those two the Redskins don’t have many long-term answers. Andre Roberts’ salary bumps up to $4 million in 2016 and 2017, the last two years of his contract. He’s going to have a tough time justifying that pay grade. Ryan Grant could turn into a nice complimentary receiver, maybe a spot starter.

So what is generally regarded as an area of strength for the Redskins could be one of weakness just 12 months from now if they decide that one or both of their soon-to-be 30 receivers is not worth the salary.

The NFL draft is not about improving for the coming season; it is about getting better two or three years down the road. By that time Jackson and Garçon will certainly be gone and the Redskins could benefit from having a premium wide receiver like White or Cooper with the game figured out entering his prime seasons.

A lot can happen here. The smart money is still on the Redskins taking an edge rusher with their top pick. But setting up the wide receiver position for 2016 and beyond is not out of the question by any means.

Pretty good analysis honestly.

[Prowl33]

Very good read for the WR corps and can pretty much be said of every position on our team at this point.

[riggofan]

Pretty good analysis honestly.

Right on, man. Tandler's post breaks it down perfectly. Yeah drafting a WR looks like an insane move for 2015. But if you consider what that player means for the team in 2016 it makes a ton of sense. That's EXACTLY what has to change with this team. Quit acting like there is an immediate fix for this team.

For the record, I still think one of those OLBs will be the best player on the board at #5.

[Deadskins]

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

If he thinks he is the BPA, then yes, I absolutely believe he would. I don't think having Garcon and DJax would figure into his decision at all.

[Countertrey]

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

If he thinks he is the BPA, then yes, I absolutely believe he would. I don't think having Garcon and DJax would figure into his decision at all.

Yup.

[riggofan]

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

Does anybody believe Garcon and DJax are going to be our starting WRs for the next 3-4 years?

[Prowl33]

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

Does anybody believe Garcon and DJax are going to be our starting WRs for the next 3-4 years?

If you made me guess... id say likely not.. but possible if either of them really proves their value this year and next... or otherwise took a paycut

[riggofan]

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

Does anybody believe Garcon and DJax are going to be our starting WRs for the next 3-4 years?

If you made me guess... id say likely not.. but possible if either of them really proves their value this year and next... or otherwise took a paycut

Yeah, DJax is going into year two of a three year contract. Garcon is entering the fourth year of a five year contract. They'll both be free agents and 32 years old in 2017. Pay cut or not, its pretty unlikely.

[SkinsJock]

I'm encouraged and looking forward to this draft - this does seem to be a different way of doing things here ...

it will take a little time but it can be done if the right guys are in charge

[Countertrey]

For the last 5 or 6 seasons, we have known exactly what the team was going to do.

Having no clue what the team will do with the pick is kind of nice!

[SkinsJock]

For the last 5 or 6 seasons, we have known exactly what the team was going to do.

Having no clue what the team will do with the pick is kind of nice!

ain't that the truth

[EA7649]

I'd like to pick White, a tall, talented wide receiver. But I'd also like to know what Scott is thinking about later round picks with players in need for 2015 season.

[Irn-Bru]

I don't agree that need is not a factor. Said without all the negatives....I believe "need" enters into all personnel decisions.

A lot of posters are taking everything they hear so literally and emphatically.

"We will be a running team" - does that mean we won't ever throw the ball?
"We will play a 3-4 Defense" - does that mean 4 guys won't have their hands in the dirt occasionally?

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5, who some is saying a top player in the draft? Does Scot even value WRs that high? Look at Seattle's WRs. Again, BPA is based on a load of stuff!!!

I get that you are just trying to inject some balance that you think is missing, but . . . all I'm hearing is that you think a team's positional needs is an important factor in determining who the best player available is and therefore who they pick.

What everyone else is trying to say is: it's not BPA anymore if need is one of the main factors to consider.

I think what you're contending is that "best player available" means something like "the best player we could have drafted," which will take into account fit and team needs. But that's really just called "drafting well," not BPA. Everyone wants to draft well; not a single NFL executive will say they are not trying to draft well. Even Vinny Ceratto was attempting the "drafting well" strategy.

Except that drafting well isn't a strategy. That's like saying "my strategy when I play golf is to hit the lowest score I can." OK, that's what everyone wants . . . the question is always, how do you do that? What's the best strategy to achieve that result?

For McCloughan, the best strategy for drafting well is BPA, which — like it or not, agree or disagree — doesn't give much of a damn about what the team's positional needs are. (I still think it can come into play in a coin flip scenario, as I wrote in a previous post, but that's just because it's impossible to grade a bunch of different people in different positions on a single scale.) There's a paradox there because people think that "the best player we could have drafted" should line up with some gaping need of ours. But what McCloughan's school of thought says is that trying to overlap the best talent with your biggest needs, as well as "timing the market" on draft day, means that you are going to be missing more than you hit. His school of thought says, if you hit more than you miss, problems concerning team need will rectify themselves.

Really, the quotes from our new GM that have been posted in this thread couldn't possibly have made that any clearer: team needs basically don't have anything to do with how he decides to draft. This is coming from the man himself!

You might think that's the wrong strategy to pursue, you might hate the idea, you might think it will fail, but the one thing you have to concede is that BPA — which by definition means not considering team needs when determining who's the best on the board — is definitely what the Redskins are going to be doing.

This makes the answer to your question quite clear: we have Garcon and Jackson on the roster, but YES, we might very well draft a receiver with the #5 pick, if that's who the scouts have determined is the best overall football player on the board.

[Deadskins]

I don't agree that need is not a factor. Said without all the negatives....I believe "need" enters into all personnel decisions.

A lot of posters are taking everything they hear so literally and emphatically.

"We will be a running team" - does that mean we won't ever throw the ball?
"We will play a 3-4 Defense" - does that mean 4 guys won't have their hands in the dirt occasionally?

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5, who some is saying a top player in the draft? Does Scot even value WRs that high? Look at Seattle's WRs. Again, BPA is based on a load of stuff!!!

I get that you are just trying to inject some balance that you think is missing, but . . . all I'm hearing is that you think a team's positional needs is an important factor in determining who the best player available is and therefore who they pick.

What everyone else is trying to say is: it's not BPA anymore if need is one of the main factors to consider.

I think what you're contending is that "best player available" means something like "the best player we could have drafted," which will take into account fit and team needs. But that's really just called "drafting well," not BPA. Everyone wants to draft well; not a single NFL executive will say they are not trying to draft well. Even Vinny Ceratto was attempting the "drafting well" strategy.

Except that drafting well isn't a strategy. That's like saying "my strategy when I play golf is to hit the lowest score I can." OK, that's what everyone wants . . . the question is always, how do you do that? What's the best strategy to achieve that result?

For McCloughan, the best strategy for drafting well is BPA, which — like it or not, agree or disagree — doesn't give much of a damn about what the team's positional needs are. (I still think it can come into play in a coin flip scenario, as I wrote in a previous post, but that's just because it's impossible to grade a bunch of different people in different positions on a single scale.) There's a paradox there because people think that "the best player we could have drafted" should line up with some gaping need of ours. But what McCloughan's school of thought says is that trying to overlap the best talent with your biggest needs, as well as "timing the market" on draft day, means that you are going to be missing more than you hit. His school of thought says, if you hit more than you miss, problems concerning team need will rectify themselves.

Really, the quotes from our new GM that have been posted in this thread couldn't possibly have made that any clearer: team needs basically don't have anything to do with how he decides to draft. This is coming from the man himself!

You might think that's the wrong strategy to pursue, you might hate the idea, you might think it will fail, but the one thing you have to concede is that BPA — which by definition means not considering team needs when determining who's the best on the board — is definitely what the Redskins are going to be doing.

This makes the answer to your question quite clear: we have Garcon and Jackson on the roster, but YES, we might very well draft a receiver with the #5 pick, if that's who the scouts have determined is the best overall football player on the board.

I would also add that free agency is where you address team needs. Drafting is more about the future than about the present. You are trying to solidify your roster two or three years down the road. Hopefully, players you draft will be with the team in four years when their rookie contract is up, and then you can decide if you want to renew and sign them to a long-term deal. You use FA to fill holes, and the draft to build depth.

[SkinsJock]

... free agency is where you address team needs. Drafting is more about the future than about the present. You are trying to solidify your roster two or three years down the road. Hopefully, players you draft will be with the team in four years when their rookie contract is up, and then you can decide if you want to renew and sign them to a long-term deal. You use FA to fill holes, and the draft to build depth.

BINGO - that sums it up pretty well

and with this franchise - this is the best plan ... IMHO of course

btw - we presently have 5 picks in the top 150

[fredp45]

Irn Bru --

We can agree to disagree...

I wonder, does BPA take drug use into consideration? NAHHHHH...it's BPA regardless!!!

So, we're ready to pick in the 2nd round and BPA is a CB, and in the 3rd it's a CB, and in the 4th it's a CB...yep, we'd have a team full of 6' 195 lb guys!!! Hopefully, some of them can play TE!!!

[fredp45]

Don't be confused, I agree with the concept of BPA...I just don't agree with how a team's BPA board is put together, and what factors go into that determination!

I do not agree with drafting for need and reaching for need -- like Vinnie did with 2 WRs and 1 TE in the 2nd round...that was horrible.

[riggofan]

I wonder, does BPA take drug use into consideration? NAHHHHH...it's BPA regardless!!!

Why wouldn't a BPA evaluation take drug use into consideration? If a guy is a pothead who can't pass a test and is likely to be suspended, is he really the best player?

McGloughan supposedly does a lot of research into players' backgrounds and character. I'm sure drug use would figure heavily into the equation.

Failing a drug test at the NFL combine tells you a lot about Randy Gregory. The fact that we need a safety doesn't tell you anything about him.

[Irn-Bru]

Irn Bru --

We can agree to disagree...

We can agree to disagree and have different opinions on whether something is good or bad. That's fine, and I totally get where you are coming from in this debate. But part of the debate too is about something objective, which is what Scot McCloughan is going to be doing as GM and what BPA means. I don't know what it means to "disagree" with a definition that McCloughan himself has given.

I wonder, does BPA take drug use into consideration? NAHHHHH...it's BPA regardless!!!

Not true, BPA takes into account things like character and intangibles such as drive, competitiveness, etc.

What I don't get is why "Oh, the Redskins signed 3 DLs in free agency" has any affect whatsoever on how good a player from a college team is. Where does this mystical power come from where if I sign X player from the Raiders, suddenly the quarterback from UCLA just got worse!

So, we're ready to pick in the 2nd round and BPA is a CB, and in the 3rd it's a CB, and in the 4th it's a CB...yep, we'd have a team full of 6' 195 lb guys!!! Hopefully, some of them can play TE!!!

Well, what's interesting about BPA is that you end up with a balanced team anyway. The difference is — if the strategy is successful — that the average quality of each player is higher. And that you are more likely to have a few superstars on the team, because you weren't waiting for your needs to line up with whichever talent was best.

Of course, the reality is that having CBs be the BPA in each round when we pick is the equivalent of getting struck by lightning. The fact that McCloughan's teams in the past drafted various positions is not in any way a proof that you are right. In reality, by drafting BPA you get a mix of players, some of whom are surprises to commentators and fans who assumed that the team "had" to "address" X, Y, or Z position in the draft.

You should the statements made by Gruden and McCloughan this offseason, though, because they have literally said that they would draft WR after WR if that's who they thought was best. So we come back to the point I made above: you can disagree that this is a good thing, but it should be clear by now that you can't disagree about what BPA is. Every reductio ad absurdum you throw out there has actually been endorsed by McCloughan. Listen to the man if you are in doubt. Time to say uncle!

[fredp45]

and you believe everything -- or ANYTHING -- you hear from NFL GMs and coaches right now?