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

fredp45 wrote: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!!!

SkinsJock wrote:

fredp45 wrote: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

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.

SkinsJock wrote: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

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.

PulpExposure wrote:Pretty good analysis honestly.

fredp45 wrote:If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

Deadskins wrote:

fredp45 wrote: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.

fredp45 wrote:If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5

riggofan wrote:

fredp45 wrote: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 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

fredp45 wrote: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

Countertrey wrote: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!

fredp45 wrote: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!!!

Irn-Bru wrote:

fredp45 wrote: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 wrote: ... 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.

fredp45 wrote:I wonder, does BPA take drug use into consideration? NAHHHHH...it's BPA regardless!!!

fredp45 wrote: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!!!