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

Other than a left tackle I think the Redskins have needs just about everywhere so pulling the trigger on the BPA makes sense, I don't think this is going to be a struggle. I hope they do two things:

1. Trade down if they get the chance. With so many holes in the roster it would be smarter to have more quality picks than the 5th pick in the draft IMHO.

2. Draft good character. There is no excuse for using a high draft pick on a guy with issues. The Browns are the most recent example of a team spending a first round draft choice on a guy with known behavioral issues. I hope they are really sure about the make up of the first few choices and make sound decisions on solid young men. I know young men make mistakes growing up but spending a high pick on a guy with a history of behavior problems is reckless and stupid. Two guys to avoid this time in my opinion are Winston and Gregory, I'm sure there are others.

OldSchool wrote:Other than a left tackle I think the Redskins have needs just about everywhere so pulling the trigger on the BPA makes sense, I don't think this is going to be a struggle. I hope they do two things:

1. Trade down if they get the chance. With so many holes in the roster it would be smarter to have more quality picks than the 5th pick in the draft IMHO.

2. Draft good character. There is no excuse for using a high draft pick on a guy with issues. The Browns are the most recent example of a team spending a first round draft choice on a guy with known behavioral issues. I hope they are really sure about the make up of the first few choices and make sound decisions on solid young men. I know young men make mistakes growing up but spending a high pick on a guy with a history of behavior problems is reckless and stupid. Two guys to avoid this time in my opinion are Winston and Gregory, I'm sure there are others.

Add Ray to the list. We can not afford to miss at #5, so we shouldn't take a player who is a character risk there.

I would imagine Scot's BIG BOARD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DUE WITH NEED, while some of his SELECTIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES MIGHT.

I would also imagine his board has sequences in it like this (numbers simply for illustrative purposes):

1-8 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

9-14 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

15-18 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

19-23 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

.... etc.

So BPA rules the creation of the big board and need only enters as a tie-breaker when on the clock.

I suspect Scot has some guys ranked higher than other GMs and when our turns come, he will have a guy he wants so much, he will completely ignore need.

DarthMonk wrote:I would imagine Scot's BIG BOARD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DUE WITH NEED, while some of his SELECTIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES MIGHT.

I would also imagine his board has sequences in it like this (numbers simply for illustrative purposes):

1-8 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

9-14 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

15-18 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

19-23 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

.... etc.

So BPA rules the creation of the big board and need only enters as a tie-breaker when on the clock.

I suspect Scot has some guys ranked higher than other GMs and when our turns come, he will have a guy he wants so much, he will completely ignore need.

Agreed. At most I see need serving as a coin-flip-type decider. I like these guys about the same; one has these strengths versus these weaknesses, the other guy has these strengths versus these weaknesses . . . could go either way. Well, which might serve our scheme and need better? Oh, that one? OK, let's go with him.

McCloughan gave another press conference yesterday, where he YET AGAIN said that need "does not affect our draft process whatsoever."

If there's anyone out there who still thinks the Redskins are going to be drafting with team position needs among their top five or six considerations, it's just willful self-deception at this point.

DarthMonk wrote:I would imagine Scot's BIG BOARD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DUE WITH NEED, while some of his SELECTIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES MIGHT.

I would also imagine his board has sequences in it like this (numbers simply for illustrative purposes):

1-8 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

9-14 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

15-18 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

19-23 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

.... etc.

So BPA rules the creation of the big board and need only enters as a tie-breaker when on the clock.

I suspect Scot has some guys ranked higher than other GMs and when our turns come, he will have a guy he wants so much, he will completely ignore need.

I would think what you have above is logical, but didn't Scot once say that no players are "equal" --- that every player can be ranked 1-256? I may be wrong but for some reason I remember hearing/reading that.

I do think that BPA is the best approach in our situation (and basically every situation really), so I won't be surprised if they have a "big board" listed 1-256+ and remove as picks are taken --- and when the time comes take the player sitting at the top of that list.

As far as your comment that need will be a consideration when the time comes --- I am not sure that is the case. Especially in the later rounds. While I dont' agree with the approach, I have seen teams draft for need in rounds 1-3, but after those rounds, you are looking for talent irrespective of position. Now, I have provided my personal opinions as to BPA and how draft "value" can influence whether a player is truly "BPA" --- so I would assume Scot has the same opinions as I do in the sense that he would, for example, never draft a Punter at #5 even if he was the greatest punter to come out in the past 25 years, simply because you don't draft punters in the first round.

That being said, if Scot sees a "need" that would be a reach at a certain draft spot and has the opportunity to trade down to get that player and more picks --- then I could see that happening. At the end of the day, is it 100% about maximizing the value you receive from each pick.

markshark84 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:I would imagine Scot's BIG BOARD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DUE WITH NEED, while some of his SELECTIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES MIGHT.

I would also imagine his board has sequences in it like this (numbers simply for illustrative purposes):

1-8 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

9-14 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

15-18 with clear distinctions between each slot thereby eliminating need as a consideration if-and-when on clock.

19-23 virtually tied allowing need to enter picture if-and-when on clock.

.... etc.

So BPA rules the creation of the big board and need only enters as a tie-breaker when on the clock.

I suspect Scot has some guys ranked higher than other GMs and when our turns come, he will have a guy he wants so much, he will completely ignore need.

I would think what you have above is logical, but didn't Scot once say that no players are "equal" --- that every player can be ranked 1-256? I may be wrong but for some reason I remember hearing/reading that.

I do think that BPA is the best approach in our situation (and basically every situation really), so I won't be surprised if they have a "big board" listed 1-256+ and remove as picks are taken --- and when the time comes take the player sitting at the top of that list.

Could be. I said "virtually tied" which is different.

markshark84 wrote:As far as your comment that need will be a consideration when the time comes --- I am not sure that is the case. Especially in the later rounds. While I dont' agree with the approach, I have seen teams draft for need in rounds 1-3, but after those rounds, you are looking for talent irrespective of position. Now, I have provided my personal opinions as to BPA and how draft "value" can influence whether a player is truly "BPA" --- so I would assume Scot has the same opinions as I do in the sense that he would, for example, never draft a Punter at #5 even if he was the greatest punter to come out in the past 25 years, simply because you don't draft punters in the first round.

That being said, if Scot sees a "need" that would be a reach at a certain draft spot and has the opportunity to trade down to get that player and more picks --- then I could see that happening. At the end of the day, is it 100% about maximizing the value you receive from each pick.

I said "allowing need to enter the picture" which is different.

Also, if need ever did enter the picture, I think it would tend to be in the later rounds as opposed to earlier. Reaching for need would be a much bigger mistake in the first round than in the seventh where the reach would likely not be nearly as far a reach.

I have been defending the notion that Scot will go BPA as opposed to need and continue to do so. I am saying need HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS BOARD and might, and I repeat MIGHT, be a consideration when on the clock - and only in a very close call between guys adjacent on his board.

In America's Game" Michael MacCambridge wrote:The 1979 draft found the Dallas Cowboys preparing for the beginning of a new era, with Roger Staubach nearing the end of his career. His understudy, Danny White, who’d come over after the demise of the WFL, was the heir apparent, and the young Glenn Carano, an unpolished but physically gifted thrower from University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the third round, as the Cowboys’ selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys’ master list, and did something he had rarely done in his nineteen years of drafting. Instead of taking the top player on the Cowboys’ chart, he went “against the board” and selected not the highest-rated player, but the next-highest-ranked one, a rangy tight end named Doug Cosbie, who would go on to enjoy a productive career and provide further evidence that the Cowboys were able to find a diamond in the rough.

On the next selection, the eighty-second, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys’ board, the player Dallas has passed on because, in Landry’s words, “We don’t really need another quarterback.”

His name was Joe Montana.

DarthMonk wrote:

In America's Game" Michael MacCambridge wrote:The 1979 draft found the Dallas Cowboys preparing for the beginning of a new era, with Roger Staubach nearing the end of his career. His understudy, Danny White, who’d come over after the demise of the WFL, was the heir apparent, and the young Glenn Carano, an unpolished but physically gifted thrower from University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the third round, as the Cowboys’ selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys’ master list, and did something he had rarely done in his nineteen years of drafting. Instead of taking the top player on the Cowboys’ chart, he went “against the board” and selected not the highest-rated player, but the next-highest-ranked one, a rangy tight end named Doug Cosbie, who would go on to enjoy a productive career and provide further evidence that the Cowboys were able to find a diamond in the rough.

On the next selection, the eighty-second, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys’ board, the player Dallas has passed on because, in Landry’s words, “We don’t really need another quarterback.”

His name was Joe Montana.

Perfect anecdote to illustrate the point.

For a positive example, one of the best is the Packers in 2005. Coming off a 10-6 season, Favre still playing well, and they had a pretty talented team. Mostly they had some holes on defense that people were saying they should try to fill with high draft picks, and then they'd be ready to make a run. Instead they take Aaron Rodgers. Ten years later, no one is complaining, and it looks like they won't have to worry about QB for another 5-7 years yet.

Listening to the GM comments, he would like to have more draft picks. In this case, he must have a list of mid-late rd. players that he thinks will help the Redskins. I doubt any of us have a clue how this will play out but it should be fun to watch.

SKINS#1 wrote:Listening to the GM comments, he would like to have more draft picks. In this case, he must have a list of mid-late rd. players that he thinks will help the Redskins. I doubt any of us have a clue how this will play out but it should be fun to watch.

Can't wait, man. Feels like Christmas eve.

SM has shown a knack for finding players later in the draft btw. Fourth round guys. There might be something to be said for using our #5 pick to get an elite player and trading down in the second round. That second round #5 is still pretty valuable, might get you an extra 4th rounder.

Scot has said that need does factor in.

There is a distinct difference between drafting for need, which Scot will never do, vs going BPA, and weighting in a positional need at a small margin (5-10% maybe)

http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsbl ... edskins-gm

His latest talk about the draft. Think Ray is out, with him saying repeat offenders of weed or what not is a no no