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

DarthMonk wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Rigidly adhering to any draft philosophy is stupid.

Suppose your philosophy is "Best availible player"... If best availible grades out at 2 selections better than the best player at a position of severe need, what do you do? Ignore your need?

Yes. Either that or you trade down.

Suppose you are intent on picking only players of need...

Generally a bad idea but trade down. Grab the best player but if you have greats already at that position and don't want another trade down. Don't waste the pick on an inferior player just because you "need" that position.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Here's the best example I ever heard - from the book America's Game - Page 337:

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 form the University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the 3rd round, as the Cowboys' selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys' master list, and did something he had rarely done in his 19 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 82nd, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys' board, the player Dallas had passed on because, in Landry's words, "We don't really need another quarterback."

His name was Joe Montana.

Thank God they blew that one!

I'll go so far as to say ALWAYS TAKE TALENT OVER NEED IN THE DRAFT. AMASS ALL THE YOUNG TALENT YOU CAN. YOUR SO-CALLED NEEDS CAN BE FILLED BY GUYS WHO WANT TO COME PLAY WITH YOUR TALENT.

This is especially true for the 'Skins since we have SO MANY HOLES TO FILL.

DarthMonk (call me Vinny if you want - good philosophy horribly implemented by him)

People love to say "trade down". If you can't find a partner, YOU CAN'T TRADE. Bad teams in the top of the draft are ALWAYS trying to trade down, but it rarely happens... the costs are too high, and too many teams have been badly burned by giving up big chunks of their draft.

Countertrey wrote:People love to say "trade down". If you can't find a partner, YOU CAN'T TRADE. Bad teams in the top of the draft are ALWAYS trying to trade down, but it rarely happens... the costs are too high, and too many teams have been badly burned by giving up big chunks of their draft.

Absolutely. Everyone as a strategy wants to trade down, no one talks about trading up. Trading up only happens for the top pick when you can take a franchise type player or when a guy's available they don't think will be when they pick. Trading down is strategy, trading up is opportunistic. There are a lot more buyers then sellers. But people constantly throw it out as if you just do it because they decide to. Drafting is a crap shoot. You're usually better off getting more rolls of the dice unless you're really sold on a particular guy. Everyone knows that.

Why isn't this locked?

VetSkinsFan wrote:Why isn't this locked?

exactly....come on mods....