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

riggofan wrote:Darth, btw I disagree with your comment: "if Williams is there at #5, there is almost no chance we trade the pick."

I get it but you left out the part right before that when I said "If Williams is number one on Scott's board."

So if he is number one on Scott's board AND if he is available at number five, then I maintain there is almost no chance he trades the pick.

DarthMonk wrote:

riggofan wrote:Darth, btw I disagree with your comment: "if Williams is there at #5, there is almost no chance we trade the pick."

I get it but you left out the part right before that when I said "If Williams is number one on Scott's board."

So if he is number one on Scott's board AND if he is available at number five, then I maintain there is almost no chance he trades the pick.

if there is or isnt a chance really depends on what team wants whoever is available at #5. Scot will have a value dor everything, and if he is offered picks worth higher value than williams, then he will take it. He will follow his numbers more than drafting on the emotion of a big name. Id take a trade down into the top 12 of this years first round, a late round pick this year, and a 1st rounder next year over Williams.

DarthMonk wrote:

riggofan wrote:Darth, btw I disagree with your comment: "if Williams is there at #5, there is almost no chance we trade the pick."

I get it but you left out the part right before that when I said "If Williams is number one on Scott's board."

So if he is number one on Scott's board AND if he is available at number five, then I maintain there is almost no chance he trades the pick.

Yeah I understand what you are saying. But even if Williams is #1 on his board, I still think he trades down if he gets an opportunity. Again, too many holes on this team not to take advantage of picking up an additional high pick or two whether Williams is available at #5 or not.

Just my personal opinion, who the hell knows.

Prowl33 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

riggofan wrote:Darth, btw I disagree with your comment: "if Williams is there at #5, there is almost no chance we trade the pick."

I get it but you left out the part right before that when I said "If Williams is number one on Scott's board."

So if he is number one on Scott's board AND if he is available at number five, then I maintain there is almost no chance he trades the pick.

if there is or isnt a chance really depends on what team wants whoever is available at #5. Scot will have a value dor everything, and if he is offered picks worth higher value than williams, then he will take it. He will follow his numbers more than drafting on the emotion of a big name. Id take a trade down into the top 12 of this years first round, a late round pick this year, and a 1st rounder next year over Williams.

Fair enough. Given the conditions I put forth, I think there is ALMOST NO CHANCE Scot will be offered more value than his top guy on the board for the 5th pick. I would go further than you and say emotion of a big name WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO with his decision.

I also think it is highly unlikely my conditions will be met. For instance, if it's 90% Williams is at the top of Scot's board and it is 33 1/3% Williams falls to #5, then it is 30% my conditions will be met ... and 90 and 33 1/3 might be too high. 70% and 20% lead to 14%.

this sounds like fun ...

be great too if both Williams and Mariota are available at 5 .. we could trade the 5 pick to the Jets who really want Mariota and then trade the 6 to whoever thinks Williams is so great - I love this stuff ...

DarthMonk wrote:Fair enough. Given the conditions I put forth, I think there is ALMOST NO CHANCE Scot will be offered more value than his top guy on the board for the 5th pick.

I don't know if that's true or not, but we definitely need to get the right value if they trade down from the 5th pick. The #19 pick and a fourth rounder doesn't cut it!

I will say btw that while I prefer a trade down, I would be happy to draft Leonard Williams. BPA. Potentially big time player for a defense that really needs help. I wouldn't complain one bit about that pick.

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Fair enough. Given the conditions I put forth, I think there is ALMOST NO CHANCE Scot will be offered more value than his top guy on the board for the 5th pick.

I don't know if that's true or not, but we definitely need to get the right value if they trade down from the 5th pick. The #19 pick and a fourth rounder doesn't cut it!

I will say btw that while I prefer a trade down, I would be happy to draft Leonard Williams. BPA. Potentially big time player for a defense that really needs help. I wouldn't complain one bit about that pick.

I'm with you on all of this.

SkinsJock wrote::lol: this sounds like fun ...

be great too if both Williams and Mariota are available at 5 .. we could trade the 5 pick to the Jets who really want Mariota and then trade the 6 to whoever thinks Williams is so great - I love this stuff ...

Why would anyone trade up from 6 to 5? If the team at 5 wants the player, then they take him. If not, he falls to 6 anyway. Only if you were sure the #5 team was about to trade the pick away to a team that was going to take your player, would this make any sense at all.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote::lol: this sounds like fun ...

be great too if both Williams and Mariota are available at 5 .. we could trade the 5 pick to the Jets who really want Mariota and then trade the 6 to whoever thinks Williams is so great - I love this stuff ...

Why would anyone trade up from 6 to 5? If the team at 5 wants the player, then they take him. If not, he falls to 6 anyway. Only if you were sure the #5 team was about to trade the pick away to a team that was going to take your player, would this make any sense at all.

Lets say we have someone offering to trade up from 13 to 5 for Mariota, but the Jets want him too. We may like the option of trading down 1 spot to the jets, picking up an extra pick or so, and still get the guy we would of taken at 5 anyways.

Prowl33 wrote:Lets say we have someone offering to trade up from 13 to 5 for Mariota, but the Jets want him too. We may like the option of trading down 1 spot to the jets, picking up an extra pick or so, and still get the guy we would of taken at 5 anyways.

Great answer, man. I couldn't quite figure that scenario out either.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote::lol: this sounds like fun ...
be great too if both Williams and Mariota are available at 5 .. we could trade the 5 pick to the Jets who really want Mariota and then trade the 6 to whoever thinks Williams is so great - I love this stuff ...

Why would anyone trade up from 6 to 5? If the team at 5 wants the player, then they take him. If not, he falls to 6 anyway. Only if you were sure the #5 team was about to trade the pick away to a team that was going to take your player, would this make any sense at all.

OK - Williams and Mariota are available and the Jets know that we might be trading with another team, they might want to make sure they get him and make a trade with us - then we get to find out who really wants Williams and make that trade too - actually we just keep trading all the way down to 8 or 9

I know it's not likely but there were some other bad suggestions here too - that's why I started with the smiley face

EVIDENCE

For instance, if it's 90% Williams is at the top of Scot's board and it is 33 1/3% Williams falls to #5, then it is 30% my conditions will be met ... and 90 and 33 1/3 might be too high. 70% and 20% lead to 14%.

I mean - what the hell is that all about

I hope Williams is there at #5 but more then likely he will go #2 to the Titans so trading out of the #5 pick would be the ideal move. I guess the big question is if Williams isnt at the top of the Skins draft board who is?.

Prowl33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote::lol: this sounds like fun ...

be great too if both Williams and Mariota are available at 5 .. we could trade the 5 pick to the Jets who really want Mariota and then trade the 6 to whoever thinks Williams is so great - I love this stuff ...

Why would anyone trade up from 6 to 5? If the team at 5 wants the player, then they take him. If not, he falls to 6 anyway. Only if you were sure the #5 team was about to trade the pick away to a team that was going to take your player, would this make any sense at all.

Lets say we have someone offering to trade up from 13 to 5 for Mariota, but the Jets want him too. We may like the option of trading down 1 spot to the jets, picking up an extra pick or so, and still get the guy we would of taken at 5 anyways.

Pretty much covered that option, don't ya think?

Having Williams and Scherff as our OTs for a number of years is not a terrible thing at all ...

SkinsJock wrote:Having Williams and Scherff as our OTs for a number of years is not a terrible thing at all ...

Man, just having a legit right tackle would be an incredible upgrade. Wasn't Jon Jansen the last good RT we had? Insane!

SkinsJock wrote:

For instance, if it's 90% Williams is at the top of Scot's board and it is 33 1/3% Williams falls to #5, then it is 30% my conditions will be met ... and 90 and 33 1/3 might be too high. 70% and 20% lead to 14%.

I mean - what the hell is that all about

Independent events and the multiplicative law of probability.

For example: If the probability of TexasCowboy understanding a rule is ... never mind.

Skins Fan in Indy wrote:I hope Williams is there at #5 but more then likely he will go #2 to the Titans so trading out of the #5 pick would be the ideal move. I guess the big question is if Williams isnt at the top of the Skins draft board who is?.

I'd love to see that board!

I'm the first guy to say (and post) that we need 3 better offensive lineman.

However, unless we can get a LT level player at #5 I'd say that is way too early to pick a RT. We can get a good starting RT with our 2nd rounder.

A pass rusher at #5 (or a trade for more picks) is our best bet.

taking a guy like Scherff is not the 'value' thing to do but how valuable is a great RT that plays at a great level for 9 or 10 years - not worth it I guess - so, we should take the defensive guy that might be a force - it's that sort of thinking that needs to change

the reality is we have 3 drafts and 3 years of free agency to replace 4 guys on the O line and address all the other issues

it's not getting fixed in a year or 2 - NO WAY

this year is going to be interesting for Scot as he finds out what he's dealing with in the scouting dept/talent evaluators we have here

If we draft a player who can thrive and succeed for us for ten years it would be worth it whoever it may be. Thats the truth in the long run. But we dont have a crystal ball. Obviously hall of famers at any position are well worth a first round pick. We just dont know.

Lets say Landon Collins in ten years were to be a hall of famer? Then it would have been worth it. Or even a pro bowler for four to five years. To me it would have been worth it.

My first choice would be to trade down and acquire two first round choices. But I dont see that happening. I just dont see what player would be available for someone to jump up to no. 5.
I dont see Marriota, Winston or Williams being there at no.5.

The only scenerio for someone to jump to no.5 would be if Marriota, Winston or Williams if available at no.5. Other than that scenerio I cant see a trade partner wanting anyone else.

So Id actually be fine with us take Shane Ray, Scherff or Landon Collins. As long as I believe that player can contribute right away. Im fine with whoever we pick. That means I believe they can be a pro Bowl player in year one two and going forward.

I don't think there's any doubt that whomever they pick at 5 will be starting on opening day - that would be an incredible waste and, let's face it, anyone they pick is going to be better than anyone we have at any position (except at LT)

I think that we'll see them trade out of this pick ... too many franchises with needs and not wanting to miss out ...

Sean Taylor (picked 5th) didn't start until game 3 of his rookie season.

emoses14 wrote:Sean Taylor (picked 5th) didn't start until game 3 of his rookie season.

I think that had more to do with his off-field behavior. He missed some OTA I think and the rookie symposium. I think Gibbs was just sending a message.

SkinsJock wrote:taking a guy like Scherff is not the 'value' thing to do but how valuable is a great RT that plays at a great level for 9 or 10 years - not worth it I guess - so, we should take the defensive guy that might be a force - it's that sort of thinking that needs to change

Its only a "value" decision in that RTs are not usually drafted that high. You could probably trade down a little bit and still have a shot at Scherff. Doesn't mean he's not valuable.

I agree with what you're saying though. If the team absolutely loves Scherff, then who cares whether or not RTs are usually drafted #5 or not? I just want them to pick the most "can't miss" football player available.

a few suggestions that have been put out there - using the value of the picks ....

1 Washington trades the #5 pick + 2nd round #37 to Jacksonville for their #3 pick + 6th round #163
with the 3 pick Washington takes L. Williams/USC
I don't know why we would do this

2 Washington trades the #5 pick and Pierre Garcon to Kansas City
Washington gets their NT, Dontori Poe + their #18 pick + 3rd round #82
with the 18 pick Washington takes OT Andrus Peat/Stanford

3 Washington trades the #5 pick to Cleveland and gets Cleveland's #12 pick; 2nd round #44 and 5th round #140
with the 12 pick Washington takes SS L Collins/Alabama

and 4 - this is what I would do - use the pick to take Brandon Scherff who can play OT or OG on the right side - he's a dominant run blocker and he's got a great attitude - this kid's a great player