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

This guy ranked all teams drafts in the NFL since '01


http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs ... 10/SPORT01

We have the fewest starters (3) & the fewest players (14) on roster from these drafts. I'm surprised he ranked us that high.

This kind of an analysis will be skewed towards teams that prefer to build through the draft. It doesn't give Redskins credit for using their draft picks to pick up starting players, such as Moss (traded for Coles traded for 1st Rounder), Brunnell (a 3rd), Portis (traded for Bailey and 2nd) just off the top of my head.

They said that our best pick was Smoot???

That makes no sense to me, he's not even on the team anymore and we never won when he was here.

ey however, was a later pick and is a great leader and player.

Skeletor wrote:This kind of an analysis will be skewed towards teams that prefer to build through the draft. It doesn't give Redskins credit for using their draft picks to pick up starting players, such as Moss (traded for Coles traded for 1st Rounder), Brunnell (a 3rd), Portis (traded for Bailey and 2nd) just off the top of my head.

Well, it IS only about draft history. Last time I checked, free agents signed weren't snagged thru the draft.

I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Skeletor wrote:I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Part of it is picking players that you develop. We really haven't done a good job of that outside of our first rounders (yes, I know, ey). When you trade draft picks for established players, that cuts out the whole "I picked and developed X".

PulpExposure wrote:

Skeletor wrote:I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Part of it is picking players that you develop. We really haven't done a good job of that outside of our first rounders (yes, I know, ey). When you trade draft picks for established players, that cuts out the whole "I picked and developed X".

who gives a crap?

why waste 2 or 3 years of a kid's 5 year contract on "developing" him, just to have him defect to another team, when you can just trade the same draft pick for a guy who is already well-developed? there is no "moral" or strategical advantage to developing your own players, aside from cutting costs (lower round rookies are a lot cheaper than established veterans). however, if you pay 2 or 3 draft picks and none of them ends up being any good, weren't you better off getting ONE player that you KNEW was already good, and still young?

it doesn't matter how you use your draft picks, it matters who you use them to get.

As was already said...the more chances you have to pick, the higher your graded average would be.
We're not big players on draft day. Our picks are long gone by then.
Too bad they started in 2001 with the grading.

die cowboys die wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Skeletor wrote:I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Part of it is picking players that you develop. We really haven't done a good job of that outside of our first rounders (yes, I know, ey). When you trade draft picks for established players, that cuts out the whole "I picked and developed X".

who gives a crap?

why waste 2 or 3 years of a kid's 5 year contract on "developing" him, just to have him defect to another team, when you can just trade the same draft pick for a guy who is already well-developed? there is no "moral" or strategical advantage to developing your own players, aside from cutting costs (lower round rookies are a lot cheaper than established veterans). however, if you pay 2 or 3 draft picks and none of them ends up being any good, weren't you better off getting ONE player that you KNEW was already good, and still young?

it doesn't matter how you use your draft picks, it matters who you use them to get.

No kidding.

You've totally missed the point of what I'm saying. Arguing with the thesis of the guy who is the topic of this post because we use Free Agency instead of draft picks is arguing a point he's not making.

We have had the least draft picks since 2000 of any franchise in the NFL. That's fine, we use free agency to garner talent.

However, his article is about DRAFT HISTORY. Since we don't draft many players...we don't have a great DRAFT HISTORY.

Just to make sure you understand.

THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY ABOUT DRAFT HISTORY. THE REDSKINS USE FREE AGENCY, AND DRAFT FEW PLAYERS. SINCE WE DRAFT FEW PLAYERS, OUR DRAFT HISTORY IS POOR. THE ARTICLE DOESN'T DEAL WITH FREE AGENCY, OR ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES DRAFT HISTORY. IT'S NOT A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRAFT HISTORY.

PURELY ON PLAYERS DRAFTED BY EACH TEAM, NOT ON FREE AGENTS OR PICKS TRADED FOR EXISTING PLAYERS. ONLY DRAFTED PLAYERS.

Is that still too subtle?

PulpExposure wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Skeletor wrote:I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Part of it is picking players that you develop. We really haven't done a good job of that outside of our first rounders (yes, I know, ey). When you trade draft picks for established players, that cuts out the whole "I picked and developed X".

who gives a crap?

why waste 2 or 3 years of a kid's 5 year contract on "developing" him, just to have him defect to another team, when you can just trade the same draft pick for a guy who is already well-developed? there is no "moral" or strategical advantage to developing your own players, aside from cutting costs (lower round rookies are a lot cheaper than established veterans). however, if you pay 2 or 3 draft picks and none of them ends up being any good, weren't you better off getting ONE player that you KNEW was already good, and still young?

it doesn't matter how you use your draft picks, it matters who you use them to get.

No kidding.

You've totally missed the point of what I'm saying. Arguing with the thesis of the guy who is the topic of this post because we use Free Agency instead of draft picks is arguing a point he's not making.

We have had the least draft picks since 2000 of any franchise in the NFL. That's fine, we use free agency to garner talent.

However, his article is about DRAFT HISTORY. Since we don't draft many players...we don't have a great DRAFT HISTORY.

Just to make sure you understand.

THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY ABOUT DRAFT HISTORY. THE REDSKINS USE FREE AGENCY, AND DRAFT FEW PLAYERS. SINCE WE DRAFT FEW PLAYERS, OUR DRAFT HISTORY IS POOR. THE ARTICLE DOESN'T DEAL WITH FREE AGENCY, OR ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES DRAFT HISTORY. IT'S NOT A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRAFT HISTORY.

PURELY ON PLAYERS DRAFTED BY EACH TEAM, NOT ON FREE AGENTS OR PICKS TRADED FOR EXISTING PLAYERS. ONLY DRAFTED PLAYERS.

Is that still too subtle?

defining the paramters of "draft history" that narrowly is exactly the problem with the article! when you trade a draft pick it doesn't just magically disappear. whatever player you acquire with that pick should be taken into any serious/intelligent account of what you did in that draft. therefore my premise is that the article in question is NOT serious OR intelligent, but rather quite assinine and ignorant.

it would be akin to someone reviewing how you manage your money, and ONLY looking at things that you spent actual cash on. "He only spends his money on movies, beer, and fast food! he has a terrible money management history!" meanwhile you have all kinds of investments and retirement savings, etc. it's hardly a complete or realistic view of what you are actually doing with your money.

die cowboys die wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Skeletor wrote:I'm not talking about free agents. I'm talking about trading draft choices for players, which the Redskins have done. Seems like an analysis should include what value each team got for its picks....

Part of it is picking players that you develop. We really haven't done a good job of that outside of our first rounders (yes, I know, ey). When you trade draft picks for established players, that cuts out the whole "I picked and developed X".

who gives a crap?

why waste 2 or 3 years of a kid's 5 year contract on "developing" him, just to have him defect to another team, when you can just trade the same draft pick for a guy who is already well-developed? there is no "moral" or strategical advantage to developing your own players, aside from cutting costs (lower round rookies are a lot cheaper than established veterans). however, if you pay 2 or 3 draft picks and none of them ends up being any good, weren't you better off getting ONE player that you KNEW was already good, and still young?

it doesn't matter how you use your draft picks, it matters who you use them to get.

No kidding.

You've totally missed the point of what I'm saying. Arguing with the thesis of the guy who is the topic of this post because we use Free Agency instead of draft picks is arguing a point he's not making.

We have had the least draft picks since 2000 of any franchise in the NFL. That's fine, we use free agency to garner talent.

However, his article is about DRAFT HISTORY. Since we don't draft many players...we don't have a great DRAFT HISTORY.

Just to make sure you understand.

THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY ABOUT DRAFT HISTORY. THE REDSKINS USE FREE AGENCY, AND DRAFT FEW PLAYERS. SINCE WE DRAFT FEW PLAYERS, OUR DRAFT HISTORY IS POOR. THE ARTICLE DOESN'T DEAL WITH FREE AGENCY, OR ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES DRAFT HISTORY. IT'S NOT A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRAFT HISTORY.

PURELY ON PLAYERS DRAFTED BY EACH TEAM, NOT ON FREE AGENTS OR PICKS TRADED FOR EXISTING PLAYERS. ONLY DRAFTED PLAYERS.

Is that still too subtle?

defining the paramters of "draft history" that narrowly is exactly the problem with the article! when you trade a draft pick it doesn't just magically disappear. whatever player you acquire with that pick should be taken into any serious/intelligent account of what you did in that draft. therefore my premise is that the article in question is NOT serious OR intelligent, but rather quite assinine and ignorant.

it would be akin to someone reviewing how you manage your money, and ONLY looking at things that you spent actual cash on. "He only spends his money on movies, beer, and fast food! he has a terrible money management history!" meanwhile you have all kinds of investments and retirement savings, etc. it's hardly a complete or realistic view of what you are actually doing with your money.

While I'm not arguing that point, it's not what he was ranking us on. So...it's kinda pointless to argue about it.

I mean when they rank passing attacks, and it goes purely by yards, it doesn't take into account pass interference yards generated. Almost equally critical, right?