more on scherf

[skinsdad62]

Dad, I don't think most of us question if he can be an NFL lineman or even if he should be a first round pick. I think most are just questioning if he represents the best value for us if we stay at 5.

if a potentially dominate O/lineman isnt value then what is

some of you need to ditch the cliche's

 

[j_y19]

if a potentially dominate O/lineman isnt value then what is

some of you need to ditch the cliche's

And there in lies the problem. Its not a cliche. You just said it yourself......potentially. He is potentially a dominate. That's the problem with Scherff. Know one knows what he really is. And yes, I have concerns about most of the OLBs that we will have a shot at if we stay at 5, also.

 

[redskinsfan]

if a potentially dominate O/lineman isnt value then what is

some of you need to ditch the cliche's

Key word: potentially. That blows your whole argument. That's why value is important. If you have a crystal ball and can see that he's the next Larry Allen, that's clearly value. But you don't, as you just conceded by using 'potential' to describe Scherff. This is nothing short of drafting Robert Gallery with the second overall pick.

 

[RedskinzDan]

I have seen these same aurguements for going back and forth for weeks. I am a bit in the middle. I would love to trade down and if Mariota is there, the Eagle or Browns will be more than willing trading partners. But even if they are not, there should be a some willing partners for us to trade down. Now we don't know what team X will be willing to offer in a possible trade, but if you are only looking at the points scale to determine if it is a good trade then that is flawed. When you end up getting with those picks is where the value is, may end up in your favor or may not.
Anyway, I do not like any of the OLBs that many mock drafts have us taking. I don't think it is nearly a big of a need as they seem to think, not worth #5, not for us anyway . We need OL help, but like most I do not feel Sherrf is really worth #5 unless he is a dominate tackle, if he is a G I dont see the value. I feel one of the others tackle we could get in a possible trade down will make an equal or better pure RT. I don't have the time to research all prospects like many of you do, but I hear a few others have better foot work than Sherrf. Taking one of the WRs Cooper or White is not really a need, but we have not had a dominate big receiver for longer than I care to remember.
If we can not trade down and have to make the pick at 5, I would stay away from the OLBs. I wouldn't love or hate the WR pick, but would probably be ok with Sherff if we have to pick. Ideally, Mariot is there, Browns trade up with their 2 #1s. We pick up the top rated OT on the board with first pick and Dupree with 2nd pick, who I tend to like better than the higher rated OLBs anyway. In the 2nd a G like Cann. Running back Abdullah in the 3rd.
1- OT Collins
1 - OLB Dupree
2 - G Cann
3 - RB Abdullah

 

[skinsdad62]

Key word: potentially. That blows your whole argument. That's why value is important. If you have a crystal ball and can see that he's the next Larry Allen, that's clearly value. But you don't, as you just conceded by using 'potential' to describe Scherff. This is nothing short of drafting Robert Gallery with the second overall pick.

really ? all draft picks are potential even the ones you like

 

[skinsdad62]

And there in lies the problem. Its not a cliche. You just said it yourself......potentially. He is potentially a dominate. That's the problem with Scherff. Know one knows what he really is. And yes, I have concerns about most of the OLBs that we will have a shot at if we stay at 5, also.

every draft pick is potential . no one knows what any draft pick will be even the ones you like

 

[redskinsfan]

every draft pick is potential . no one knows what any draft pick will be even the ones you like

Yes, that's true. But when you're using "potential" in connection with the number five, that's usually not enough. They've basically got to be as close to a sure thing, first-day starter as there is. If someone just has "potential," you save that pick for later.

Having said that, you're right. No one, IMHO, is anything more than potential. The OLBs each have their issues, some more than others. That's why I think we need to trade down. While we need a partner to do so and a good deal to swing a trade, those are almost always available. And this year won't be any different. The issue will be whether we'll want to do it.

I'll leave that up to Scot.

 

[skinsdad62]

Yes, that's true. But when you're using "potential" in connection with the number five, that's usually not enough. They've basically got to be as close to a sure thing, first-day starter as there is. If someone just has "potential," you save that pick for later.

Having said that, you're right. No one, IMHO, is anything more than potential. The OLBs each have their issues, some more than others. That's why I think we need to trade down. While we need a partner to do so and a good deal to swing a trade, those are almost always available. And this year won't be any different. The issue will be whether we'll want to do it.

I'll leave that up to Scot.

you aint in a court of law so you need to stop parcelling up words to suit your purpose . all draft picks have potenial even the ones you like because NONE have played on a PRO field

trading down is all fine and dandy if you have a partner i am not against that . when i mock i dont project trade downs

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

shcerfff is a mother'fuckingbeast

 

[redskinsfan]

you aint in a court of law so you need to stop parcelling up words to suit your purpose . all draft picks have potenial even the ones you like because NONE have played on a PRO field

trading down is all fine and dandy if you have a partner i am not against that . when i mock i dont project trade downs

I'm not trying to split hairs. I take words as they appear to me. I agree that he's got 'potential' as do all the other top picks. No one is a sure thing, and that warrants a trade down. While I agree you can't project trade downs, it's simply something I want to see happen. Of course, if Williams falls to us, he's a no brainer. You do agree with that, don't you?

 

[skinsdad62]

williams is a better player at scherf and it addresses the LOS in case an aging hatcher can go full bore

 

[redskinsfan]

williams is a better player at scherf and it addresses the LOS in case an aging hatcher can go full bore

I'd still entertain offers for Williams. Most probably won't be worth it, but you never know who might sell the farm for him.

 

[Sharkinva]

Yes, that's true. But when you're using "potential" in connection with the number five, that's usually not enough. They've basically got to be as close to a sure thing, first-day starter as there is. If someone just has "potential," you save that pick for later.

Having said that, you're right. No one, IMHO, is anything more than potential. The OLBs each have their issues, some more than others. That's why I think we need to trade down. While we need a partner to do so and a good deal to swing a trade, those are almost always available. And this year won't be any different. The issue will be whether we'll want to do it.

I'll leave that up to Scot.

Show me ONE of the respected Pundit that DONT think Scherff is a day one starter? The only real question is where along the O-line he becomes a day one starter.

 

[redskinsfan]

Show me ONE of the respected Pundit that DONT think Scherff is a day one starter? The only real question is where along the O-line he becomes a day one starter.

Okay, you keep missing some major points. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that Scherff isn't a Day One starter. The issue is what position he'll play (OG) and the value we'll get if we take him #5. The only way most of us here think we can do that if we've got some crystal ball showing he's another Larry Allen. That's the rub here. I don't think anyone is a sure-thing and, for that reason, want to bug out of the fifth pick.

 

[Sharkinva]

Okay, you keep missing some major points. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that Scherff isn't a Day One starter. The issue is what position he'll play (OG) and the value we'll get if we take him #5. The only way most of us here think we can do that if we've got some crystal ball showing he's another Larry Allen. That's the rub here. I don't think anyone is a sure-thing and, for that reason, want to bug out of the fifth pick.

And i have pointed out many times that I think you want to bug out of the fifth pick simply for the fact that you believe more picks gives us a better chance. AKA the shot gun approach. Sorry if that doesnt sit well with me, BUt IM hoping our new GM is a sniper when it comes to picking talent, and not a spray and pray kind of shooter.

 

[redskinsfan]

And i have pointed out many times that I think you want to bug out of the fifth pick simply for the fact that you believe more picks gives us a better chance. AKA the shot gun approach. Sorry if that doesnt sit well with me, BUt IM hoping our new GM is a sniper when it comes to picking talent, and not a spray and pray kind of shooter.

That depends on a lot of factors including but certainly not limited to a team's assessment of a prospect's "can't-miss" or lack thereof status, the state of the team, the quality of personnel guys, etc. I want a trade back because we've got so many needs. Indeed, that's basically Drafting 101 for rebuilding teams like us, i.e., trade down swapping quality for quantity. You can see this by the fact that, even if we do get Williams, that still leaves us without a RT, which is a real sore spot right now, and other spots on the o-line and team. With more picks, we get more shots at adding real talent by relying on one of the best in the business. Under these circumstances -- please note this broad qualifier -- trading down is the best thing if we can get a good deal.

 

[deanpet21]

shark and dad would you take Scherff over Cooper if we stay at #5?

 

[skinsdad62]

shark and dad would you take Scherff over Cooper if we stay at #5?

yes

 

[redskinsfan]

yes

Believe it or not, I agree with dad on that particular issue.

 

[j_y19]

That depends on a lot of factors including but certainly not limited to a team's assessment of a prospect's "can't-miss" or lack thereof status, the state of the team, the quality of personnel guys, etc. I want a trade back because we've got so many needs. Indeed, that's basically Drafting 101 for rebuilding teams like us, i.e., trade down swapping quality for quantity. You can see this by the fact that, even if we do get Williams, that still leaves us without a RT, which is a real sore spot right now, and other spots on the o-line and team. With more picks, we get more shots at adding real talent by relying on one of the best in the business. Under these circumstances -- please note this broad qualifier -- trading down is the best thing if we can get a good deal.

There is also the realization that there is no clear cut candidate for us at 5. Those that will most likely be available to us at 5 have questions, just like those available to us if we trade back to mid round. So why not trade back, pick up additional high round pick(s)?