So I just want to make sure I got this right

[Sharkinva]

1. Big boards and Mocks on the Internet are never based first and foremost on teams supposed needs. this is despite the fact that 90% of them mock a particular player to a particular team based on NEED first and fore most. IE Washington would take player X because they just lost player Y to free agency or because thier greatest NEED is at Position Z because of the lose of player Y.

2. Pass Rushers are NEVER over rated on big boards based on their ability to "take over a Game". And offensive lineman are never under rated based on the time honored fact that you can find offensive lineman later in the draft.

3. If a prospect IS rated as within 3-5 picks of where you pick, but there is a Playmaker on the board, you should take the play maker even if he isnt likely to see much playing time because filling both an immediate and long term need is always trumped by play making ability.

4. If you dont happen to agree with the majority, your opinion is automatically invalid.

 

[Kevin12773]

Shark I pay zero attention to what the "experts" mock for any team. I could give a shit if the skins draft a OLB, RT, Safety, WR etc... As long as the player they draft starts and produces I could care less what any big board says or if they "reached" for a player.

 

[Sharkinva]

Kev... I was just trying to take the temperature of some of the board members.

 

[Stymietee]

This question has been asked and answered on several different threads, all apparently, without any sort of resolution or consensus. I do not adhere to the BPA regardless theory. With respects to Washington need has to be the driving force coupled with the understanding that at that particular position you get the best available. We are not talking about a contending team or one that is consistently a topic of conversation when the subject is the SB. It is washington, rebuilding and this too must factor into whom to draft. Our particular needs by far trumps any thought of selecting BPA, unless they are one and the same.

In as much as your 4 propositions, I disagree with the first 3, and, well, it's me........ Sty.....a SportsHoopla contender to be the poster pic for #4.

 

[countryroads316]

you draft best player available period that reaching for need has hurt us for far too long

 

[Sharkinva]

you draft best player available period that reaching for need has hurt us for far too long

So lets say by some weird chance the Colts are on the clock in the first round, and the best player available on their board is a QB. No one wants to trade with them. You saying they have to take the QB because he is the best player on their board, even though the DT they need that they had ranked at number nine is also there??

 

[countryroads316]

If that DT and QB are pretty damn close to each other and you have a franchise QB and can't trade back you take the DT and your not reaching if they are pretty damn close rankings wise

 

[Stymietee]

[QE="countryroads316, post: 6438103, member: 5796"]you draft best player available period that reaching for need has hurt us for far too long[/QUOTE]


I don't recall those drafting for need years, maybe it's because there was always year after year of trading away picks (there's an active thread on this) or wayyyyy overpaying for useless has beens or I wanna get paid so I'll sign with Washington types. I do recall the team drafting BPA from some incompetent knucklehead's draft board.

Since Dan Snyder has owned the team, the general managers were until this year, Dumb and Dumber, or to be kind a friend of Dannys' and an accountant. Neither of them no more qualified or capable than what a spin at a wheel might have produced.

 

[countryroads316]

there are quite a few players just from the past couple of years that were head scratchers and no way were the best available when selected

 

[Sharkinva]

If that DT and QB are pretty damn close to each other and you have a franchise QB and can't trade back you take the DT and your not reaching if they are pretty damn close rankings wise

Right, but say they are not closely rated. Say the QB is considered a top ten pick, and the DT was ranked on their big board as nine slots lower... do you think they should take the BPA knowing that the only way this guy even gets onto the field is if all hell breaks loose and the season is lost in any case. They have players ranked better than the DT, but the drop from the #2 who is a LT they dont need and the DT is about 4 draft slots.... do you take the QB who is your BPA

 

[Sharkinva]

there are quite a few players just from the past couple of years that were head scratchers and no way were the best available when selected

How do you know they weren't considered the best player available by the people we had drafting?? The team was applauded for our draft the year we took Kelly. Most draft grades gave us a B draft grade last year. Hell we were given an A draft grade by most in 2012 despite taking it up the poop shoot with no lube on the RG3 trade.

 

[Stymietee]

Someone please take a look at the first 5 or so years of Tampa Bay's draft history. Always the BPA, never , ever for BPA at a position of need. In theroy a team could draft , QB, QB, QB, QB, QB in the next five drafts even if the first one that they selected is their franchise guy.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I'd just like to gently remind that SM is trying to build this team into a champion for the LONG TERM.

His approach is to target what he values as 'good football players'. Be that an Olineman, WR, OLB or a trade down to take advantage of volume draft picks which he has done many times.

We hired him to evaluate that talent. His strategy has been pretty well documented and we will see his 'talent evaluation' metrics in action quite soon.

Here's a reminder article on what we know about SM and his philosophy...

Scot McCloughan Talks About RGIII, Drafting Marcus Mariota, and Trading Down in Every Round - Hogs Haven



Excerpt

Building a Championship team:
"It comes down to best available player," said McCloughan, who earlier this month attended Mariota's Pro Day. "I'm walking in from the outside in here, saying ‘Okay, I've been around a world championship team. I helped another one that made it there - didn't win it - I kind of have a feeling of what it's supposed to look like.'
And in San Fran and what we did in Seattle, we understand that we're not a real deep roster, so let's not just focus on a certain position, let's focus on the best football player because we're not just talking about Year 1, we're talking about Year 3, Year 5, and you want to be able to re-sign your own guys. You get to the second contracts. We were lucky enough to do that in San Fran and Seattle, and that's when things start rolling."

"I don't have any preconceived notions of, ‘Well he's a really good guy,' or ‘He did charity stuff.' Or ‘he's good with whatever.' No. I'm walking in, I'm an outsider coming in, I don't know much about this, let's see it. Let's see the product on the field."

 

[Sharkinva]

Always the diplomat Cali.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Always the diplomat Cali.

The discussion is awesome tho. Needs vs value, how big boards are determined, player evaluations...

Heck, this is a message board after all. And opinions aren't all going to be the same, else it'd be pretty boring.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Came across this comment on another blog.

Don't know who to source this to as 'vandalia' led to no person I could find... But I did find it an interesting perspective...


"Five years from now, no one will care what the Redskin’s needs were in this draft, or if they got "value" for the pick. The only thing that will matter is if they have selected a great player. No Titan’s fan cares that they filled the team’s most important need when they drafted Jake Locker over J.J. Watt. They also don’t care that they got great value with that pick. In the same way, no Texan’s fan has ever complained that they didn’t fill their most important need when they selected Watt....The ONLY thing that matters is to get a great player....Get a great player. If you do, no one will care if you didn’t fill a need or didn’t get value for the pick. Fail to get a great player, and no fan will be content with the fact that they filled a need or made a great value pick." vandalia, 16 Mar 2015

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

4. If you dont happen to agree with the majority, your opinion is automatically invalid.

We do not consider your positions invalid just because you don't go with the majority. As other posters have pointed out you like to take one extreme example and use it in an attempt to "prove" your point. Sure if you look hard enough you can find a mock that has your boy at 5. Of course there are 1,000 that have him much higher. This is not failing to agree with the majority, this is going so far out on a limb you can't even see the tree anymore.

The Destiny's Child example was a good one. If you are going to take an opinion that virtually nobody agrees with, such as your suggestion that the Jags may take Scherff with the 2nd overall pick because they need OL help, then why would you be surprised when you are called on it?

 

[j_y19]

Came across this comment on another blog.

Don't know who to source this to as 'vandalia' led to no person I could find... But I did find it an interesting perspective...


"Five years from now, no one will care what the Redskin’s needs were in this draft, or if they got "value" for the pick. The only thing that will matter is if they have selected a great player. No Titan’s fan cares that they filled the team’s most important need when they drafted Jake Locker over J.J. Watt. They also don’t care that they got great value with that pick. In the same way, no Texan’s fan has ever complained that they didn’t fill their most important need when they selected Watt....The ONLY thing that matters is to get a great player....Get a great player. If you do, no one will care if you didn’t fill a need or didn’t get value for the pick. Fail to get a great player, and no fan will be content with the fact that they filled a need or made a great value pick." vandalia, 16 Mar 2015

And this has been my point all along. Take the player that has the best chance of being a dominate player for years, regardless of position. Needs change every year. While we don't need a WR this year, next year we will. If you believe that there is a WR available to you that can be an all pro level for the next 7 years, you would be a fool to pass on him. I'm using WR as an example only, but it could hold true for OLB, QB, LT, CB, etc. what you don't do is pass on a dominating player to reach for a lower rated player because you have that need this year. That's how big misses happen more frequently.

I have no idea what scot's board looks like. If he feels that an OT is the best bet at 5 to be dominate for years, then I'm fine with that. If he thinks it is a WR, then that's ok also. Just get a player that has the greatest probability to be a solid building block for the foundation of the team you are constructing.

 

[redskinsfan]

1. Big boards and Mocks on the Internet are never based first and foremost on teams supposed needs. this is despite the fact that 90% of them mock a particular player to a particular team based on NEED first and fore most. IE Washington would take player X because they just lost player Y to free agency or because thier greatest NEED is at Position Z because of the lose of player Y.

2. Pass Rushers are NEVER over rated on big boards based on their ability to "take over a Game". And offensive lineman are never under rated based on the time honored fact that you can find offensive lineman later in the draft.

3. If a prospect IS rated as within 3-5 picks of where you pick, but there is a Playmaker on the board, you should take the play maker even if he isnt likely to see much playing time because filling both an immediate and long term need is always trumped by play making ability.

4. If you dont happen to agree with the majority, your opinion is automatically invalid.

1. I'm not sure what big boards or mocks you're looking at, but NFL personnel guys draft top picks based primarily on BPA status and secondarily that fits a need. As the draft progresses downwards, teams then pick on BPA alone.

2. You mean like Trent Williams? Or the Cowboys draft plan the last three out of four years?

3. Say what?!

4. Sometimes the majority is right. Noncomformists love to revel in iconoclasm. That's often a pretty bad sight to behold depending on the minority opinion they're advocating.

 

[redskinsfan]

Came across this comment on another blog.

Don't know who to source this to as 'vandalia' led to no person I could find... But I did find it an interesting perspective...


"Five years from now, no one will care what the Redskin’s needs were in this draft, or if they got "value" for the pick. The only thing that will matter is if they have selected a great player. No Titan’s fan cares that they filled the team’s most important need when they drafted Jake Locker over J.J. Watt. They also don’t care that they got great value with that pick. In the same way, no Texan’s fan has ever complained that they didn’t fill their most important need when they selected Watt....The ONLY thing that matters is to get a great player....Get a great player. If you do, no one will care if you didn’t fill a need or didn’t get value for the pick. Fail to get a great player, and no fan will be content with the fact that they filled a need or made a great value pick." vandalia, 16 Mar 2015

That is the bottom line anyone cares about. But when you're dealing with the draft or any other decision that relies on projection (e.g., picking stocks), process is just as important as the result. That's because if you don't have a correct process, you're bound to come up with busts more often than hits. Here's a bit of an off-the-cuff example. When the Department of Labor audits an employee benefit trust on its investment decisions, it rarely takes into consideration how the stocks ultimately did. Rather, it takes a look at the process and safeguards the trust employed prior to selecting its investments. If that passes muster with the DOL, it will okay everything despite the fact that the stocks busted. On the flip side, if you came up roses but used a dart board approach in achieving those results, you'd get busted.

Same thing here, sort of. Draft picks bust for a number of reasons. Sometimes, people just miss the entire boat in judging someone (e.g., Jamarcus Russell). Other times, unforeseen circumstances lead to the pick busting (e.g., Kijana Carter). While I get the fact that no one (including me) doesn't care a lick what happened at the time a draft pick was selected but how he turned out, it's important to also consider the process in how that pick was selected.

Just saying.