So I just want to make sure I got this right

[redskinsfan]

It's not my evaluation, shark. I'm just telling you what some of the so called experts are saying, including some NFL GMs.

This is one of several huge holes in Shark's analysis. NO ONE thinks Scherff will pan out at guard. NO ONE. Like you said, he's got issue with speed rushers. Well, hell, didn't we just finish pulling out our hair with another RT (Polumbus) who couldn't do that same? If we put Scherff at RT, especially as a rookie, that would not only be disastrous but a huge waste of our fifth overall pick. If he's a RG, there's no way we can justify taking him at #5 overall. On this issue alone, it's a bad proposition to take Scherff at #5. And this isn't going into the debate regarding value.

 

[skinsdad62]

This is one of several huge holes in Shark's analysis. NO ONE thinks Scherff will pan out at guard. NO ONE. Like you said, he's got issue with speed rushers. Well, hell, didn't we just finish pulling out our hair with another RT (Polumbus) who couldn't do that same? If we put Scherff at RT, especially as a rookie, that would not only be disastrous but a huge waste of our fifth overall pick. If he's a RG, there's no way we can justify taking him at #5 overall. On this issue alone, it's a bad proposition to take Scherff at #5. And this isn't going into the debate regarding value.

yeah a bunch of draft pundits who are wrong way more often then right are what i will base my opinion on . rak was supposed to be great , not so much then Rg3 , not so much foles drops to round 4 and wilson round 3 sam bradford and mark sanchez were worth gutting 2 drafts for blah blah blah

 

[Sharkinva]

This is one of several huge holes in Shark's analysis. NO ONE thinks Scherff will pan out at guard. NO ONE. Like you said, he's got issue with speed rushers. Well, hell, didn't we just finish pulling out our hair with another RT (Polumbus) who couldn't do that same? If we put Scherff at RT, especially as a rookie, that would not only be disastrous but a huge waste of our fifth overall pick. If he's a RG, there's no way we can justify taking him at #5 overall. On this issue alone, it's a bad proposition to take Scherff at #5. And this isn't going into the debate regarding value.

SO wait... Now no one even thinks he will pan out at Guard??? I call Bullspit. You determined in your head that the pick only holds Maximum value if we trade it for more picks. You are apparently hoping Mariota or Williams are there and some team is willing to give up a boat load of picks to trade into our spot because from everything you have said, I get the impression that you feel the pick only holds value if we trade it, and in no way shape or form would we be getting VALUE if we actually picked a player with the pick.

 

[redskinsfan]

yeah a bunch of draft pundits who are wrong way more often then right are what i will base my opinion on . rak was supposed to be great , not so much then Rg3 , not so much foles drops to round 4 and wilson round 3 sam bradford and mark sanchez were worth gutting 2 drafts for blah blah blah

Red herring. NO ONE thinks he'll pan out at OT. NO ONE. And if you take Scherff there, you're basically setting a historical precedent. Which then leads to the value point. Unless you've got a crystal ball showing that he's going to be the next Larry Allen, he's not worth it at five.

 

[redskinsfan]

SO wait... Now no one even thinks he will pan out at Guard??? I call Bullspit. You determined in your head that the pick only holds Maximum value if we trade it for more picks. You are apparently hoping Mariota or Williams are there and some team is willing to give up a boat load of picks to trade into our spot because from everything you have said, I get the impression that you feel the pick only holds value if we trade it, and in no way shape or form would we be getting VALUE if we actually picked a player with the pick.

Ahhh, I stand corrected. I meant to say he won't pan out at OT. And you're making stuff on the trade down scenario. I've already explained that for a team like us that's rebuilding, more picks are better than one pick. McCloughan thinks that too and it's Draft Strategy 101 for rebuilding. The other scenario where this works is if you're on the clock (in the first three rounds) and the BPA that's there doesn't fit a need. In order to avoid duplication of talent, you trade down so you can get value for a player that fits a need later on. The only time there'd be an exception to that is if you're a team like GB and can afford to layer talent.

It really is mind-boggling that, with all the holes we've got, you'd want keep our pick and not parlay into more picks, especially with a GM like Scot.

 

[Sharkinva]

Ahhh, I stand corrected. I meant to say he won't pan out at OT. And you're making stuff on the trade down scenario. I've already explained that for a team like us that's rebuilding, more picks are better than one pick. McCloughan thinks that too and it's Draft Strategy 101 for rebuilding. The other scenario where this works is if you're on the clock (in the first three rounds) and the BPA that's there doesn't fit a need. In order to avoid duplication of talent, you trade down so you can get value for a player that fits a need later on. The only time there'd be an exception to that is if you're a team like GB and can afford to layer talent.

It really is mind-boggling that, with all the holes we've got, you'd want keep our pick and not parlay into more picks, especially with a GM like Scot.

OK first off saying some one might be better suited to move to guard, is a far cry from saying on he cant be a Tackle in the NFL. Next you are going to tell me well because some one is better at typing than math, they have no shot at being anything other than a secretary. Secondly getting more picks does not mean you trade away from a guy if you deem him the BPA AND he fills an actual need on your team. Not unless you are simply desperate to have more picks and willing to gamble on lesser talent. For a team like us thats rebuilding you also dont pass up on an OBVIOUS talent upgrade in a position of need if he is actually worth the pick. Its really mind boggling that with the guy on the board who fills one of our major holes both short and long term, you want to dick around and beg for a trade down just so you can say you had more picks.

 

[redskinsfan]

OK first off saying some one might be better suited to move to guard, is a far cry from saying on he cant be a Tackle in the NFL. Next you are going to tell me well because some one is better at typing than math, they have no shot at being anything other than a secretary. Secondly getting more picks does not mean you trade away from a guy if you deem him the BPA AND he fills an actual need on your team. Not unless you are simply desperate to have more picks and willing to gamble on lesser talent. For a team like us thats rebuilding you also dont pass up on an OBVIOUS talent upgrade in a position of need if he is actually worth the pick. Its really mind boggling that with the guy on the board who fills one of our major holes both short and long term, you want to dick around and beg for a trade down just so you can say you had more picks.

There are so many things wrong with this, I'll just limit my response to a few things. First, and for the umpteenth time, NO ONE is saying that Scherff can play OT well, much less one deserving of the fifth overall pick. To view him as an OT is nothing short of nuts. Second, do you trade away from a BPA that fits a need for more picks? Yes, you do under certain circumstances. And what are those circumstances? If you're a team that won seven games in the past two years. Third, of all the pundits out there with their various and sundry opinions (and nearly all the members on this board) agree that the Redskins should trade down. Bolstering ONE position at the expense of other holes makes no sense. Will we give up on the best OG in the draft? Maybe. And that would be a shame. But it's a tradeoff we've got to make. We're not a team that can afford the luxury of one big pick when we've got so many holes.

 

[Sharkinva]

IM going to drop you a quick Nugget, you should know who you are worshiping there hoss. In 06 SM had two first rounders, not from trading down, but from trading back INTO the late first round.

In 05, he took Alex Smith first over all


IN 07 once again he had two first rounders from trading BACK into the first round

IN 08 again he traded back INTO the first round because he had traded away his original pick the year before

So this isnt a guy who has shown a habit to trade OUT of or down into the first round. But more often BACK into it


I hadnt looked this up til just now. You just made me feel alot better about the 5th pick. Thanks hoss

 

[redskinsfan]

IM going to drop you a quick Nugget, you should know who you are worshiping there hoss. In 06 SM had two first rounders, not from trading down, but from trading back INTO the late first round.

In 05, he took Alex Smith first over all


IN 07 once again he had two first rounders from trading BACK into the first round

IN 08 again he traded back INTO the first round because he had traded away his original pick the year before

So this isnt a guy who has shown a habit to trade OUT of or down into the first round. But more often BACK into it


I hadnt looked this up til just now. You just made me feel alot better about the 5th pick. Thanks hoss

I'm well aware of this history, especially with Alex Smith. I'm not talking history, I'm talking about what he'll do now. And just about everyone is saying he'll trade down.

Wanna bet on that?

 

[Sharkinva]

I'm well aware of this history, especially with Alex Smith. I'm not talking history, I'm talking about what he'll do now. And just about everyone is saying he'll trade down.

Wanna bet on that?

Nah... IM not going to bet that the Skins WONT fuck it up. We got too long a track record of making even the obvious choice into a fuckup. So while you are right he probably deal the pick, I still think its a fuckup maneuver.

 

[redskinsfan]

Nah... IM not going to bet that the Skins WONT fuck it up. We got too long a track record of making even the obvious choice into a fuckup. So while you are right he probably deal the pick, I still think its a fuckup maneuver.

The difference is we've got McCloughan. Or are you thinking you know more than him now?

 

[Sharkinva]

The difference is we've got McCloughan. Or are you thinking you know more than him now?

Nope Im think that we are the Redskins, we have a habit of making smart people look like idiots when they come here.

But again it just shows the desperation to see us do SOMETHING exciting when people start pimping Long and Moses as the Answers when one sucked and couldnt stay healthy. And the other couldnt even get on the field.

 

[redskinsfan]

Nope Im think that we are the Redskins, we have a habit of making smart people look like idiots when they come here.

But again it just shows the desperation to see us do SOMETHING exciting when people start pimping Long and Moses as the Answers when one sucked and couldnt stay healthy. And the other couldnt even get on the field.

Shark > McCloughan. Got it.