So I just want to make sure I got this right

[Caliskinsfan]

First, let me preface that the draft process is something I've minimally followed or read a lot about until we hired SM.

But the things I've read that make the most sense to me are:
You need excellent scouting and talent evaluators. All else fails if you can't pin point players that will succeed.
You need a 'football guy' in charge of your football operations identifying good 'football players'
You need a strategic plan of action to implement that is consistent and yields winning results.
There are some player qualities that cannot be objectively measured. 'Grit' and 'character' being just 2 examples.

I like the methodology SM is preaching. And I will trust that he is looking at all angles for the best football guy at whatever draft position he uses.

I think what's getting lost here is that there are 7 rounds in the draft. If SM is as talented as we hope, he has his eye on the big picture and the impact of the entire group of players he will choose.

The plan of addressing all the holes and depth could work out many different ways. A lot depends on what other teams do as well.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

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.

Thank you for proving something I have stated numerous times. Draft grades (or FA grades) given right after the moves are made are pretty much useless. At best these grades should be given 2-3 years after the moves are made. Drafting players like Kelly also demonstrates a previous weakness with the Redskins scouting area. I have high hopes we will see improvement in this area moving forward.
Several of the examples here don't necessarily demonstrate using the wrong philosophy. Rather - it shows poor implementation & a poor FO & that includes your guy Shanahan.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

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.

Well the great thing here is that the person overseeing this process - SM - has a great track record & was involved to some degree with three of the greatest drafting organizations in the history of the NFL - Packers, Seahawks & 49ers. That is all that you really need to know. Everything else is just posters here feeling the need to debate something that IMO just won't matter.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Well the great thing here is that the person overseeing this process - SM - has a great track record & was involved to some degree with three of the greatest drafting organizations in the history of the NFL - Packers, Seahawks & 49ers. That is all that you really need to know. Everything else is just posters here feeling the need to debate something that IMO just won't matter.

But I would add that the debate is what makes a message board fun and interesting to read.

 

[redskinsfan]

Well the great thing here is that the person overseeing this process - SM - has a great track record & was involved to some degree with three of the greatest drafting organizations in the history of the NFL - Packers, Seahawks & 49ers. That is all that you really need to know. Everything else is just posters here feeling the need to debate something that IMO just won't matter.

I am trusting in Scot too. He's done a great job on the FA end. Let's hope he can continue that on the draft end. He's been historically better in the draft, so I'm expecting some great things.

 

[ehb5]

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.

I actually think the argument could be made for the opposite. If your a good team that can contend than you may want to draft for need to shore up your one or two weaknesses. Whereas if you are a rebuilding team like us you should just take BPA. Bottom line we need talent on this team. There isn't a position on the team where you can say there's no way we should draft somebody there.

 

[skinsdad62]

someone please tell me if you have ever heard a GM utter " i am drafting the most ate up players available "

hell bruce allen has said "draft the BPA " and you hate him

situation dictates what you do and good drafters use a combination of both philosophies

if SM drafts scherf at 5 i wonder how many of you will be squawking BPA ?

SM once thought kentwan balmer was the BPA

that doesnt make him bad just human

 

[j_y19]

someone please tell me if you have ever heard a GM utter " i am drafting the most ate up players available "

hell bruce allen has said "draft the BPA " and you hate him

situation dictates what you do and good drafters use a combination of both philosophies

if SM drafts scherf at 5 i wonder how many of you will be squawking BPA ?

SM once thought kentwan balmer was the BPA

that doesnt make him bad just human

If Scot believes Schreff is the BPA at 5, I have no problem with it.

 

[Stymietee]

someone please tell me if you have ever heard a GM utter " i am drafting the most ate up players available "

hell bruce allen has said "draft the BPA " and you hate him

situation dictates what you do and good drafters use a combination of both philosophies

if SM drafts scherf at 5 i wonder how many of you will be squawking BPA ?

SM once thought kentwan balmer was the BPA

that doesnt make him bad just human

as always, action speaks louder than words. While you're never going to hear that, you will and have indeed witnessed it.

I really don't believe that people "hate" Bruce Allen, but there comes a time that a person out of his depth will be called out for what he's pretending to be. He is an accountant and has the sheepskin to prove it, not to mention a poor draft history. Let's keep BA in his lane.

You are correct, drafting requires a combination of both, the disagreement comes when the discussion turns to which takes precedence. That decision carries a particular urgency with this team. I personally believe that it comes down to how big a deficiency is at one position vs. another. So, with that in mind Dad, right now, which singular position do you see as the one requiring a fix? Just curious.

 

[Stymietee]

If Scot believes Schreff is the BPA at 5, I have no problem with it.

From my favorite "Lil Rascals"quote.........."me too neither! "

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

If Scot believes Schreff is the BPA at 5, I have no problem with it.

Yep. And if he was the pick I have little doubt he was picking on BPA. As stated before there is not one spot on this team where you can say we are set, no need to draft there, so we are in a rare spot of picking BPA while still filling a need.

 

[j_y19]

Yep. And if he was the pick I have little doubt he was picking on BPA. As stated before there is not one spot on this team where you can say we are set, no need to draft there, so we are in a rare spot of picking BPA while still filling a need.

That's what confuses me about some posters position on this. Outside of LT and maybe LOLB, there isn't a position on this team that we couldn't use an upgrade either now or in the very near future. So take the guy that you believe has the greatest probability of being a significant contributor for the long term. They will almost assuredly also contribute to a weak link we have this year. There is no need to reach for anyone. We are not one or two players away from a championship. Play the odds and take the BPA as you have defined it on your Big Board.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

That's what confuses me about some posters position on this. Outside of LT and maybe LOLB, there isn't a position on this team that we couldn't use an upgrade either now or in the very near future. So take the guy that you believe has the greatest probability of being a significant contributor for the long term. They will almost assuredly also contribute to a weak link we have this year. There is no need to reach for anyone. We are not one or two players away from a championship. Play the odds and take the BPA as you have defined it on your Big Board.

Because obviously some posters want the quick fix approach as they see the OL as the weakest spot on the team. I swear the Hogs have turned Redskins fans into fans obsessed with the OL. That is obviously because we have seen what a dominating OL can do. In other cities the fans would be pimping certain players such as a WR, a pass rusher, cover corner or whatever. Here it always goes back to the fans wanting to improve the OL. Of course it's also because the OL has sucked for so long.

 

[Lonewate44]

That's what confuses me about some posters position on this. Outside of LT and maybe LOLB, there isn't a position on this team that we couldn't use an upgrade either now or in the very near future. So take the guy that you believe has the greatest probability of being a significant contributor for the long term. They will almost assuredly also contribute to a weak link we have this year. There is no need to reach for anyone. We are not one or two players away from a championship. Play the odds and take the BPA as you have defined it on your Big Board.

Well we are pretty good at .......Punter...kicker and Long snapper...I feel I can confidently say....we dont need to draft for those positions!!! UFA's for competition...ok...but we dont need to waste a pick on those!!!!

Once again a little Nugget of sound and correct advice from Lonewate44!!!

 

[redskinsfan]

Because obviously some posters want the quick fix approach as they see the OL as the weakest spot on the team. I swear the Hogs have turned Redskins fans into fans obsessed with the OL. That is obviously because we have seen what a dominating OL can do. In other cities the fans would be pimping certain players such as a WR, a pass rusher, cover corner or whatever. Here it always goes back to the fans wanting to improve the OL. Of course it's also because the OL has sucked for so long.

If you're old enough to remember, the Hogs were a dominant reason why the Redskins were so successful. And that's a formula that still works well today. Look at what the Cowboys just did. While I believe that our top need isat RT (and then RG), and that we need to desperately fix our o-line, I want to do it the right way. And one wrong way to do it is by giving up plenty of value in a fifth overall pick when reaching for someone who's rated further down your draft board.

 

[Lonewate44]

If you're old enough to remember, the Hogs were a dominant reason why the Redskins were so successful. And that's a formula that still works well today. Look at what the Cowboys just did. While I believe that our top need isat RT (and then RG), and that we need to desperately fix our o-line, I want to do it the right way. And one wrong way to do it is by giving up plenty of value in a fifth overall pick when reaching for someone who's rated further down your draft board.

Guys......guys...settle down...we all want what is best for the Skins.....just because Mcshay...kiper....etc...have Shereff rated #9 doesnt mean jack shit....What Matters is what Scot thinks.......For all we know....Shereff may be #3 on his board behind the QBs...in which case we are getting #3 on our board at #5...representing SUPER great Value!!!!

I trust in Scot, to make the best decisions for this team moving forward!!!!

 

[redskinsfan]

Guys......guys...settle down...we all want what is best for the Skins.....just because Mcshay...kiper....etc...have Shereff rated #9 doesnt mean jack shit....What Matters is what Scot thinks.......For all we know....Shereff may be #3 on his board behind the QBs...in which case we are getting #3 on our board at #5...representing SUPER great Value!!!!

I trust in Scot, to make the best decisions for this team moving forward!!!!

Well, I meant nothing more than what I said. And if Scott has Scherff at #3 on his board and we take him at #5, all the better for us. However, I seriously doubt that.

 

[j_y19]

Well we are pretty good at .......Punter...kicker and Long snapper...I feel I can confidently say....we dont need to draft for those positions!!! UFA's for competition...ok...but we dont need to waste a pick on those!!!!

Once again a little Nugget of sound and correct advice from Lonewate44!!!

I stand corrected!

 

[Lonewate44]

I stand corrected!

the voice of reason on these boards

 

[Lonewate44]

Well, I meant nothing more than what I said. And if Scott has Scherff at #3 on his board and we take him at #5, all the better for us. However, I seriously doubt that.

Redskinfan...you seriously doubt that...based on what?? what Kiper, Mayock, and McShay say??? he could very well be rated very highly by Scot...

But the thing is....none of no where he is rated....he may very well be #5.....#9 on Scotts board....we will never know.....there is no way he would come out and say...well we had him at #9 on the board, but felt like he was best at 5.........

But it gets to this....if we take him at 5....some may say we reached becasue of what the "experts" have told us that he is rated lower.....What the hell....these same experts said J Russel was a stud.....They are wrong more then they are right people!!!!

just trust in Scot to make the best decesion he can for the Redskins, based on the knowledge he has, and what his gut tells him......

I will be happy with whoever we get as Im sure any player taken at 5...would not be a 2nd round guy, or a low rated 1st guy....He is going to get who he believes will be a stud for us!!!

Hell...I happy we are finally getting a 1st round pick again!!!