I have a question for all of the BPA thinkers.

[Pappy]

Care to elaborate?

Yea, your GM wasted how many picks to get RG3? How did that work out? Draft picks are like gold. And you have a great young QB in Cousins but he has to look over his shoulder to see RG3 every time he gets healthy enough to play. You need to trade RG3 while he has any worth what so ever and let Cousins grow into the position and then you will be on the right track.

 

[Stymietee]

Well, it depends. In your scenario, I go BPA as any player that would fill a need would be too much of a reach. In VTs scenario, if there is only a few slots difference, I would probably go with the player that fills a need given they are ranked very close to my BPA at the top of my board.

OK, point taken, however my question had more to do with BPA and less to do with where the team needs were in relation to that player. As you know , the people who adhere to that principal have made it known on this thread that they would indeed take that player regardless, and BTW have offered some very valuable insight as to why they believe it to be the right thing to do. That was why the question was asked and to whom it was aimed towards. OK, for some using A. Cooper was a stretch, I could have used RB I guess but honestly, on this team there are/were so few spots that could be considered OK, prior to the most recent moves the team has made.

 

[Stymietee]

If we take Fowler, Cooper, or Beasley over Scherff then BPA trumped need. If we take Scherff over Fowler, Cooper, or Beasely then need trumped BPA. Simple as that guys.

Taking into account that the team in question is Washington, can we really afford BPA over need if they are not one and the same?

 

[Sharkinva]

If we take Fowler, Cooper, or Beasley over Scherff then BPA trumped need. If we take Scherff over Fowler, Cooper, or Beasely then need trumped BPA. Simple as that guys.

So basically if we take the "impact player" over the player that will have the most impact for the TEAM, we are making the right choice. That is in fact what you are saying right??

 

[redskinsfan]

Let me make one thing amply clear here. It's one thing to say that the top needs on this team are RT and then RG. It's quite another thing to opine on how to fix those problems. It's tempting to use our #5 pick on the best available RT or RG. But if that person or persons aren't worthy of being picked that, it's folly to do so. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Sharkinva]

Let me make one thing amply clear here. It's one thing to say that the top needs on this team are RT and then RG. It's quite another thing to opine on how to fix those problems. It's tempting to use our #5 pick on the best available RT or RG. But if that person or persons aren't worthy of being picked that, it's folly to do so. That's all I'm saying.

So again I will ask you, what makes a guy worthy of the 8th pick, but a complete waste of space at #5?? Aside from the fact that a pass rusher at 5 is alot more sexy than fixing the right side of the line which we all (you included) have said is basically garbage??

So let me ask you honestly... what stands a better chance of fixing this team long term.. .taking an O-lineman a few slots higher than you think he is worth. Or taking another pass rusher and taking O-line talent a round or two later?? We know we will likely get a starter taking Scherff at #5. Where as we HOPE we dont get stuck drafting another Morgan Moses if we wait until the 2nd round or later.

 

[deanpet21]

Shark im just saying that the OLB's and Cooper are higher on teams draft boards then Schreff right now. Of course all of that can change. We don't know how Scot has his board ranked. OT's are always overhyped going into the draft. Why isn't Scherff? I agree with you that RT is a huge need. If this guy can come in and dominate im all for it. We have another five weeks to hear reports about Schreff. The only right now I can say is that we will not be taking S. Ray at #5.

 

[Sharkinva]

Shark im just saying that the OLB's and Cooper are higher on teams draft boards then Schreff right now. Of course all of that can change. We don't know how Scot has his board ranked. OT's are always overhyped going into the draft. Why isn't Scherff? I agree with you that RT is a huge need. If this guy can come in and dominate im all for it. We have another five weeks to hear reports about Schreff. The only right now I can say is that we will not be taking S. Ray at #5.

Aside from day one starters at LT, I tend to think O-linemen are actually down played when it comes to the draft. Alot of fans tend to think of O-line as just fat guys that push each other around. No one appreciates an all pro guard until they have an 1800 yard RB and a QB that can actually walk at the end of the season without a cane. LOL

 

[deanpet21]

I think Fischer was so hyped up that he made it all the way to the #1 overall pick and played crap competition. The Chiefs still have him as a RT not even a LT. So I guess RT's are getting some love too.

 

[j_y19]

Aside from day one starters at LT, I tend to think O-linemen are actually down played when it comes to the draft. Alot of fans tend to think of O-line as just fat guys that push each other around. No one appreciates an all pro guard until they have an 1800 yard RB and a QB that can actually walk at the end of the season without a cane. LOL

Shark, I think you have over simplified many's position. The truth of the matter is that there are more PB OL that came into the league in Rds 3-7 than in rds 1-2. In fact, historically I'd bet there are more that were UDFAs than first round picks. So what this means is that talented OL can regularly be found in later rounds if you have a good talent evaluator. Now you can point to our piss poor record of drafting OL in later rounds over the last decade or so. But we now have a guy who is supposed to be a crack evaluator of talent and has a track record of finding OL in later rounds.

What is more uncommon is to find the skill players (the sexy picks as you referred to them) in later rounds. This is why the tend to go early. They play a position which can change the course of a game in a single play and there are huge gaps between the really goods ones and the average ones.

Finally, you continue to query if it is a huge stretch to take a player at a position of need 3 spots earlier than you pegged him. Theoretically, I would say no. But it all depends on who you pass up. In schreff's case, I personally have questions about him. It concerns me that he isn't considered T material in the NFL because of his quickness issue, yet T is all he has ever played. He also has pass blocking issues. So I am very leery of taking any player with the 5th pick that I have questions about. We can't afford to miss on this pick. Moreover, this draft is rife with OT talent. There are 6 OTs that grade out with 1st round talent. There is no way all 6 go in the first round. It is very realistic that we have an OT fall to us with out second round pick that has 1st round talent. So we can still get a very good OT and a stud other player with our 5th pick.

I still maintain the best possible scenario for us is to find a trade partner. Get an additional 1st/2nd+ pick up a OT with the later pick, and still have picks to fill out S, CB additional OL.

 

[Sleepy T]

Shark has kinda built on the point I was trying to make. A handful of draft spots doesnt mean crap if you are reaching a tad for a quality player that can be a long term pro-bowler kind of guy. Our line has been in shambles (minus a player or two) for years. As sfan said, If we can build it, it makes everything on Offense better.

You would have to show me proof that a higher percentage of OL drafted in the mid rounds are more successful than those drafted in the first. I dont think that is the case with ANY position, much less OL. That obviously doesnt mean that every first rounder will work out, we all know that isnt true. But I would almost put money on it (without even looking) that more studs were drafted in the first round than the 2-4th, individually.

 

[Sleepy T]

And if there was a major gap. I am talking 15-20ish spots, between say a WR that you have rated waaay higher on your board than an OL, then OK. Maybe you dont take that OL. But once again, just by the nature of the game, a premium is put on OL. And I cant think of a draft where there was a WR rated soooo much higher than every OLinemen in the draft. There are usually 2 or 3 that some would consider Top 10 picks.

 

[Sharkinva]

Sparks... I hate to admit that he is actually right in that more quality O-lineman (outside of LT) are found in rounds other than the first. BUt I think this is more a byproduct of the group think that Skill positions are worth more than O-lineman in general.

Again most people think O-line is not a "skill" position and thus you should be able to take any big stinky in the 4th -7th round and just plug them in. After all what do they really do aside from stand there and push the other guys back for a few seconds.

I on the other hand am a firm believer in the fact that if what you have been doing does not work, you need to change your approach. We have struggled to find quality O-line late in the draft for years. So maybe it is time to invest in the line a little earlier and lets not worry about the sexy picks so much. What good is a guy who gets 13 sacks a year if your offense cant score but 16 points a game. Yes the Raven won a Lombardi like that once. But reality is that fixing the O-line would go alot farther than another sack master.

 

[j_y19]

Shark has kinda built on the point I was trying to make. A handful of draft spots doesnt mean crap if you are reaching a tad for a quality player that can be a long term pro-bowler kind of guy. Our line has been in shambles (minus a player or two) for years. As sfan said, If we can build it, it makes everything on Offense better.

You would have to show me proof that a higher percentage of OL drafted in the mid rounds are more successful than those drafted in the first. I dont think that is the case with ANY position, much less OL. That obviously doesnt mean that every first rounder will work out, we all know that isnt true. But I would almost put money on it (without even looking) that more studs were drafted in the first round than the 2-4th, individually.

Just take a look at historical PB OL and where they were drafted. Of course numbers play into it. There are significantly more OL drafted later than earlier. But that somewhat furthers the point. You can find quAlity OL with regularity late. That's not true with skill positions.

 

[j_y19]

Sparks... I hate to admit that he is actually right in that more quality O-lineman (outside of LT) are found in rounds other than the first. BUt I think this is more a byproduct of the group think that Skill positions are worth more than O-lineman in general.

Again most people think O-line is not a "skill" position and thus you should be able to take any big stinky in the 4th -7th round and just plug them in. After all what do they really do aside from stand there and push the other guys back for a few seconds.

I on the other hand am a firm believer in the fact that if what you have been doing does not work, you need to change your approach. We have struggled to find quality O-line late in the draft for years. So maybe it is time to invest in the line a little earlier and lets not worry about the sexy picks so much. What good is a guy who gets 13 sacks a year if your offense cant score but 16 points a game. Yes the Raven won a Lombardi like that once. But reality is that fixing the O-line would go alot farther than another sack master.

One could argue we have changed our approach by actually hiring a talent evaluator expert.

 

[Sharkinva]

One could argue we have changed our approach by actually hiring a talent evaluator expert.

Sure one could. But one could also argue that the best way to fix the O-line to to bring in more talented players. And most of the 4-7th round O-lineman are 4-7th rounders for a reason. You are basically suggesting that we continue to draft development players when our starters do in fact suck. If we were strictly looking for O-lineman to take over in two years great. But reality is we need lineman now, so it makes more sense to invest in a higher talent pool.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Aside from day one starters at LT, I tend to think O-linemen are actually down played when it comes to the draft. Alot of fans tend to think of O-line as just fat guys that push each other around. No one appreciates an all pro guard until they have an 1800 yard RB and a QB that can actually walk at the end of the season without a cane. LOL

I don't think this is true. It's certainly not true in DC with our OL history. Every fan I've ever spoken with who knows anything about the game loves it when his/her team gets a good offensive lineman

 

[Sharkinva]

I don't think this is true. It's certainly not true in DC with our OL history. Every fan I've ever spoken with who knows anything about the game loves it when his/her team gets a good offensive lineman

Got to disagree. IN the past few days alone I have seen people question whether we should even consider using the first round pick on an O-lineman that isnt a LT. I have also seen many throw out the FACT that we should be able to find starting O-lineman in the 2nd and 3rd round.

O-line is generally the one position that most people consider as a last resort for a first round pick, especially a top five first round pick unless we are talking about a LT.

 

[j_y19]

Sure one could. But one could also argue that the best way to fix the O-line to to bring in more talented players. And most of the 4-7th round O-lineman are 4-7th rounders for a reason. You are basically suggesting that we continue to draft development players when our starters do in fact suck. If we were strictly looking for O-lineman to take over in two years great. But reality is we need lineman now, so it makes more sense to invest in a higher talent pool.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Im fine taking an OL man in any round if their talent warrants the pick. I would have no issue using our 5th pick, 37th pick or any pick on an OL. But I also don't want us to reach for a player at any position with our 5th if we can realistically get a comparable player at 37. You haven't won me over yet that this is not the case if we take Schreff at 5 as I believe there will be an OT at 37 who has a first round grade.

 

[Sharkinva]

I'm not suggesting that at all. Im fine taking an OL man in any round if their talent warrants the pick. I would have no issue using our 5th pick, 37th pick or any pick on an OL. But I also don't want us to reach for a player at any position with our 5th if we can realistically get a comparable player at 37. You haven't won me over yet that this is not the case if we take Schreff at 5 as I believe there will be an OT at 37 who has a first round grade.

Again, who determines what a reach is though?? Mel Kiper?? Seriously most of these mocks DO take into account team need and high light factor when they start saying well this team will take this guy and he is worth this pick. Or as I asked before, do you really deep down believe Jamies Winston is the best player in the 2015 draft?? And yes there might be a OT at 37 who has a first round grade, but I dont believe that guy will be as good as Scherff. Otherwise that guy would be considered the best O-lineman in this draft. Hell Morgan Moses had a 2nd round grade going into last years draft.. but from what we see now, we should have waited to see if he was there in the 7th.