Right Guard Redux: Jay Gruden On Right Guard: 'I Feel Good About That Spot'

[Sharkinva]

Who said anything about a trade in the post you've quoted? It's about giving up a value. And the consensus on Scherff is that his value lies between #10 and #15. So, what if Scherff is gone at #4? Do we take the next available o-lineman then?

If he is gone at 4, then you start looking at your pass rushers and WRs or a trade down if some one is there that wants to trade up. But to go into the draft saying.. well all we want to do is trade the pick any way with no idea of WHO you would actually use the pick on is rather dicey at best. And I will say once again, if you dont think these "Scouts" big boards you are looking at take into account WHAT they think the teams will do at respective spots, you are kidding yourself. IF Tampa's biggest need was a D-lineman do you really think EVERY one on the planet would be predicting Winston to the BUCs?? SO those player ranges more often than not take into account whatteams need. The Giants and Rams BOTH need O-lineman. Some how the world has gotten it into thier heads that our biggest need is yet another pass rusher.

 

[redskinsfan]

If he is gone at 4, then you start looking at your pass rushers and WRs or a trade down if some one is there that wants to trade up. But to go into the draft saying.. well all we want to do is trade the pick any way with no idea of WHO you would actually use the pick on is rather dicey at best. And I will say once again, if you dont think these "Scouts" big boards you are looking at take into account WHAT they think the teams will do at respective spots, you are kidding yourself. IF Tampa's biggest need was a D-lineman do you really think EVERY one on the planet would be predicting Winston to the BUCs?? SO those player ranges more often than not take into account whatteams need. The Giants and Rams BOTH need O-lineman. Some how the world has gotten it into thier heads that our biggest need is yet another pass rusher.

The idea of trading down is an accepted convention when your pick comes up and you don't see a BPA that fits a need. It's a lot more foolhardy to say that we're going to consider the best among prospects we know aren't going to fit instead of trading down to see what's available then. And that's because there usually is always someone down the road that will be worth the value you get from them. In this case, if we trade down, there other o-linemen we can draft, including the top OT Andrus Peat if we slide to #12.

 

[Sharkinva]

The idea of trading down is an accepted convention when your pick comes up and you don't see a BPA that fits a need. It's a lot more foolhardy to say that we're going to consider the best among prospects we know aren't going to fit instead of trading down to see what's available then. And that's because there usually is always someone down the road that will be worth the value you get from them. In this case, if we trade down, there other o-linemen we can draft, including the top OT Andrus Peat if we slide to #12.

So now you are saying there is NOTHING that would be considered a BPA at five that would fit this teams need. Lets discount for a moment WHO we actually think is ranked where. Even I can admit that while Im not sold on the OLBs projected to us as being better than Scherff... Any one of them according to the big boards you are screaming about would be worthy of the pick.

As for Peat being the best OT in this draft.... why is he usually rated some where in the 12-18 range then on those same big boards?? Talking apples to apples for a moment, very few have Peat going ahead of Scherff. So sure we could trade down and take the second best OT... provided some one is willing to trade up to get our pick to take who knows what.

 

[skinsdad62]

Who said anything about a trade in the post you've quoted? It's about giving up a value. And the consensus on Scherff is that his value lies between #10 and #15. So, what if Scherff is gone at #4? Do we take the next available o-lineman then?

no the consensus is not that . it has been almost always 9 with a high of 7 . shoot pro football draft guide has us taking him at 5

now to answer your question the answer would be no we would take the next best player at a position of need if it is the right spot to draft him . in your scenario williams would be there and of course we scoop him up

 

[skinsdad62]

Who said anything about a trade in the post you've quoted? It's about giving up a value. And the consensus on Scherff is that his value lies between #10 and #15. So, what if Scherff is gone at #4? Do we take the next available o-lineman then?

you did by talking about what you can get for a trade of the pick calling it "value " which doesnt mean shit . what means shit is if beasley /fowler /gregg /ray are better football players then scherf i am talking about talent on the field and you keep trying to flip the argument

the difference between 5 and 9 in talent is very little not some canyon sized reach you want to portray

 

[redskinsfan]

no the consensus is not that . it has been almost always 9 with a high of 7 . shoot pro football draft guide has us taking him at 5

now to answer your question the answer would be no we would take the next best player at a position of need if it is the right spot to draft him . in your scenario williams would be there and of course we scoop him up

Not the ones I'm looking at and these are some recognized draft evaluators not named Mel Kiper. The only way we stick around at #5 is to take Williams or an OLB (all of which I can agree have shortcomings). This is why I'm all for trading down.

 

[redskinsfan]

you did by talking about what you can get for a trade of the pick calling it "value " which doesnt mean shit . what means shit is if beasley /fowler /gregg /ray are better football players then scherf i am talking about talent on the field and you keep trying to flip the argument

the difference between 5 and 9 in talent is very little not some canyon sized reach you want to portray

You completely missed the point. My point isn't that there's a disparity in talent between the fifth and ninth overall picks. It's the fact that there's a huge gap in the value between the picks not the players! I can concede that the talent gap is probably little to none between Scherff and the OLBs. That's never been an issue. The issue is what each pick (not player)is valued at. And by the example I gave you with Browns / Bills trade last year, that torpedoes any point that there is no such gap.

 

[redskinsfan]

So now you are saying there is NOTHING that would be considered a BPA at five that would fit this teams need. Lets discount for a moment WHO we actually think is ranked where. Even I can admit that while Im not sold on the OLBs projected to us as being better than Scherff... Any one of them according to the big boards you are screaming about would be worthy of the pick.

As for Peat being the best OT in this draft.... why is he usually rated some where in the 12-18 range then on those same big boards?? Talking apples to apples for a moment, very few have Peat going ahead of Scherff. So sure we could trade down and take the second best OT... provided some one is willing to trade up to get our pick to take who knows what.

Huh? May big boards differ on who is ranked where. Vinny had a big board. Scot does too. That aside, I'll agree that Scherff is the better player than any of the o-linemen in the draft. However, my draft plan for taking Peat over Scherff is this: they are about the same grade of player; for that reason, because we need a RT more than a RG, we take Peat. While I'd love to draft Scherff there (if he's available) we can fill that need either at #19 or with a second rounder like Tomlinson. We unfortunately pass on I guy that I love (Scherff) to fill a hole that the Redskins apparently claim doesn't exist, we still get two young guys that are top picks to fill out the right side of the line. We do that without sacrificing much if anything in terms of value, and, if there is any such sacrifice, it's minimal enough to be worth it. Otherwise, if we take Scherff, the OTs will all be gone by #19 and we're really screwed by having no one other Compton or Moses holding up the RT spot. Of course, if we believe that an OT is going to be available at #19 and if Scherff is available at #12, I'll take Scherff there.

 

[skinsdad62]

You completely missed the point. My point isn't that there's a disparity in talent between the fifth and ninth overall picks. It's the fact that there's a huge gap in the value between the picks not the players! I can concede that the talent gap is probably little to none between Scherff and the OLBs. That's never been an issue. The issue is what each pick (not player)is valued at. And by the example I gave you with Browns / Bills trade last year, that torpedoes any point that there is no such gap.

well hell i have said that the hole time and you wanted to dispute that . and if we draft someone at 5 there is no value to be had

no trade means we are looking at the players

 

[redskinsfan]

well hell i have said that the hole time and you wanted to dispute that . and if we draft someone at 5 there is no value to be had

no trade means we are looking at the players

I have never disputed that. What I have stated that is if you're taking Scherff, who's ranked at #9, with the fifth overall pick, you're giving up too much in value in terms of the picks. And that value is best illustrated by the Browns - Bills trade last year where the Browns got a first rounder and fourth rounder this year. Was Sammy Watkins that much better than the players selected around #10 last year? No. Yet, it took that small King's ransom to net him. The issue, once again, is whether Scherff is worth that. IMHO, he's not.

And you're still missing the point when you say "no trade means we are looking at the players." You can look at the jump between the #5 and his rating (#9) as a trade, whose value is measured by the Bills / Browns trade. That's the value you're forfeiting when reaching for Scherff then and is something no different from what economists call a lost opportunity cost.

 

[skinsdad62]

you arent giving up shit . value is only there if a trade is there. if we are picking at 5 then no trade is available or doable hence value is out the window and it comes down to the players and their abilities

scherf IMO is better then the 4 OLBS being mentioned

 

[redskinsfan]

you arent giving up shit . value is only there if a trade is there. if we are picking at 5 then no trade is available or doable hence value is out the window and it comes down to the players and their abilities

scherf IMO is better then the 4 OLBS being mentioned

Do you understand the concept of lost opportunity cost? Look it up and tell me you're not giving up shit. If you have a chance to select any car you want and you take a Civic over a Ferrari, the fact that there is no immediate tangible loss is immaterial. You're still losing value and that's best illustrated by that basic concept in economics.

 

[Sharkinva]

Do you understand the concept of lost opportunity cost? Look it up and tell me you're not giving up shit. If you have a chance to select any car you want and you take a Civic over a Ferrari, the fact that there is no immediate tangible loss is immaterial. You're still losing value and that's best illustrated by that basic concept in economics.

Let me ask. Are you that guy that would rather pay the minimum due on the Electric bill and then buy a bunch of scratch offs and worry about the total bill due later because the scratch off MIGHT get you an extra few bucks. Because basically what you are saying is, you arent willing to give up what it will take to assure we get the best offensive lineman in the draft because you feel you could make out better taking a lesser talent and having an extra pick.

And basically thats what we are talking here. Barring the Jags or Raiders taking Scherff ahead of us, we can be assuered of getting the best OT in the draft by using the fifth pick, or we can take the stripped down model and get an extra pick... .you hope.

 

[redskinsfan]

Let me ask. Are you that guy that would rather pay the minimum due on the Electric bill and then buy a bunch of scratch offs and worry about the total bill due later because the scratch off MIGHT get you an extra few bucks. Because basically what you are saying is, you arent willing to give up what it will take to assure we get the best offensive lineman in the draft because you feel you could make out better taking a lesser talent and having an extra pick.

And basically thats what we are talking here. Barring the Jags or Raiders taking Scherff ahead of us, we can be assuered of getting the best OT in the draft by using the fifth pick, or we can take the stripped down model and get an extra pick... .you hope.

Really bad example. Any appreciable gains from scratch offs are non-existent and, if you get them, they are based on pure luck. If I were to pay the minimum on the electric bill and invest money in positions recommended by a private wealth manager at Goldman Sachs, that's the more appropriate analogy -- and an entirely different proposition. Under the analogy I posed, the private wealth options are carefully scrutinized, in much the same way McCloughan would evaluate prospects down the draft board.

And you keep making stuff up. Scherff is NOT an OT, much less the best OT in the draft. That's one of the main issues driving this whole consideration, that being the fact that taking an OG at #5 pick is basically historically unprecedented. In addition, as an OT, he's considered very average. So, if you're taking him as an OT with our fifth overall pick, you're basically getting a run-of-the-mill RT for a premium pick in the draft. How on earth does that make any sense?

What you and dad don't get is this concept of lost opportunity cost. Like I've said before, if someone gave you a free gift certificate to select any car that you wanted, and you got a Honda Civic, you're not "losing" anything up front; rather, you've lost big in terms of the opportunity to land a top-of-the-line vehicle. An economist would explain that your "loss" is measured by the liquid value between what you could've gotten (e.g., a Hennessey Viper) and what you actually got. In this example, a Viper would cost around $2M whereas the Civic would run about $20K. The difference or lost opportunity cost there would be staggering.

Applied to our situation here, the lost opportunity cost would be measured between the fifth overall and where Scherff is rated. We're using the ninth overall pick for purposes of this example, which is a very liberal assessment of his worth based on the consensus of big boards maintained by proven personnel guys. (This means that boards which project him at #5 or at #18 don't count because they're outliers. Also off-limits are people like Mel Kiper, who's methodology is more hype than anything else. Does he rate some prospects well? Of course. But in general, you can't rely on him for legit draft analysis.)

Using this nine-to-five difference, we've got a great way to measure the value of that difference. And that's the Bills-Browns trade of last year. The price for that difference is a first and fourth rounder this year.

In view of that price tag, you then come to the issue of whether Scherff, an OG (not OT), is worth taking at five when realizing you're giving up that value. The answer clearly is no. What an economist would suggest is to trade down and get tangible value for that pick. That may come in the form of a first and later round pick in 2016. Or it could mean a second rounder this year. Depending on whom our trade partner is, we still may be able to nab Scherff in much the same way we landed Champ Bailey in 1999 when trading down with the New Orleans. Even if we can't, we can fill our OG need more than adequately later in the draft. What you seem to ignore is the fact that while we do need RG and RT help, we don't need the top level talent to meet our needs there. If we push for Pro-Bowl prospects at those positions, we neglect other positions of need like RT. That's why commentators advise time and again that when you've got a rebuilding team like the Redskins, you parlay premium picks into more picks so you can fill more holes. One big believer in that is McCloughan himself. And with his track record, I'm not too worried in passing up on Scherff since I'm confident that he'll land someone as good or close thereto.

If this explanation doesn't convince you, I'm not sure what will.

 

[Sharkinva]

Redskinsfan.. .done with the debate. But for the record Scherff played OT in College, he is listed as an OT on most if not all scouting reports. Thus until a team drafts him and puts him at another position he is an OT. Secondly, I love how every one gives some players a pass for having a down year when coming back from injury, but this kid gets ZERO respect for playing through a normal 6-8 week injury and not even missing a freaking game. In other words, even playing injured for most of the season, he is still considered one of the top O-lineman in this draft.

You can make stocks analogies, talk about potential worth of the pick in trade and reference how no one REALLY thinks he is an OT.

We will simply agree to disagree and se how the draft falls ok?

 

[redskinsfan]

Redskinsfan.. .done with the debate. But for the record Scherff played OT in College, he is listed as an OT on most if not all scouting reports. Thus until a team drafts him and puts him at another position he is an OT. Secondly, I love how every one gives some players a pass for having a down year when coming back from injury, but this kid gets ZERO respect for playing through a normal 6-8 week injury and not even missing a freaking game. In other words, even playing injured for most of the season, he is still considered one of the top O-lineman in this draft.

You can make stocks analogies, talk about potential worth of the pick in trade and reference how no one REALLY thinks he is an OT.

We will simply agree to disagree and se how the draft falls ok?

If you really take a look at what I've said, we really don't disagree on a whole lot. I don't think he's an OT and that he's worth the fifth pick but I do believe he can be a cornerstone OG on our o-line for years to come and he'd be worth taking around #10. At bottom, I believe, as almost all of the posters on this board, that we should trade down. If we do, we maximize the picks that Scot can choose from, and that's a real key with him since he can land players we need to rebuild. He still may be there if we trade down, but I'll trust in Scot to use the extra picks we get to fill the holes we have.

If Scot believes Scherff is worth it at five, I'm on board. He'd still be sacrificing quite a bit in value, but if he believes Scherff is that good, it'll be more than worth it.

 

[skinsdad62]

Do you understand the concept of lost opportunity cost? Look it up and tell me you're not giving up shit. If you have a chance to select any car you want and you take a Civic over a Ferrari, the fact that there is no immediate tangible loss is immaterial. You're still losing value and that's best illustrated by that basic concept in economics.

there is no freaking opportunity cost if there is no trade partner period it is a phantom if there is a trade partner and they offerde us a deal and we dont take it then value has been established for real and it was more then offered

but the scenario we have debated is we are making the damn pick hence there is no phantom value in which case it comes down to talent of the 5th pick and the 9th pick on the damn field and not some made up would coulda shoulda value

 

[redskinsfan]

there is no freaking opportunity cost if there is no trade partner period it is a phantom if there is a trade partner and they offerde us a deal and we dont take it then value has been established for real and it was more then offered

but the scenario we have debated is we are making the damn pick hence there is no phantom value in which case it comes down to talent of the 5th pick and the 9th pick on the damn field and not some made up would coulda shoulda value

With all due respect, you are dead wrong. Even if the NFL abolished trading, if you reach for a player you could get later on (or select someone who could fill that need down the draft board), you've given up value. The fact that you lost value because you had no trade partners may explain why that happened, but it doesn't change the fact you lost value.

 

[skinsdad62]

With all due respect, you are dead wrong. Even if the NFL abolished trading, if you reach for a player you could get later on (or select someone who could fill that need down the draft board), you've given up value. The fact that you lost value because you had no trade partners may explain why that happened, but it doesn't change the fact you lost value.

you have done no such thing because talent on the field takes over . what you dont get is some alleged value you place on a pick has everything to do with what some one will offer you for it . if there is no trade offer what value have you lost ? you pick the player who you think is best

you and DGF can cry to the cow come home and to me the talent of the player at 5 is of little difference then the pick at 7 or 9

 

[redskinsfan]

you have done no such thing because talent on the field takes over . what you dont get is some alleged value you place on a pick has everything to do with what some one will offer you for it . if there is no trade offer what value have you lost ? you pick the player who you think is best

you and DGF can cry to the cow come home and to me the talent of the player at 5 is of little difference then the pick at 7 or 9

You apparently aren't either reading or understanding my posts. I'm NOT talking about the difference in value between players. I'm talking about the difference in value between draft picks. And we know what that general value is based on the Browns-Bills trade last year: a first and fourth rounder the next year. It makes ZERO difference if there's a little if no different in talent since, if the player holds a lower rank down a big board, that means you can get an otherwise talented player later. Thus, let's assume that Fowler is ranked at 9.4 out of 10 at the fifth overall spot and Scherff is a 9.6 at nine. There's a hairline difference in player value but, because Scherff still ranks out at nine, there's a huge difference in the draft pick value.

One example of this was the Raiders' selection of Robert Gallery with their second overall pick in 2004. He was a bust as a tackle but was a standout guard. (Does this sound like somebody we're talking about?) While the Raiders still got a solid interior linemen that served them well for several years, the Raiders still lost tremendous value with that pick. Why? Because they could've gotten someone like Gallery in third rounder. So, the value they gave up was the difference between a second overall pick and a third rounder, which was huge. And to illustrate how bad this was, you can look to players they passed up like Phillip Rivers, Big Ben, and Vince Wilfork. This is a shining of example of lost opportunity cost.