I have a question for all of the BPA thinkers.

[Sharkinva]

It would be great to get some players at other positions. But as much as our line has stunk, I would be OK going pretty heavy there early in the draft. I believe Sfan or DGF stated it, a trade back, pick up Scherff or someone else 10-15. Add another REALLY good G or one of the Top 1-2 Centers in the draft. I like the Erving guy from FSU a lot too.

I hate to keep going back to Dallas, but they have went all in on the OL using that very strategy, and it will pay dividends for years to come.

Thats great saying we can trade back to the 10-12 slot and still get Scherff. But I seriously think if he gets to the Giants at 9, they run to the podium. And I think if we traded back to say 7 with the bears so that THEY could take the pass rusher dejour, Assuming the Jets dont take Mariota... they might well take Scherff. As much as people say he isnt worth the #5 pick, he is considered hands down the best O-lineman in this draft and will likely be the first lineman off the board. Either to us, the Jets or the Giants. Possibly even the Rams. I know most around here dont think he is worth it, But there are going to be atleast 4 teams hoping we DONT pull the trigger on him.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

OK lets clear this up... i dont care if he is rated 12th by some ones mock draft which in all likelihood is what most are basing the whole he isnt worth the fifth pick thing on. My take is he is one of the top 5-7 players in this draft period. The fact that he also happens to fit in rather well with our needs is a bonus.

But by your thinking of BPA no matter what based on some ranking system... you are basically saying that if By some chance Mariota is there at 5 and we cant get a trade done, we have to take him right??

And i have never changed the discussion.. I have said all along I think people are under valuing him because we DONT need a LT and the group think says you dont take an O-lineman in the top five unless its a LT. I would also wager that if we didnt have trent, quite a few would be pounding the boards to take this kid at #5.

I am not saying he is rated 12th by "some ranking system". I'm saying they don't take a higher rated player on their ranking system. If he is the BPA on their board, like Dad says, I'm OK with the pick. I just highly doubt that is the case.

As for MM the answer is yes. The only time you don't go BPA is an extreme situation like the Colts having a QB at the top of their board when they pick or the Pats have a glaring need for a position that could justify a reach because ther're roster is pretty well set. But a team like the Redskins? It would be idiotic to pass up better players and that's why they won't do it.

And again for the last time our GM has stated very clearly that he won't use your method, he will use the one I am suggestion It's what he's done and what he will do this time too.

 

[Sharkinva]

I am not saying he is rated 12th by "some ranking system". I'm saying they don't take a higher rated player on their ranking system. If he is the BPA on their board, like Dad says, I'm OK with the pick. I just highly doubt that is the case.

As for MM the answer is yes. The only time you don't go BPA is an extreme situation like the Colts having a QB at the top of their board when they pick or the Pats have a glaring need for a position that could justify a reach because ther're roster is pretty well set. But a team like the Redskins? It would be idiotic to pass up better players and that's why they won't do it.

And again for the last time our GM has stated very clearly that he won't use your method, he will use the one I am suggestion It's what he's done and what he will do this time too.

OK so you know our GM doesnt think Scherff would be the BPA at five how exactly then?? If you have a copy of the Redskins big board, by all means please share so that we may glean something of the mentality of our new GM??

See basically what you are saying is, based on your opinion, our GM wont consider Schreff the BPA because once again in YOUR opinion he obviously is not the PBA at #5 so there is no way our GM would take him. And if he did, well obviously you would be ok with it even though you would personally consider it a mistake because YOU dont think he is the PBA mostly based off of what you have seen from other mock drafts...

Gotcha.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

OK so you know our GM doesnt think Scherff would be the BPA at five how exactly then?? If you have a copy of the Redskins big board, by all means please share so that we may glean something of the mentality of our new GM??

See basically what you are saying is, based on your opinion, our GM wont consider Schreff the BPA because once again in YOUR opinion he obviously is not the PBA at #5 so there is no way our GM would take him. And if he did, well obviously you would be ok with it even though you would personally consider it a mistake because YOU dont think he is the PBA mostly based off of what you have seen from other mock drafts...

Gotcha.

Don't make me dig up old posts because I'm old and just got up from a nap.

You have been saying all along that it doesn't matter if the player is rated a few spots lower than others, you take him to fill a need, period, and because of that glaring need the player's value to us goes above his rating. That was you position for months. I, like Dad, have been saying that if SM has him rated at 5 then I'm ok with it. But the point was moot because I never thought that would be the case for the reasons I have given over and over. I have never argue how SM has them rated, we have simply been arguing the logic is taking a lower rated player to fill a need.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Don't make me dig up old posts because I'm old and just got up from a nap.

You have been saying all along that it doesn't matter if the player is rated a few spots lower than others, you take him to fill a need, period, and because of that glaring need the player's value to us goes above his rating. That was you position for months. I, like Dad, have been saying that if SM has him rated at 5 then I'm ok with it. But the point was moot because I never thought that would be the case for the reasons I have given over and over. I have never argue how SM has them rated, we have simply been arguing the logic is taking a lower rated player to fill a need.

This is also how I remember it. Tho many segue discussions have also been entertained. The new tidbit that Shark introduced lately IIRC was that his board placed Scherff higher, thus closing the gap in the discussion.

 

[Sharkinva]

Don't make me dig up old posts because I'm old and just got up from a nap.

You have been saying all along that it doesn't matter if the player is rated a few spots lower than others, you take him to fill a need, period, and because of that glaring need the player's value to us goes above his rating. That was you position for months. I, like Dad, have been saying that if SM has him rated at 5 then I'm ok with it. But the point was moot because I never thought that would be the case for the reasons I have given over and over. I have never argue how SM has them rated, we have simply been arguing the logic is taking a lower rated player to fill a need.

Again dude, you are basing the rating of the player mostly on Mock drafts and Mel Kipers big board. And if Mel has a guy rated five slots lower than we pick, then yes I still take him because you are right I dont care where Mel has a guy rater, or Mayock. And yes I do believe that if you have a guy rated slightly higher that serves no other purpose than to say we took the best player on the board, but it leaves your team weaker, you do take the guy that makes the team STRONGER over all and reach factor be damned within reason. If you have a WR rated higher than the OT, but you have two all pro WR's and decent WR depth to boot you dont draft a bench warmer over a starter.

 

[skinsdad62]

if scherf is the best rated guy on the board (which he could be ) then i am all for it

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Again dude, you are basing the rating of the player mostly on Mock drafts and Mel Kipers big board. And if Mel has a guy rated five slots lower than we pick, then yes I still take him because you are right I dont care where Mel has a guy rater, or Mayock. And yes I do believe that if you have a guy rated slightly higher that serves no other purpose than to say we took the best player on the board, but it leaves your team weaker, you do take the guy that makes the team STRONGER over all and reach factor be damned within reason. If you have a WR rated higher than the OT, but you have two all pro WR's and decent WR depth to boot you dont draft a bench warmer over a starter.

So you want to declare a LT who apparently is not even good enough to make the switch over to RT, a guy who was a mauler in the run game but is a bit suspect at pass protection, switch him to a brand new position, then declare him as a must have, a player that needs to be taken ahead of where he is rated. Next you want to totally dismiss the idea of a WR because you are obviously thinking only of next year, not years down the road when both of these WRs could very well be gone. The draft is a long term investment, you take the best player on your board to have the most success. Every move you have suggested is for the quick fix.

 

[j_y19]

if scherf is the best rated guy on the board (which he could be ) then i am all for it

And if Cooper or white are the BPA on Scott's board at 5? Do we take them?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

This is also how I remember it. Tho many segue discussions have also been entertained. The new tidbit that Shark introduced lately IIRC was that his board placed Scherff higher, thus closing the gap in the discussion.

It's more like totally changing the argument. Again if SM has him rated 5th or 6th like Dad I have no problem with the pick. But again this has not been the discussion up until this weekend when Shark totally changed the argument.

 

[Sharkinva]

So you want to declare a LT who apparently is not even good enough to make the switch over to RT, a guy who was a mauler in the run game but is a bit suspect at pass protection, switch him to a brand new position, then declare him as a must have, a player that needs to be taken ahead of where he is rated. Next you want to totally dismiss the idea of a WR because you are obviously thinking only of next year, not years down the road when both of these WRs could very well be gone. The draft is a long term investment, you take the best player on your board to have the most success. Every move you have suggested is for the quick fix.

Best way to fix this team LONG TERM is to have a good offensive line in place. At absolute worst case Scherff comes in and fails totally. But realistically He would be at worst a 6-10 year starter at RG, which yes has been a real problem.

Also, what we have been doing ( drafting Skill players and pass rushers) has not been working. So maybe fixing the O-line should be a priority Now if he isnt found worthy of the pick thats fine and on the GM. But if it comes down to a WR or pass rusher being rated just a little better, then you hedge towards the line at this point because until we can keep a QB upright and start scoring points, it dont matter how many pass catchers we have or how many sacks we get.

Dont believe me, ask the Jags fans how being 5th in the league in sacks helped their season.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Best way to fix this team LONG TERM is to have a good offensive line in place. At absolute worst case Scherff comes in and fails totally. But realistically He would be at worst a 6-10 year starter at RG, which yes has been a real problem.

Also, what we have been doing ( drafting Skill players and pass rushers) has not been working. So maybe fixing the O-line should be a priority Now if he isnt found worthy of the pick thats fine and on the GM. But if it comes down to a WR or pass rusher being rated just a little better, then you hedge towards the line at this point because until we can keep a QB upright and start scoring points, it dont matter how many pass catchers we have or how many sacks we get.

Dont believe me, ask the Jags fans how being 5th in the league in sacks helped their season.

Again I agree that we need a good OL. But again if they don't take Sherff at 5 that does not mean they will not address the OL. But if you are arguing that a pass rush is not important with your Jags comment Of course a pass rush, and pass protection, are important. They are equally important. Ask a Seahawks fan. So I'll take the player that is better at pass rushing over the player who is not as good at pass blocking, not to mention switching to a new position.

 

[Sharkinva]

Again I agree that we need a good OL. But if you are arguing that a pass rush is not important than why is pass protection so important? Of course a pass rush, and pass protection, is important. They are equally important. Ask a Seahawks fan. So I'll take the player that is better at pass rushing over the player who is not as good at pass blocking, not to mention switching to a new position.

IM not saying a pass rusher isnt important. Im saying that some people have their priorities screwed up in thinking another pass rusher is going to mean squat for this team over O-line at the moment. Same for WR. And an improved o-line isnt just about pass protection, its also about an improved run game. Or had you not noticed that the majority of our busted running plays were also to the right side of the line last year??

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

IM not saying a pass rusher isnt important. Im saying that some people have their priorities screwed up in thinking another pass rusher is going to mean squat for this team over O-line at the moment. Same for WR. And an improved o-line isnt just about pass protection, its also about an improved run game. Or had you not noticed that the majority of our busted running plays were also to the right side of the line last year??

We're just going in circles now, let's move on. We both know where we stand. Believe me nobody wants an improved line more than I do. I still go back to thinking what Griffin would look like behind that Dallas OL with a clean pocket and 4 seconds to throw. But passing up higher rated players is a panic, quick fix approach IMO and the draft is not about panic quick fixes

 

[Sharkinva]

[QUOTE="Darrell Green Fan, post: 6384099, member: 8691"]We're just going in circles now, let's move on. We both know where we stand. Believe me nobody wants an improved line more than I do. I still go back to thinking what Griffin would look like behind that Dallas OL with a clean pocket and 4 seconds to throw. But passing up higher rated players is a panic, quick fix approach IMO and the draft is not about panic quick fixes[/QUOTE]


Isnt that what we do around here?? And as i have said quite a few times, I dont think we would be taking a lesser rated player in this example.. unless we are talking about some ones mock draft board rating.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

[QUOj_y19, post: 6375393, member: 4983"]Sty, are you of the opinion that we go OL at 5 at all costs? So no matter where Scot has the top OL on his board, when the 5 pick comes up , we take him?

[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily at all costs, however because we are talking about our team, I believe that our needs at OL are so dire that it must be considered priority #1. Someone, I believe that it was Shark, used Dallas, specifically, T. Romo's statistical season as an example that illustrates what could be possible behind an stout OL. That is not to say that any one of our current QB's are Romoesque, however fixing the line would go a long way towards curing the long term ills of this franchise.[/QUOTE]

While O-line may be the # 1 priority it doesn't mean that it needs to be addressed this year at all costs. Folks need to get out of the previous Redskins mindset where everything needs to be addressed in one offseason. That is not how you build a team. They should do as well as they can this offseason to get things going in the right direction as part of a 2-3 year rebuilding project. You don't draft O-lineman high in the draft if the pick cannot be justified. No worries - again - leave this type of thing to SM since I am very confident he will do the right thing.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Shark: The problem is this is a recent occurrence, you have just this week started saying you don't consider Scherff a lesser player. Prior to that your argument was take a guy at 5 even if he is rated several spots lower because it fills a need. I wasn't the only one to notice, this was another poster's recollection as well

 

[Sharkinva]

Shark: The problem is this is a recent occurrence, you have just this week started saying you don't consider Scherff a lesser player. Prior to that your argument was take a guy at 5 even if he is rated several spots lower because it fills a need. I wasn't the only one to notice, this was another poster's recollection as well

Dude I have never said you take him just because it fills a need. If that were the case why not draft a OT in the 5th round again and say we tried to address the need.

1. It does fill a need.
2. He is considered the best OT in the draft.
3. If we trade down he wont be there because the Giants likely WILL take him.
4. I would rather take a guy 3-5 slots too early than wait til the second round and try and justify the talent drop off because we took a player to be a backup in the first round. We are NOT a strong enough roster to be drafting backups in the first round. Maybe some day, but that time is NOT now.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

wow, this thread did some damage. I'd just like to add for the longest, I was set on Shelton because NT has been a problem, and I felt the NT prospect was better than the OT prospect.
Now NT has been addressed and OT, IMO is a bigger issue than adding a pass rusher.
The pass rushers available are undersized, have injury history or have weak college production.
I think I'd like to take my chances with whats on the roster at pass rusher and protect whats left of the franchise qb OR the next man up.

i will say if somehow MM is available at 5, and we take him, I expect RGIII to be traded the same day for a pick.

 

[Sharkinva]

Shark: The problem is this is a recent occurrence, you have just this week started saying you don't consider Scherff a lesser player. Prior to that your argument was take a guy at 5 even if he is rated several spots lower because it fills a need. I wasn't the only one to notice, this was another poster's recollection as well

I also want to make sure I got you on this one correctly. So because i didnt come out in the beginning and say I thought he was the 5th best player in this draft, although i have consistently said I think he is worthy of the fifth pick.. I have changed my tune?? Or was it the fact that i have said all along I dont care where he is rated by some ones mock draft, you DO in fact need to take into consideration present and future needs in the draft and some time hedge towards the greater need.

Side note, had I come out on day one and said, I think he is ONE of the top five players in this draft, I would have had a litany of mock drafts posted of us taking numerous other players with questions like... so why hasnt any one mocked him to us??