I have a question for all of the BPA thinkers.

[Darrell Green Fan]

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??

Yeah you got it right. You never said you considered him the 5th best player in this draft until a week or so ago. Prior to that every conversation I have had with you was basically "I don't care if he is rated lower, his rating becomes higher for this team because of such a glaring need". Those are 2 totally different arguments. You were saying for months to take the lower rated player because he fills a need so therefore he is more valuable to them than other players they have rated higher.

If you had said all along that you considered him a top 5 player, well I would maybe disagree with the assessment but not the logic in recommending him being the pick. But that simply was not your argument a month ago

I tried to find yous posts but was unable. Damn man you sure have a lot of posts!

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And if we are talking the difference of 3 or 4 spots on the pick, Im perfectly fine with that. And yes that is basically what we are talking here is the difference between 5 and 8-12 since most pundits have Schreff coming off the board in the 8-12 range.

This is what I'm talking about and I"m sure there are dozens more. How else would you describe this position other than to reach 3-4 spots and pass up higher rated players just to fill a need?

ESPN 980's Chris Russell On Redskins Safeties | Page 2 | SportsHoopla.com Sports Forums

 

[Stymietee]

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.[/QUOTE]

I never said "at all costs", the first five words in my post proves that.

 

[Sharkinva]

This is what I'm talking about and I"m sure there are dozens more. How else would you describe this position other than to reach 3-4 spots and pass up higher rated players just to fill a need?

ESPN 980's Chris Russell On Redskins Safeties | Page 2 | SportsHoopla.com Sports Forums

Or maybe thats just me once again saying if the difference between getting our guy, and totally missing him is that most Mocks have him at 8-12 and we pick at five... as i have said Numerous times I dont CARE where Mel Kiper thinks he should go. We are basing his value as a player off of a bunch of guys who thought RG3 was the second best player in his draft class, Jamarcus Russel was the #1 player in his draft class. So you damn right, if you want to call it a reach, have fun. But reality is he is worthy of our #5 pick which i have also said all along.

But lets keep debating semantics. Because the only way to Justify NOT taking him and instead going for the sexy pick is to say he would be a reach.

 

[Stymietee]

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.

I knew it would, primarily because of what you've mentioned in your post regarding what has already been addressed along the DL, I am not very impressed with the pass rushers in this draft either, however whatever positives they bring are dwarfed by my concerns along our OL, which as stated previously should now be our #1 priority IMHO.

 

[Stymietee]

Isn't it altogether possible that some teams set up their boards where BPA is based on need? For example Indy, which no one would wager needs a QB, might have a RB as their BPA. Using that reasoning, Washington may very well have an OL man as their BPA. It seems to me that even at the top of the draft board, these picks are based on need more than ability or what some are calling BPA. Would Winston really be the #1 guy drafted if the standard was best stand alone football player in the draft? (BPA)

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

we understand that we’re not a real deep roster, so let’s not just focus on a certain position, let’s focus on the best football player because we’re not just talking about Year 1, we’re talking about Year 3, Year 5,

Quote in today's Post by SM. Again he will draft the best player, he will not skew his rating due to need which is what I have been saying all along.

Scot McCloughan implies that Redskins would draft Marcus Mariota if he was best player available - The Washington Post

 

[Sleepy T]

we understand that we’re not a real deep roster, so let’s not just focus on a certain position, let’s focus on the best football player because we’re not just talking about Year 1, we’re talking about Year 3, Year 5,

Quote in today's Post by SM. Again he will draft the best player, he will not skew his rating due to need which is what I have been saying all along.

Scot McCloughan implies that Redskins would draft Marcus Mariota if he was best player available - The Washington Post

I have no doubt SM would draft MM if he is the top player on his board, but I am calling bullshit on this philosophy of drafting solely based on BPA. Best player available and need is a delicate balance, especially wrt a position where there is only one of them on the field, aka QB.

How bad do you need the BPA at that position? Is that player so GREAT at the position that he plays that you cant possibly pass him up, even if you have a long term starter there?? This is all a situational thing and the FO has to balance the two, especially in the 1st round of the draft where you hope to get a player who can have a great impact early in his career.

Serious question. Would SM draft MM if he was the GM of the Colts and they somehow acquired the #5 via a trade??
Would SM be considering MM if RG3 had SHINED the last few years, despite the fact that the rest of our team (notably the defense) sucked ass??

I think not.

 

[skinsdad62]

I have no doubt SM would draft MM if he is the top player on his board, but I am calling bullshit on this philosophy of drafting solely based on BPA. Best player available and need is a delicate balance, especially wrt a position where there is only one of them on the field, aka QB.

How bad do you need the BPA at that position? Is that player so GREAT at the position that he plays that you cant possibly pass him up, even if you have a long term starter there?? This is all a situational thing and the FO has to balance the two, especially in the 1st round of the draft where you hope to get a player who can have a great impact early in his career.

Serious question. Would SM draft MM if he was the GM of the Colts and they somehow acquired the #5 via a trade??
Would SM be considering MM if RG3 had SHINED the last few years, despite the fact that the rest of our team (notably the defense) sucked ass??

I think not.

what if leonard williams falls to us ? BPA and we did address the d/line . do we [pass on that difference maker ?

 

[j_y19]

what if leonard williams falls to us ? BPA and we did address the d/line . do we [pass on that difference maker ?

Hell no. We sprint to the podium to take that guy.

 

[Stymietee]

Maybe there is a need to clear up what BPA really means. I have the impression that when people talk about BPA, they are referring to the best athlete/football player there is regardless of position. Is this the wrong impression? Please help!!

 

[Sharkinva]

Maybe there is a need to clear up what BPA really means. I have the impression that when people talk about BPA, they are referring to the best athlete/football player there is regardless of position. Is this the wrong impression? Please help!!

Throw in the play-maker factor and I think you nailed the general consensus on what the PBA would be Sty.

 

[j_y19]

Maybe there is a need to clear up what BPA really means. I have the impression that when people talk about BPA, they are referring to the best athlete/football player there is regardless of position. Is this the wrong impression? Please help!!

In theory, that is what it means. But just like most theoretical propositions, they get modified when applied to real life.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I found this article pretty interesting about the draft process and how complicated it is starting from the scouting, to creating horizontal and vertical draft boards. As well as some BPA info.

SM is mentioned in the article. How he applies that methodology we will see shortly.

Not just throwing darts: A behind-the-scenes look at the NFL scouting process, and how players ultimately land on each team's draft board - SBNation.com


THE PLAYER GRADING SCALE
Most teams use a grading scale from 1.0-to-9.0 to evaluate players (some teams only go up to 8.0). The only 9.0 grade that Ron Wolf has ever given, Lillibridge told me, was for Bo Jackson. A 9.0 is a generational talent, and that's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning. So, in practice, an 8.0 scale is used. Greg Gabriel breaks it down thusly:

8.0 grade: Special player, will impact a game and dominate at his position
7.0 grade: A potential pro bowler, a player you win because of
6.5 grade: A solid rank and file starter you could win with
6.0 grade: A solid backup who could start, but limited
5.5 grade: A role player but not a starter. A specialist
5.0 grade: A talented player, but not draftable. Developmental

"If you’re a 7.0 and above, you expect that person to be a starter in year one and then eventually, a Pro Bowl player, "Lillibridge said. "That’s what you’re looking at when you’re looking at the first two rounds."

BUILDING YOUR DRAFT BOARD
Legendary scout-GM Ron Wolf, whose scouting tree sprouted limbs in Ted Thompson, John Dorsey, Reggie McKenzie, Scot McCloughan, and John Schneider (and Schneider has sprouted his own branch in John Idzik), wrote a book called The Packer Way, and in it, he detailed the methodology he developed to build Green Bay's draft board. Here's an abridged snippet. Note the fact I said abridged, because he goes into insane detail of their system:

Putting together our draft board takes weeks. We consider players who have received a grade of 5.0 or higher, that's the minimum rating for a draft-able prospect. Anyone below 5.0 is considered a free-agent-level player.

We take each position and go through each player at those spots one-by-one. I then ask the scout who has seen him and has graded him how he arrived at his decision. I ask him if he's changed his mind because we're constantly reviewing our information. I ask him if there's anything he wants to add to what we know. At this point, he'll tell us whether we need to look at tapes of the prospect.

If we do, we'll pull out five games against his best opponents, I run the tape machine - and we start talking about what we're seeing. If the player isn't showing well, maybe I'll ask the scout if he'd rather put another game on the screen. By now, the scout is melting in his seat because his evaluation isn't holding up. After two or three tapes, you get a feel for the prospect. You give him a final grade, which could differ from the scout's. The player winds up in one of two categories. If he's bad enough, he becomes a reject and doesn't go on the board. If he has what we call a makable grade - he has enough ability to perhaps play in the NFL - he goes on the live board.

If we're lucky, we review 20 players a day in these draft meetings. They continue for five or six weeks, athlete by athlete, with each player allotted enough time to be evaluated properly. If you rush, you could make mistakes, which is what this process is trying to avoid.

The pace changes according to position. If we like a receiver, we'll take a look at every pass that's been thrown to him during his career, whether it was a completion or a miss. Same with running back.

Every run.

On quarterbacks, we just watch them play as much as we can. This is a long and arduous process. How many times can you review people blocking each other? But you have to maintain and edge. You have to be correct.

 

[j_y19]

I found this article pretty interesting about the draft process and how complicated it is starting from the scouting, to creating horizontal and vertical draft boards. As well as some BPA info.

SM is mentioned in the article. How he applies that methodology we will see shortly.

Not just throwing darts: A behind-the-scenes look at the NFL scouting process, and how players ultimately land on each team's draft board - SBNation.com


THE PLAYER GRADING SCALE
Most teams use a grading scale from 1.0-to-9.0 to evaluate players (some teams only go up to 8.0). The only 9.0 grade that Ron Wolf has ever given, Lillibridge told me, was for Bo Jackson. A 9.0 is a generational talent, and that's so rare that it's not even worth mentioning. So, in practice, an 8.0 scale is used. Greg Gabriel breaks it down thusly:

8.0 grade: Special player, will impact a game and dominate at his position
7.0 grade: A potential pro bowler, a player you win because of
6.5 grade: A solid rank and file starter you could win with
6.0 grade: A solid backup who could start, but limited
5.5 grade: A role player but not a starter. A specialist
5.0 grade: A talented player, but not draftable. Developmental

"If you’re a 7.0 and above, you expect that person to be a starter in year one and then eventually, a Pro Bowl player, "Lillibridge said. "That’s what you’re looking at when you’re looking at the first two rounds."

BUILDING YOUR DRAFT BOARD
Legendary scout-GM Ron Wolf, whose scouting tree sprouted limbs in Ted Thompson, John Dorsey, Reggie McKenzie, Scot McCloughan, and John Schneider (and Schneider has sprouted his own branch in John Idzik), wrote a book called The Packer Way, and in it, he detailed the methodology he developed to build Green Bay's draft board. Here's an abridged snippet. Note the fact I said abridged, because he goes into insane detail of their system:

Putting together our draft board takes weeks. We consider players who have received a grade of 5.0 or higher, that's the minimum rating for a draft-able prospect. Anyone below 5.0 is considered a free-agent-level player.

We take each position and go through each player at those spots one-by-one. I then ask the scout who has seen him and has graded him how he arrived at his decision. I ask him if he's changed his mind because we're constantly reviewing our information. I ask him if there's anything he wants to add to what we know. At this point, he'll tell us whether we need to look at tapes of the prospect.

If we do, we'll pull out five games against his best opponents, I run the tape machine - and we start talking about what we're seeing. If the player isn't showing well, maybe I'll ask the scout if he'd rather put another game on the screen. By now, the scout is melting in his seat because his evaluation isn't holding up. After two or three tapes, you get a feel for the prospect. You give him a final grade, which could differ from the scout's. The player winds up in one of two categories. If he's bad enough, he becomes a reject and doesn't go on the board. If he has what we call a makable grade - he has enough ability to perhaps play in the NFL - he goes on the live board.

If we're lucky, we review 20 players a day in these draft meetings. They continue for five or six weeks, athlete by athlete, with each player allotted enough time to be evaluated properly. If you rush, you could make mistakes, which is what this process is trying to avoid.

The pace changes according to position. If we like a receiver, we'll take a look at every pass that's been thrown to him during his career, whether it was a completion or a miss. Same with running back.

Every run.

On quarterbacks, we just watch them play as much as we can. This is a long and arduous process. How many times can you review people blocking each other? But you have to maintain and edge. You have to be correct.

I'm sure Vinny and dan did all of this. Could you imagine dan pouring over tape like this?

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I'm sure Vinny and dan did all of this. Could you imagine dan pouring over tape like this?

I just

 

[Sharkinva]

I'm sure Vinny and dan did all of this. Could you imagine dan pouring over tape like this?

Hell no. Dan went by the approach of, every one says this guy will be a stud. He will sell alot of jersey's and the redskins will be "In the News" for making an awesome pick.

Holy shit, sounds familiar.

 

[skinsdad62]

to me when you go into a draft you must first identify your needs and rank them

then you must go through and rate every player regardless of position

then you look at your board and when your choice comes up you look at the needs and see if they match up to the value of the pick . if it does take the guy if it doesnt go to the next need and so on

if you cant find value and you cant make a deal you go to your board and take the highest rated guy on it

this is where everyone loses it they forget to progress through the needs until that is exhausted and jump right to BPA

no GM in his or her right mind is going to strictly abide to one philosophy over another in ever single stupid scenario a poster can come up with

good GM's are flexible and use both philosophies as the situation dictates and what they believe they have on their rosters

what they see and what we see are completely different depth at a position in a draft plays into it as well . can you fill a need later (2nd or 3rd round ) that would go for all the positions we need

so i always go to who is the best football player . if scherf is take him , if williams is take him if its fowler , take him . i dont see a hole lot of downside although my concerns for the OLB class are there

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Just came across this. Pretty amazing actually.




Scot likes the volume play...
2005: 11 picks
2006: 9 picks
2007: 9 picks
2008: 6 picks
2009: 7 picks
2010: 9 picks
2011: 9 picks
2012: 10 picks
2013: 11 picks
2014: 9 picks

That’s 90 picks in 10 years in organizations where he’s credited with a high level of control over the draft process (basically, his 49ers and Seahawks gigs) for an average of 9 picks a draft.

His 2010 (first year in Seattle, BTW) and 2011 drafts… holy Jesus. Look at this list of players for the Seahawks:

2010:
Russell Okung
Earl Thomas
Golden Tate
Walter Thurmond III
Kam Chancellor

2011:
James Carpenter
K.J. Wright
Richard Sherman
Byron Maxwell
Malcolm Smith
Doug Baldwin (UDFA)

All 11 of these guys were either starters or significant contributors on one or both Super Bowl teams.

by Spitfire71 on Jan 22, 2015 | 7:22 PM up

 

[Caliskinsfan]

And I got a dollar that says if we do in fact take him at five, there will be at least five posters calling it a reach even if SMGM comes on and says in fact they had Scherff rate as the best player not only at his position, but in the draft.

LOL!!!!

Except I do think most skins fans are willing to give Scot the benefit of the doubt here about 'reaching' in light of his comments about his big board.

And kudos to you @Sharkinva

The EXACT scenario that played out