Let's talk Value!

[Stymietee]

With the NFL draft fast approaching, we all know that our current GM has a penchant towards trading down in order to acquire more picks. Sure you get more picks later in the draft, but with that comes less certainty in the players that you ultimately end up with. Is it really worth the gamble to pass up that one guy that that likely helps you sooner vs. later for two who will require some work before ( if ever) challenging for playing time? So, my question is, at what point in a draft, does it become counterproductive to trade down?

 

[Sharkinva]

With this team and the decided lack of blue chip players.... it was counter productive the moment we considered it. Its great to have depth and developmental players... but that implies you have solid to blue chip starters to begin with. Aside from about 5 players on the entire roster, we are comprised of alot of developmental types already.

 

[Stymietee]

With this team and the decided lack of blue chip players.... it was counter productive the moment we considered it. Its great to have depth and developmental players... but that implies you have solid to blue chip starters to begin with. Aside from about 5 players on the entire roster, we are comprised of alot of developmental types

Very good point, but it seems to be the status quo for this team. Well, that and a penchant to draft guys then attempt to convert them from a position that they have played their entire lives to a new very unfamiliar one. BTW: considering the vast number of developmental players that this team has gotten, you'd think that by now our training system would have produced some long term starters over time. For the life of me I can't really think of any that fits the description.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Is it really worth the gamble to pass up that one guy that that likely helps you sooner vs. later for two who will require some work before ( if ever) challenging for playing time? So, my question is, at what point in a draft, does it become counterproductive to trade down?

Can we really say the last TWO drafts under Scot McCloughan have been a success? He has managed to acquire more picks, that either didn't pan out, had injury history or got injured. In this particular draft, Rueben Foster, Hooker, Adams & Fournette would be players I'd consider counterproductive to trade down for. To pass on talent that is almost a sure bet to be elite in 3 years is not worth an extra 3rd

 

[Breed]

With the NFL draft fast approaching, we all know that our current GM has a penchant towards trading down in order to acquire more picks. Sure you get more picks later in the draft, but with that comes less certainty in the players that you ultimately end up with. Is it really worth the gamble to pass up that one guy that that likely helps you sooner vs. later for two who will require some work before ( if ever) challenging for playing time? So, my question is, at what point in a draft, does it become counterproductive to trade down?

Weren't you, along with several other posters, advocating for the trade down method not that long ago? Regardless of that. Sounds like our fearless leaders want to see some immediate and noticeable results in both the draft and FA this year. If that Jonews article is accurate, and rdeally, why shouldn't it be. This sounds like a shit or get off the pot year for GMSM.

 

[skinsdad62]

we drafted a PB OG , crowder is another good pick , preston smith is a decent pick , cravens should pan out MKD could turn out to be a starter , kelley and dunbar were good finds . harris looks to be another decent player

my thing with a trade down is this , if you cant find value at the slot you are in then sure trade down. just dont trade down for the sake of trading down

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

more picks the better aka that pats 10 to 12 picks every year should be the goal .. kind of like nba top 5 picks are good after that hit and miss and poop at pick 17 you wont get the best positon player anyways more picks are better period

 

[Stymietee]

Can we really say the last TWO drafts under Scot McCloughan have been a success? He has managed to acquire more picks, that either didn't pan out, had injury history or got injured. In this particular draft, Rueben Foster, Hooker, Adams & Fournette would be players I'd consider counterproductive to trade down for. To pass on talent that is almost a sure bet to be elite in 3 years is not worth an extra 3rd

People often say that in order to properly evaluate a draft you have to give a couple of years to see how the players pan out. To me that is exactly why I posted this question. Truly this is a big off-season for Scott and his team. It is a bit problematic that he has been silenced, made unavailable to the press, with a lame assed excuse that they want him to be totally focused on his duties.

 

[Stymietee]

Weren't you, along with several other posters, advocating for the trade down method not that long ago? Regardless of that. Sounds like our fearless leaders want to see some immediate and noticeable results in both the draft and FA this year. If that Jonews article is accurate, and rdeally, why shouldn't it be. This sounds like a shit or get off the pot year for GMSM.

Yep, won't even try to deny that this was true, still is, and here's why:

I believe that in a total rebuild you necessarily have to get more players thus trading down makes more sense. I refer to this stage as the "becoming competitive stage" However, as your team gets to that point where they are more than just competitive, but also able to sustain playoff berths, the needs change and you have to go after more immediate impact players. I call this stage the "In the hunt" period. Beyond that, there is the "Legitimate SB favorite" position where you have all of the pieces in place and you're now drafting to not only sustain that position, but doing so by upgrading the valued pieces that you currently have. (reload, not rebuild)

That said, after missing the playoffs, my assessment has to be that we are currently transitioning between stage one and stage two. It's is perhaps a very odd place to find ourselves in and because of that I wondered how you guys felt about this.

 

[Sportster 72]

People often say that in order to properly evaluate a draft you have to give a couple of years to see how the players pan out. To me that is exactly why I posted this question. Truly this is a big off-season for Scott and his team. It is a bit problematic that he has been silenced, made unavailable to the press, with a lame assed excuse that they want him to be totally focused on his duties.

We are who are Sty or we are who Danny lets us be .... no one changes that drastically overnight ... or even over a year.

Agree that it takes 3 years to evaluate a draft. Some guys are a success if they can help for three years. I think sometimes folks get caught up in did they last 10 years. We couldn't afford to pay them if they all lasted 10 years. You have to look at guys like Jarrett two years ago. He was a good pick but sadly he had a career ending injury at the end of his 1st year.

Also agree that the more picks the better. The draft is an inexact science. No one is going to hit on every pick. The more picks you have the better your odds to find productive players. One thing Scot has done well is sign UDFAs.

 

[skinsdad62]

Yep, won't even try to deny that this was true, still is, and here's why:

I believe that in a total rebuild you necessarily have to get more players thus trading down makes more sense. I refer to this stage as the "becoming competitive stage" However, as your team gets to that point where they are more than just competitive, but also able to sustain playoff berths, the needs change and you have to go after more immediate impact players. I call this stage the "In the hunt" period. Beyond that, there is the "Legitimate SB favorite" position where you have all of the pieces in place and you're now drafting to not only sustain that position, but doing so by upgrading the valued pieces that you currently have. (reload, not rebuild)

That said, after missing the playoffs, my assessment has to be that we are currently transitioning between stage one and stage two. It's is perhaps a very odd place to find ourselves in and because of that I wondered how you guys felt about this.

i agree with you we are stage 1 about to get to stage 2 we just need a few more pieces on the defense without losing too much offense

 

[Sportster 72]

Yep, won't even try to deny that this was true, still is, and here's why:

I believe that in a total rebuild you necessarily have to get more players thus trading down makes more sense. I refer to this stage as the "becoming competitive stage" However, as your team gets to that point where they are more than just competitive, but also able to sustain playoff berths, the needs change and you have to go after more immediate impact players. I call this stage the "In the hunt" period. Beyond that, there is the "Legitimate SB favorite" position where you have all of the pieces in place and you're now drafting to not only sustain that position, but doing so by upgrading the valued pieces that you currently have. (reload, not rebuild)

That said, after missing the playoffs, my assessment has to be that we are currently transitioning between stage one and stage two. It's is perhaps a very odd place to find ourselves in and because of that I wondered how you guys felt about this.

Agree here too Sty. Five year builds are great but at the end of 5 years you might not have more than 20 guys from year one. It is an ongoing process. Old guys like me wish we could build teams like Joe Gibbs did but those days ended a long time ago. It is what makes Belichek's run amazing.

 

[Skin'EmAll]

I'll never feel bad for Synder, because he has truly ruined this proud franchise --
But, these last few years have NOT been kind to him. One more victory and this off-season is likely completely
different. All I can assume is Scott thought the team could survive one more season with nothing on defense.
Perhaps another late round pick would emerge and no one would get injured. He almost CAN'T get fired.
Who can you bring in that would feel safe? Next week should be very interesting

 

[Stymietee]

more picks the better aka that pats 10 to 12 picks every year should be the goal .. kind of like nba top 5 picks are good after that hit and miss and poop at pick 17 you wont get the best positon player anyways more picks are better period

OK Coach, But even in a rebuild?

 

[Stymietee]

more picks the better aka that pats 10 to 12 picks every year should be the goal .. kind of like nba top 5 picks are good after that hit and miss and poop at pick 17 you wont get the best positon player anyways more picks are better period

OK Coach, let me play devil's advocate for a moment, and ask if you agree that these two things have to happen, if the more the merrier is the goal, particularly with this team.

1. Isn't it true that among those extra picks, there has to be more hits than the conventional way? Especially for a rebuilding team that likely would have found a starter had they not traded down?

2. At what point in the NFL draft is the falloff similar to the NBA? 6-10 like the NBA or a bit further down? If you follow this pattern doesn't it hold that trading down actually decreases your chances of getting anything close to a long term starter?

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

1, 2 ,3,4,5,6,7 vs 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7 which one is better and no stymie jedi mind tricks mor picks is better

 

[Sportster 72]

I'll never feel bad for Synder, because he has truly ruined this proud franchise --
But, these last few years have NOT been kind to him. One more victory and this off-season is likely completely
different. All I can assume is Scott thought the team could survive one more season with nothing on defense.
Perhaps another late round pick would emerge and no one would get injured. He almost CAN'T get fired.
Who can you bring in that would feel safe? Next week should be very interesting

I don't think it has anything to do with one more win this past year Skin. I think the dysfunction if there is any seems to be appearing since the season ended. I think a lot of people don't understand how much power Bruce has. I have said a little before. I have a couple of friends who work with the Redskins so I know what I just told you is correct.

Another thing is Scot has done okay but he has yet to distinguish himself. His two drafts are no better than the Allen/Gruden draft. The QB decision was Gruden and probably backed by Allen and Snyder or Snyder at least signed off on it. I don't know it but I venture to say DJax and Josh Norman are here because of Allen/Snyder.

 

[countryroads316]

all I can say is if we only go after bargain value players in free agency there will be quite a few people fired next year

 

[Stymietee]

1, 2 ,3,4,5,6,7 vs 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7 which one is better and no stymie jedi mind tricks mor picks is better

Depends, if 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 gets you 3 or 4 immediate starters vs. 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,7, netting the same thing or 3 to 4 projects which would you take? It's ONLY a Jedi mind trick if you are locked into one way of seeing things.