What did the 82, 87, & 91 Redskins have in common?

[kbso83432]

A dominant offensive line.

82
C: Bostic
G: Grimm
G: May
T: Jacoby
T: Stark

87
C: Bostic
G: Thielmann
G: Grimm
T: Jacoby
T: McKenzie

91
C: Bostic
G: Schlereth
G: McKenzie
T: Lachey
T: Jacoby

I know some will say the game has changed, but has it really changed that much? Food for thought headed into Thursday.

 

[redskinsfan]

A dominant offensive line.

82
C: Bostic
G: Grimm
G: May
T: Jacoby
T: Stark

87
C: Bostic
G: Thielmann
G: Grimm
T: Jacoby
T: McKenzie

91
C: Bostic
G: Schlereth
G: McKenzie
T: Lachey
T: Jacoby

I know some will say the game has changed, but has it really changed that much? Food for thought headed into Thursday.

That's always been a constant. If you've got a dominant o-line, that can mask deficiencies not only on offense but the rest of the team as well. For instance, if you've got a putrid defense, you can use that line to run the ball to keep that defense off the field.

 

[skinsdad62]

many say the o/line is important until the flavor of the day player shows up on a draft board , then not so much

 

[Sharkinva]

And this is exactly why we must take... another pass rusher. [\end sarcasm]

 

[redskinsfan]

There's a big difference between the ideal you aspire to and reality of a draft board, not the least of which includes draft value.

 

[Sharkinva]

And value can never be misplaced or under/over stated based on commonly held beliefs.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

We are in luck then. SM believes in building a football team from the inside out. He will hopefully hit on the right talent there.

Last year, all he did was watch film on college guys. Given a track record of being a good talent evaluator, this should give us a at least a bit of a competitive advantage.

 

[redskinsfan]

And value can never be misplaced or under/over stated based on commonly held beliefs.

But you've got to determine how that specifically plays out. The issue of what happens if Leonard Williams drops to us is a good example. Under most scenarios, we take him despite d-line not being a huge need for us and notwithstanding the needs on our o-line because of his value.

 

[Rock Strongo]

they all didnt have tom brady?

 

[Sharkinva]

But you've got to determine how that specifically plays out. The issue of what happens if Leonard Williams drops to us is a good example. Under most scenarios, we take him despite d-line not being a huge need for us and notwithstanding the needs on our o-line because of his value.

The flaw in common place logic on player value is that each player has a set value regardless of the team he goes to. Williams would actually have LESS value to a team that has a set defensive line where he would be a part time or backup player.

Or lets look at it like this.. White and Cooper are considered the top Wide outs in this class.

Both are considered good value, but lets say both ar there at #8 and considered the BPA...

Atlanta could take either. But would get more value out of addressing the O-line or pass rush. As adding top talent at either position would be more valuable than a #3 WR no matter how talented that player projects to be.

Note I used the Atlanta example to remove the question of bias for or against our own team from the hypothesis

 

[redskinsfan]

The flaw in common place logic on player value is that each player has a set value regardless of the team he goes to. Williams would actually have LESS value to a team that has a set defensive line where he would be a part time or backup player.

Or lets look at it like this.. White and Cooper are considered the top Wide outs in this class.

Both are considered good value, but lets say both ar there at #8 and considered the BPA...

Atlanta could take either. But would get more value out of addressing the O-line or pass rush. As adding top talent at either position would be more valuable than a #3 WR no matter how talented that player projects to be.

Note I used the Atlanta example to remove the question of bias for or against our own team from the hypothesis

Value is always a constant. That's reflected by a team's big board. Worth is different and very subjective. One factor in determining worth is a team's perception of need at any given position. For Williams, he's probably at the top of our big board. But if he drops to us, the question becomes one whether it's "worth" it to take him. Some could say no because we've already stocked the d-line for this season. Others would say yes because not only is he a rare d-lineman, you can never have too many good d-linemen.

Or you could take the path that Scot hinted at yesterday: figure that because we've already got enough at d-line right now, we trade down.

 

[Sharkinva]

Value is always a constant. That's reflected by a team's big board. Worth is different and very subjective. One factor in determining worth is a team's perception of need at any given position. For Williams, he's probably at the top of our big board. But if he drops to us, the question becomes one whether it's "worth" it to take him. Some could say no because we've already stocked the d-line for this season. Others would say yes because not only is he a rare d-lineman, you can never have too many good d-linemen.

Or you could take the path that Scot hinted at yesterday: figure that because we've already got enough at d-line right now, we trade down.

So we are back to this again. Value is NEVER constant. What is 1000 lbs of gold worth to a man in the middle of the dessert?? conversely how much is a cup of water worth to that same man five days later?? How much value does a prized pig have in Islamabad?? Value is ultimately determined not by some set guidelines that say every one will hold the same object in the same level of want or need. It is totally subjective to the end consumer. The idea of value being constant is a byproduct of vendors attempting to set a market for their particular merchandise, nothing more.

 

[redskinsfan]

So we are back to this again. Value is NEVER constant. What is 1000 lbs of gold worth to a man in the middle of the dessert?? conversely how much is a cup of water worth to that same man five days later?? How much value does a prized pig have in Islamabad?? Value is ultimately determined not by some set guidelines that say every one will hold the same object in the same level of want or need. It is totally subjective to the end consumer. The idea of value being constant is a byproduct of vendors attempting to set a market for their particular merchandise, nothing more.

Yes, we are back at this again, and you're again miscontruing the issues of value and worth. A bag of gold will have a value of whatever the market will bear for that particular day. However, it's worth nothing to him when he needs water to survive. Get it? You are again confusing the interplay between value, worth, and need (which is a factor in worth).

 

[Sharkinva]

Yes, we are back at this again, and you're again miscontruing the issues of value and worth. A bag of gold will have a value of whatever the market will bear for that particular day. However, it's worth nothing to him when he needs water to survive. Get it? You are again confusing the interplay between value, worth, and need (which is a factor in worth).

Bottom line, if you have no NEED of an item, then it has little or no WORTH to you, thus it has no value in your eyes.

On the flip side, if you need an item, you determine what it will cost you to acquire it (its worth to you).

 

[kbso83432]

If Williams is Suh and Scot is convinced of this, take him. If he is anything short of that, trade out, take Scherff, or draft White. Jmo

 

[Skin'EmAll]

I may be slightly off topic but I'm confused by Scott's statements leading up to the draft and if he's being honest in all areas.

He's said he'll take a QB at 5, if he's the best player available but he likes the 3 QBs on the roster.
But on the other hand, he'll trade away the 5th if Leonard Williams is still there because he's happy with the D-Line.

Is this an attempt to devalue a top prospect? And If he did take a QB at 5, wouldn't you have the same exact scenario as if you drafted Williams at 5. A training camp battle to see who wins the starting position?

 

[SoCalWizFan]

A dominant offensive line.

82
C: Bostic
G: Grimm
G: May
T: Jacoby
T: Stark

87
C: Bostic
G: Thielmann
G: Grimm
T: Jacoby
T: McKenzie

91
C: Bostic
G: Schlereth
G: McKenzie
T: Lachey
T: Jacoby

I know some will say the game has changed, but has it really changed that much? Food for thought headed into Thursday.

Did you notice something else about your lists? Quite a few of these guys were either undrafted or drafted very late (& they would have been undrafted in the current 7 round format).

Look at your 91 list. Lachey was a first rounder. The others consisted of 2 undrafted guys, a 10th rounder & an 11th rounder. I am not suggesting that a team should not draft one or two stud O-lineman in the first round. However - you don't need to select an entire line of early round draft picks. The O-line operates as a unit & some lesser known guys can thrive in the right situation.

I know that things are a bit different in 2015, but I believe that this concept is still basically the same. For all of the naysayers out there I still believe that SM & co will get this right within the next few years.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I may be slightly off topic but I'm confused by Scott's statements leading up to the draft and if he's being honest in all areas.

He's said he'll take a QB at 5, if he's the best player available but he likes the 3 QBs on the roster.
But on the other hand, he'll trade away the 5th if Leonard Williams is still there because he's happy with the D-Line.

Is this an attempt to devalue a top prospect? And If he did take a QB at 5, wouldn't you have the same exact scenario as if you drafted Williams at 5. A training camp battle to see who wins the starting position?

Why should he be honest with any of this & play his hand? That is all that we really need to know right now. You can argue the rest after the picks are actually made.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

This is exactly we have so many arguments on this board. I'm not claiming an OL is not important but Redskins fans are downright obsessed with them due to our history. I looked over the list of winning Super Bowls and you know what I saw? Top QBs and great defense, not top OL. But some here are so obsessed by recreating the past that they want to pass over great defensive talent because a great offensive line worked here when Ronald Reagan was in office.

I can mention many more great teams that didn't have great OLs than the opening poster's list. The Steelers won a Super Bowl with a franchise QB, dominating defense, and a downright bad OL in 2009. None of Bill Walsh's offensive lines were anything special but they may have been the greatest team in our lifetime. The Pats, Giants and several other teams have won titles with middle of the road offensive lines. Going into the playoff the Hawks and the Pats were ranked as having the 5th and 6th best OLs out of the 10 remaining playoff teams. How'd that work out again? Oh yeah the top OL team Dallas got bounced early. Again.

 

[redskinsfan]

Bottom line, if you have no NEED of an item, then it has little or no WORTH to you, thus it has no value in your eyes.

On the flip side, if you need an item, you determine what it will cost you to acquire it (its worth to you).

Wrong. Every item has an objective / extrinsic value. The issue of need is what the item is worth to you. Note the prepositional phrases that I've bolded above. By phrasing it in terms of "you," you acknowledge the subjective nature of an item's worth. If there's something you truly don't need, you'll definitely believe it has not value to you, but it still has value to the market at large.

Leonard Williams is a perfect example. The fact that he may not be worth anything to McCloughan doesn't change the fact he's the top ranked college player on a big board.