What I really expect to happen next week

[Sharkinva]

with kerrigan and murphy he can afford to be a pass rush specialist while learning everything else during year 1.

True, but half the debate here is can the team REALLY afford to waste a top five pick on a part time player when we have more pressing needs?? Dont get me wrong, if the talk here was between Scherff and a legit starting free safety, I might think otherwise.

But a HUGE part of the debate is, do you take an O-lineman who will start and do well from day one by all indications, knowing full well his best spot might end up being guard, or do you take a part time pass rusher or a WR who likely will be a rotation player at best and is more of a futures pick for a team that does infact need to upgrade a couple of starters??

 

[dcrising]

True, but half the debate here is can the team REALLY afford to waste a top five pick on a part time player when we have more pressing needs?? Dont get me wrong, if the talk here was between Scherff and a legit starting free safety, I might think otherwise.

But a HUGE part of the debate is, do you take an O-lineman who will start and do well from day one by all indications, knowing full well his best spot might end up being guard, or do you take a part time pass rusher or a WR who likely will be a rotation player at best and is more of a futures pick for a team that does infact need to upgrade a couple of starters??

haven't been hearing a consensus of a top OL that would grade out at #5. there are going to be some value guys in rds 2-4

 

[Sharkinva]

haven't been hearing a consensus of a top OL that would grade out at #5. there are going to be some value guys in rds 2-4

You are new, so I will make it brief.

1. Scherff is the consensus best O-lineman in this draft. He is considered a top ten pick by most who follow the draft, debatable a top five player.


2. While project lineman that might take a year or two to develop would be great to have, the reality is, we need at least two starters on our line.

3. IF they are even remotely thinking of picking u the option on RG3, it means they have no choice but to seriously upgrade the right side of the O-line.

So logic says either take Scherff at #5, trade down and take the 2nd-9th best lineman in the draft depending on how far we trade back.

IN round two take ANOTHER young and hopefully promising O-lineman.

Round 3 we can get a part time pass rusher or tall WR.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

haven't been hearing a consensus of a top OL that would grade out at #5. there are going to be some value guys in rds 2-4

Let me paraphrase the debate to catch you up...

Sexy pick vs other
Value vs Reach
Need vs BPA
Historical context

Welcome to the board

 

[Caliskinsfan]

What I expect to happen...

If we stay at 5, Williams, Cooper or possibly Beasley

RT and RG within the top 3 rounds (hope it's top 2)
OLB
MLB
WR
RB
FS
Conner Halliday

 

[Sharkinva]

What I expect to happen...

If we stay at 5, Williams, Cooper or possibly Beasley

RT and RG within the top 3 rounds (hope it's top 2)
OLB
MLB
WR
RB
FS
Conner Halliday

You go Cali... by this time next year Skinsdad and I will have you watching film and giving Player critiques.

 

[skinsdad62]

I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board.... You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on." ~ GM Scot McCloughan

find me a GM who doesnt believe that , find me one who says i will reach for a need over taking the BPA because no one says that ,yet they do it all the time richard sherman's and cam chancelors dont show up on the roster because they werent needs

tell me zorn and cerrato didnt think davis kelly and thomas were the BPA's

this is a nonanswer , answer that people sell all the time

alex smith wasnt near the best player on the board . he needed a qb and he took him over rodgers incredibly

same with balmer .

SM uses a combination of both philosophies

this year at 5 he may very well have to go with BPA over a need as he may do throughout the draft but anyone want to take bets that every pick he takes is a BPA or will they address some needs ?

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I don't find that quote a non answer at all. I think it states a philosophy of long term strategy. All GMs may say that, not all GMs follow thru. The answer is undetermined for SM with the Skins.

And I don't disagree with you that need is factored into targets for BPA.

 

[redskinsfan]

I don't find that quote a non answer at all. I think it states a philosophy of long term strategy. All GMs may say that, not all GMs follow thru. The answer is undetermined for SM with the Skins.

And I don't disagree with you that need is factored into targets for BPA.

Need has to be a factor in that analysis, especially with picks in the top three rounds. Suppose Indy somehow got the first overall pick. Do you think they'd take Mariota or Winston? Of course not.

 

[skinsdad62]

I don't find that quote a non answer at all. I think it states a philosophy of long term strategy. All GMs may say that, not all GMs follow thru. The answer is undetermined for SM with the Skins.

And I don't disagree with you that need is factored into targets for BPA.

i only quoted that because all GMS say it and i dont believe he is strictly that . i bet he goes BPA if the guy there is hugely obvious or he cant get a player at a position of need drafted at that spot because it would be a reach

to me its a cliche answer that means little

now dont confuse that with dislike or thinking i am not on board with what he is doing . i love what he has done so far

my point is he is flexible and he isnt married to that philosophy in every instance and the press shouldnt be so gullible

 

[redskinsfan]

i only quoted that because all GMS say it and i dont believe he is strictly that . i bet he goes BPA if the guy there is hugely obvious or he cant get a player at a position of need drafted at that spot because it would be a reach

to me its a cliche answer that means little

now dont confuse that with dislike or thinking i am not on board with what he is doing . i love what he has done so far

my point is he is flexible and he isnt married to that philosophy in every instance and the press shouldnt be so gullible

I love what SM has done so far -- but that's in FA. We shall with the draft. Based on his track record, I'm setting a high standard, especially for later round picks. That's where he made his name. And he'd better keep up that rep with us.

 

[j_y19]

Need has to be a factor in that analysis, especially with picks in the top three rounds. Suppose Indy somehow got the first overall pick. Do you think they'd take Mariota or Winston? Of course not.

Of course they wouldn't. They would most likely trade the pick to maximize their specific value.

 

[dcrising]

Let me paraphrase the debate to catch you up...

Sexy pick vs other
Value vs Reach
Need vs BPA
Historical context

Welcome to the board

ha thanks.

i think SM is going to go BPA at value.