| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | If this strategy lands you Ryan Leaf or Robert Gallery, it is because you SUCK at grading football players in the draft and would have NOTHING to do with your draft strategy. |
No it doesn't. Leaf was a consensus #1 or 2 overall pick. Any team in need of a qb would've taken him in San Diego's place. Some players just don't work out. No amount of draft preparation is going to protect an NFL team from busts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fleetus wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: |
The best available player could land your team Robert Gallery or Ryan Leaf. |
Logic is obviously not your strong suit. Sorry, but the BASIC premise is that you have list of your favorite players. When you look at that list, you can either, A) pick the player at the TOP of your list, OR B) pass up the first 3 or 4 players until you see the first player who plays one specific position. Understand? Logically, the "best player available" almost ALWAYS is a better player. If this strategy lands you Ryan Leaf or Robert Gallery, it is because you SUCK at grading football players in the draft and would have NOTHING to do with your draft strategy. |
People one hell of a lot more knowledgeable than I am about football have drafted "can't miss" prospects that missed. Your stating that the same GM who drafted LaDanian Tomlison, Antonio Gates, Shawne Merriman "sucks" because he also drafted Ryan Leaf?
If that is the best argument you have ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | fleetus wrote: |
Disagree. You draft for overall talent first, specific needs second. Now, if you have absolutely no need for a position, you may pass or trade down. But you won't live very long as a NFL GM, if all you do is pick the one or two positions you need most in the 1st round. There are numerous reasons for this, which I won't go into, because it would be too much typing.
Bottom line: IF the Skins feel the best player on the board is a WR, DL, OL, DB, or S, they should draft that player. Period. No point in wasting the first round pick and the salary that comes with it on their 3rd or 4th choice. |
And if the best player is a quarterback or a running back, you're stating the Redskins should draft a player at a position they don't need and pay that draft prospect first round money to be a third stringer at best? As opposed to drafting a position they do need, even if it isn't the best available player on the board?
Do you see any flaws in your logic? |
I didn't really think I had to spell it out. This topic is discussed pretty much by everyone involved in football, so I figured you understood it.
Obviously, it is not a 100% absolute. No one drafts for talent alone. Just like no one drafts for need alone. There is always a balance. Since numbers sometimes put things in perspective pretty well, let me try a different explanation. Let's give the balance between Need and Talent a 100% scale. I would say most teams look at the first round of the draft with only two positions in mind. Almost any player outside of their top two positions of need is not considered very strongly. On a scale of 0-100%, this would be about a "75-80% Need" strategy.
I'm proposing that you look at ALL the positions equally, so that you actually do all the same research on all the players so you can identify which ones are truly graded the highest according to your own criteria. Then, you draft on about a "60-70% Talent" scale. So if the second player on your list was your #1 need position and the top player on your list was only the fifth most needed position, you'd take the second guy. But if instead it was your 4th favorite player at the #1 most needed position, you would take your top rated player instead.
So if we get to #21 and CB, Mike Jenkins is our highest rated player available because he slipped down the board, you "NEED" guys would still be clamoring for Calais, Sweed or Malcolm Kelly (all full of question marks). I would draft Mike Jenkins in a heart beat even though CB is probably only our 3rd or 4th need. This is what a few teams do, but most draft for need and they wonder why they always have more needs to fill. It is because they are never getting the best players for their money. this requires they reach even deeper into their pockets for free agents, because they are desperate. It only gets worse. Am kind of hoping the Skins are turning over a new leaf this year. We'll see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You must have missed this post earlier in this thread:
| GSPODS wrote: | I think the best strategy is to develop your team's draft board based upon both criteria. One board for ranking the prospects by "Best available" and the other for ranking the prospects by team need. Then you assign a compensation value to each prospect on your board. Then by comparing the two boards, and by eliminating the players who have already been selected, you reach the best available players at your positions of need. If the players on your board are available for selection, you see if your assigned compensation value is greater than, less than, or equal to what you would be paying the prospect you are considering. Would I rather overpay the wide receiver because I need one, or would I rather underpay the linebacker because I think he is a better prospect? Let me look at my assigned ranking and compensation value numbers. GM's make one hell of a lot of money for a good reason. A lot of people think they could do this for a living but the truth is that very few are even competent, much less good at being a GM.
That's how I would do it but I'm not a GM. I just play one on a message board. |
I also posted an article by a former NFL GM about how things actually work earlier in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | fleetus wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: |
The best available player could land your team Robert Gallery or Ryan Leaf. |
Logic is obviously not your strong suit. Sorry, but the BASIC premise is that you have list of your favorite players. When you look at that list, you can either, A) pick the player at the TOP of your list, OR B) pass up the first 3 or 4 players until you see the first player who plays one specific position. Understand? Logically, the "best player available" almost ALWAYS is a better player. If this strategy lands you Ryan Leaf or Robert Gallery, it is because you SUCK at grading football players in the draft and would have NOTHING to do with your draft strategy. |
People one hell of a lot more knowledgeable than I am about football have drafted "can't miss" prospects that missed. Your stating that the same GM who drafted LaDanian Tomlison, Antonio Gates, Shawne Merriman "sucks" because he also drafted Ryan Leaf?
If that is the best argument you have ... |
Nope, again ya missed it. I am saying that if you thought Leaf was the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE, then, you would have drafted him either way, right? I mean, if you're only drafting for need and you need a QB and Leaf is your top rated QB, then the same thing is going to happen. So there will always be busts. But lets hope that if you know anything about football players, that YOUR #1 rated player IS USUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER THAN YOUR 5TH rated player.  If he's not, then it's simply your fault, not the fact that you were trying to draft the best player available.
not to mention, it wasn't the same GM who drafted Leaf, who drafted Gates, Merriman etc. Different guy altogether, no important to the point though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fleetus wrote: | | YOUR #1 rated player IS USUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER THAN YOUR 5TH rated player. |
Not necessarily. There are more first round busts than there are first round studs. You could always draft a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston.
The round doesn't guarantee anything other than the prospect's salary.
And just because a team ranks players in a particular order doesn't mean they have it right. Randy Moss was drafted at #21. That means 20 teams passed on him either because he wasn't ranked high enough on their boards or because he wasn't their position of need. Either way ...
The bottom line is that all of the scouting, grading, film study, expert opinion and anything else teams use to grade players guarantees nothing, regardless of draft position. So, if there is a particular player that stands out as "the one", there is no harm in at least considering going after the player. In the Redskins case, who knows? Only Vinny and Danny, and they aren't talking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4110
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | #1 rated player IS USUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER THAN YOUR 5TH rated player. |
Not if the #1 rated player is behind good players on the roster. You don't get better sitting on the bench. The #5 player givin a chance to play is likely to be better than the #1 rated player who rides the bench. Supose we draft a RB at #21. I've read that the RB class is among the best in the draft. He will ride the bench for several years. A DE who gets a chance to start his 1st yr will likely develop a lot faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | fleetus wrote: | | YOUR #1 rated player IS USUALLY GOING TO BE BETTER THAN YOUR 5TH rated player. |
Not necessarily. There are more first round busts than there are first round studs. You could always draft a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston.
The round doesn't guarantee anything other than the prospect's salary.
And just because a team ranks players in a particular order doesn't mean they have it right. Randy Moss was drafted at #21. That means 20 teams passed on him either because he wasn't ranked high enough on their boards or because he wasn't their position of need. Either way ...
The bottom line is that all of the scouting, grading, film study, expert opinion and anything else teams use to grade players guarantees nothing, regardless of draft position. So, if there is a particular player that stands out as "the one", there is no harm in at least considering going after the player. In the Redskins case, who knows? Only Vinny and Danny, and they aren't talking. |
Okay, then if you were the GM, you would happily trade your first round pick for a sixth rouder in hopes of landing Tom Brady? Your logic escapes me. Of course people get lucky. Sure there are long shots who become stars. But if you are grading 300 players, using your own judgement, who would you bet your paycheck on, your 21st highest rated player or your 22nd highest rated player? |
|
| Back to top |
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yupchagee wrote: | | Not if the #1 rated player is behind good players on the roster. You don't get better sitting on the bench. The #5 player givin a chance to play is likely to be better than the #1 rated player who rides the bench. Supose we draft a RB at #21. I've read that the RB class is among the best in the draft. He will ride the bench for several years. A DE who gets a chance to start his 1st yr will likely develop a lot faster. |
You watch a different NFL than I do then. I see rookies being rushed into starting roles every year and failing. In general, 22 yr. old men who have never earned more than $10/hr. have trouble living up to the hype. There's a nice piece written in ESPN today about how Michael Westbrook, (former #4 overall draft pick, who we would salivate over if he were a rookie now, at 6'4", 230 lbs.) is now retired and deeply into Ultimate Fighting. One of hundreds of examples of players who got rushed into a starting role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fleetus wrote: | | yupchagee wrote: | | Not if the #1 rated player is behind good players on the roster. You don't get better sitting on the bench. The #5 player givin a chance to play is likely to be better than the #1 rated player who rides the bench. Supose we draft a RB at #21. I've read that the RB class is among the best in the draft. He will ride the bench for several years. A DE who gets a chance to start his 1st yr will likely develop a lot faster. |
You watch a different NFL than I do then. I see rookies being rushed into starting roles every year and failing. In general, 22 yr. old men who have never earned more than $10/hr. have trouble living up to the hype. There's a nice piece written in ESPN today about how Michael Westbrook, (former #4 overall draft pick, who we would salivate over if he were a rookie now, at 6'4", 230 lbs.) is now retired and deeply into Ultimate Fighting. One of hundreds of examples of players who got rushed into a starting role. |
I think that you are exaggerating the struggles of rookies. Obviously there are growing pains for young players, but players today are prepared very well in college for the NFL. More and more college teams run pro style offenses and rookies today are able to contribute right away. Just look at last year's first rounders. There were plenty of players that made solid contributions to their teams.
Beason and Willis dominated as rookies, both racking up over 100 tackles at the linebacker position.
Joe Thomas was an absolute beast for the Browns, make the Pro Bowl as a rookie. Levi Brown started 11 games for the Cardinals and did a solid job for them.
I think that Adrian Peterson's play speaks for itself. Marshawn Lynch, another rookie, had over 1000 yards for the Bills last season.
Dwayne Bowe was the leading receiver on his team and Calvin Johnson had a very solid season as well.
We all know how well Landry did as a rookie and Brandon Meriweather played in all 16 games for the 18-1 Patriots. Aaron Ross earned his way into the Giants starting lineup and was a starter in the Super Bowl. Revis started 16 games for the Jets and did well considering how putrid that team was.
Okoye had 5.5 sacks as a 20 year old rookie. Gaines Adams added 6 sacks for the NFL's 2nd ranked defense.
So there were plenty of rookies that played extremely well last season and this list is just guys drafted in the first round (and I probably missed a few solid performers as well). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
brad7686
B-rad
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 2991
Location: De La War
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mel and McShay have it down to Merling. It's getting close to draft time, and those guys get inside info and whatnot, so i think merling is a strong possibility. The way the whole WR thing is shaking down, it may be better to wait till 2, maybe even try to trade into earlier 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
VetSkinsFan
One Step Away
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 7779
Location: NoVA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CanesSkins26 wrote: | | fleetus wrote: | | yupchagee wrote: | | Not if the #1 rated player is behind good players on the roster. You don't get better sitting on the bench. The #5 player givin a chance to play is likely to be better than the #1 rated player who rides the bench. Supose we draft a RB at #21. I've read that the RB class is among the best in the draft. He will ride the bench for several years. A DE who gets a chance to start his 1st yr will likely develop a lot faster. |
You watch a different NFL than I do then. I see rookies being rushed into starting roles every year and failing. In general, 22 yr. old men who have never earned more than $10/hr. have trouble living up to the hype. There's a nice piece written in ESPN today about how Michael Westbrook, (former #4 overall draft pick, who we would salivate over if he were a rookie now, at 6'4", 230 lbs.) is now retired and deeply into Ultimate Fighting. One of hundreds of examples of players who got rushed into a starting role. |
I think that you are exaggerating the struggles of rookies. Obviously there are growing pains for young players, but players today are prepared very well in college for the NFL. More and more college teams run pro style offenses and rookies today are able to contribute right away. Just look at last year's first rounders. There were plenty of players that made solid contributions to their teams.
Beason and Willis dominated as rookies, both racking up over 100 tackles at the linebacker position.
Joe Thomas was an absolute beast for the Browns, make the Pro Bowl as a rookie. Levi Brown started 11 games for the Cardinals and did a solid job for them.
I think that Adrian Peterson's play speaks for itself. Marshawn Lynch, another rookie, had over 1000 yards for the Bills last season.
Dwayne Bowe was the leading receiver on his team and Calvin Johnson had a very solid season as well.
We all know how well Landry did as a rookie and Brandon Meriweather played in all 16 games for the 18-1 Patriots. Aaron Ross earned his way into the Giants starting lineup and was a starter in the Super Bowl. Revis started 16 games for the Jets and did well considering how putrid that team was.
Okoye had 5.5 sacks as a 20 year old rookie. Gaines Adams added 6 sacks for the NFL's 2nd ranked defense.
So there were plenty of rookies that played extremely well last season and this list is just guys drafted in the first round (and I probably missed a few solid performers as well). |
ANother facet not brought to light is that some guys just can't hack it in the NFL. No matter what they do in college, they just can't do it in the NFL. I think you're giving the players too much benefit in doubt otherwise. Like any other situation, if you CAN hack it, you'll adjust and overcome. If you can't, then you won't make it and fade into the background. NFL I feel is no different.
On the other hand (such as the case with Brady, for instance) that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time in college so their skills are not recognized/developed to teh point that they could be. They come out into a better set of circumstances, and viola, there's 3 Super Bowl trophies. Not that he was a rookie, but Randy Moss is another prime example of circumstances. Compare his '06 year to his '07. If you knew nothing about the game or Randy Moss looking at the stats, you'd never even consider this being the same guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4110
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fleetus wrote: | | yupchagee wrote: | | Not if the #1 rated player is behind good players on the roster. You don't get better sitting on the bench. The #5 player givin a chance to play is likely to be better than the #1 rated player who rides the bench. Supose we draft a RB at #21. I've read that the RB class is among the best in the draft. He will ride the bench for several years. A DE who gets a chance to start his 1st yr will likely develop a lot faster. |
You watch a different NFL than I do then. I see rookies being rushed into starting roles every year and failing. In general, 22 yr. old men who have never earned more than $10/hr. have trouble living up to the hype. There's a nice piece written in ESPN today about how Michael Westbrook, (former #4 overall draft pick, who we would salivate over if he were a rookie now, at 6'4", 230 lbs.) is now retired and deeply into Ultimate Fighting. One of hundreds of examples of players who got rushed into a starting role. |
I don't think his problem was being rushed, he just wasn't that good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
fleetus
Hog
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 1757
Location: Charlottesville, Va.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Norv Turner and Charley Casserly would both disagree with you. Read the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Page 3 of 3 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
