In a tie for the 6th Pick with the Jaguars, the tie-breaker goes to.......

[Elephant]

Seems to me you guys need to narrow down your definitions of "mobility" when it comes to a QB. There's a lot of gray area between, say, the freakish athletic ability of a Mike Vick and the lead feet of a Rex Grossman.

To my mind a QB doesn't have to be able to break off Cam Newton-like 50 yard TD runs to be considered "mobile". A guy who can simply slide a couple of steps in the pocket at the right instan to avoid an onrushing LB, give himself an extra second or two, and use them to turn a potential sack into a critical 15-yard 3rd down completion on 3rd-and-12 in the 4th quarter of a one-score game, is every bit if not more dangerous.

Romo has KILLED the Redskins with that kind of "mobility."

Obviously you'd like to have a guy who can do both over a number of years...but this is still reality we're talking about.

And this is what I was expressing in various threads earlier. In the limited time I have seem him, Flynn has shown he can take the half step in the pocket to avoid the rush buying himself that split second needed to allow the receivers to get open. He also has shown he can roll out like Shanahan likes to do to open the field as OldFan suggests though not nearly as often as he might have to do here.

I will chill some on the Flynn bandwagon because I have made my feelings well known for most of the lost season. I hope we get this guy in a Redskins' uniform. If RGIII is the guy, I hope we don't waste too many picks on him. If BB is correct, the Browns will be seeking the services of Mr Flynn...what does that do to the cost for his services?

 

[fansince62]

The fact of the matter is, every GM that ever held the position has wasted picks. It never has been, nor will it ever be, an exact science.

that's true Ax-man...but what conclusion does one draw from that assertion? that a team shouldn't methodically and rationally reason its way to a prioritized list of candidates? that it shouldn't conduct some sort of risk based analysis in determining how to allocate its resources? that it should just throw darts?

 

[Skinsfan76]

What if the draft goes something like this.

1 - Andrew Luck
2 - Morris Claiborne
3- Matt Kalil
4 - RG3
5 - Justin Blackmon

If we can't trade down, do we take Richardson? Keep in mind this probably won't happen but you can make a case for everyone listed above would be on the Skins board. We have two rookies that looked promising the last six weeks of the season but Richardson is suppose to be an elite RB.

Just something to discuss we have a several days before free agency.

 

[Ax]

that's true Ax-man...but what conclusion does one draw from that assertion? that a team shouldn't methodically and rationally reason its way to a prioritized list of candidates? that it shouldn't conduct some sort of risk based analysis in determining how to allocate its resources? that it should just throw darts?

The conclusion to draw is that nobody gets it right all the time.

A team should always, and most probably feel they do, rationally reason it's way to a prioritized list of candidates.

A team should always conduct some sort of risk based analysis in determining how to allocate its resources?

And, using a consensus of the best known draft experts "best available" as the target board, for every pick from 1 through 200+, a monkey throwing darts could pull off a successful draft, at least half of the time.

 

[fansince62]

A team should always conduct some sort of risk based analysis in determining how to allocate its resources?

absolutely. and, ever since Tex Schramm and the Cowturds set the stage, every team has developed a systematic, statistics based approach to shaping its draft strategy. yes...it is risk based. you are right to note that the dispersion factor when it comes to assessing future production from draft prospects is wider than in other fields. but they still apply the logic. it's a business that involves millions and millions of dollars. they'd be crazy not to. obviously, a lot plays into this: strategy, scouting skills, available resources, etc. but at the end of the day.....dang right they approach the draft with a methodology that attempts to reduce risk.

 

[Boone]

I don't know that I believe that's the case Al. Maybe every team should have an evidence-based approach based on statistical study, but not sure that's actually the case. And if it IS a fact that the Redskins organization has used that approach for years, I'd suggest they toss it out the window and break out some other methodology.

The Ouija Board, Magic 8 Ball, or just plain old-fashioned guesswork might serve them better

 

[fansince62]

I don't know that I believe that's the case Al. Maybe every team should have an evidence-based approach based on statistical study, but not sure that's actually the case. And if it IS a fact that the Redskins organization has used that approach for years, I'd suggest they toss it out the window and break out some other methodology.

The Ouija Board, Magic 8 Ball, or just plain old-fashioned guesswork might serve them better

Statistical analysis is not the same thing as risk assessment. Statistical analysis is just a tool. The point I'm making is that the Skins will have some methodology that attempts to narrow the risk of making the wrong decision. the weighting(qualitative and quantitative)/variables they use will reflect overall goals and objectives. It will be placed into the context of a strategy.

Sorry...it's just common sense to me with so much money at stake. the process is not exclusively about hitting a home run. it's about narrowing the risks of making a wrong decision. that can't be done outside some sense of overarching goals, objectives and strategy. A football team is one component of the overall business.The draft is one activity among many that add up to a winning team. The context is complex enough that they are not going to do this by the seat of their pants. the methodology among teams may vary in sophistication...but they will all do it. The NFL itself is a multi-billion dollar business. darn right the decision-making is based to some degree on risk assessment.

or...better put...the seat of the pants stuff we saw from team Snyderatto should convince everyone as to its value.

 

[Boone]

I don't disagree on your last point - obviously back then, we had no consistent plan,strategy, methodology, or even philosophy of any kind.

But as I believe finding true talent that we can rely on for years to come is as much art as science, as often luck as solid strategic planning, color me a little skeptical. If I believed Snyder was capable of giving a GM and coach a good 5-10 years to commit to a consistent strategy, yeah, I think it could really result in sustained success.

But I have seen nothing to make me believe he has that kind of patience.

 

[Oldfan]

...The point I'm making is that the Skins will have some methodology that attempts to narrow the risk of making the wrong decision...

Sorry...it's just common sense to me with so much money at stake.

Back in 2005, I authored an ES thread saying that the Snyder/Gibbs/ Cerrato approach to roster building was 180 degrees wrong, violating the principles of basic Economics. I used basic math and ordinary words like "bargain performance" to explain.

About six months later, I found an article written by an economist online, saying the same thing but in the jargon of his discipline. He said that Belichik, who majored in Economics, was doing it right and Gibbs was blowing it. He said that if the Skins were a business in a competitive market, they would fail.

I'm not an economist. The problem required only a very basic knowledge of Economics. Yet, none of the three: Snyder, Gibbs or Cerrato spotted the flaw in their plan. It wasn't until after the dismal 2006 season that they went back to the drawing board and changed course. From the perspective of a roster building plan, 2004-2006 were wasted years.

It boils down to a lack of brainpower in our front office. Mike Shanahan's not a dummy. He's a bright guy. But can he compete with the likes of Belichik and Ernie Adams? Mayhew and Scwartz in Detroit? Mark Murphy in Green Bay?

 

[Oldfan]

I don't disagree on your last point - obviously back then, we had no consistent plan,strategy, methodology, or even philosophy of any kind.

But as I believe finding true talent that we can rely on for years to come is as much art as science, as often luck as solid strategic planning, color me a little skeptical. If I believed Snyder was capable of giving a GM and coach a good 5-10 years to commit to a consistent strategy, yeah, I think it could really result in sustained success.

But I have seen nothing to make me believe he has that kind of patience.

Sticking to a plan is a good idea, but first you have to develop a plan worth sticking to.

We haven't seen one of those in many years.

 

[fansince62]

I don't disagree on your last point - obviously back then, we had no consistent plan,strategy, methodology, or even philosophy of any kind.

But as I believe finding true talent that we can rely on for years to come is as much art as science, as often luck as solid strategic planning, color me a little skeptical. If I believed Snyder was capable of giving a GM and coach a good 5-10 years to commit to a consistent strategy, yeah, I think it could really result in sustained success.

But I have seen nothing to make me believe he has that kind of patience.

I don't disagree at all that finding talent is an art. what I am saying is that building a football team is a process that has to be managed. management includes reducing risk. using your point - the uncertainty of drafting the right talent is higher than...say...scheduling a flight to the next game. given the higher return to finding the right talent (or greater impact of not hitting on that top 5 pick)...it makes sense that a team would invest more money in technologies (e.g., film), people (e.g., scouting) and processes (e.g., draft board building) that reduce the risk of selecting the wrong guy. it's about rationalizing the process and emphasizing those areas of greatest return (or exposure) to reduce some of the uncertainty. the beauty of football - as in life - is that not everyone is good at managing this risk; hence, there''s a high failure rate.

luck may be viewed as uncontrolled risk.

 

[servumtuum]

luck may be viewed as uncontrolled risk.

Or perhaps the latent amount of uncontrollable risk. Uncertainty, as you stated. can be minimized within the constraints of available information of but never eliminated entirely.

The "crap-shoot" variable as I like to call it.

The Redskins had, during their time of league dominance, IMO possibly the greatest and most adept practitioner I have seen of the process you describe in Bobby Beathard. I think it is no coincidence that the slide into the "doldrums" of the past 20 years of Redskins history came soon after Beathard's departure.

Guys of his ability don't grow on trees unfortunately.