• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

2017 Draft Poll

How should the Skins use the 17th pick in the 1st round in the 2017 draft?

  • QB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • RB

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • WR/TE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • OL

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DL

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • LB

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • DB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • BPA - regardless of what position he plays

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Neophyte

Ring of Fame
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
10,381
Reaction score
1,394
Points
543
Location
Dallas
So the Skins pick 17th in this year's draft. I won't go so far as to ask you who you think they will pick here. In that path lies madness.

What I want to know is what position you want to see us use that 17th pick on. So check out the poll and drop a vote.
 
BPA.

Of course we all hope it's the next Reggie White, Dick Butkus, or Sean Taylor.

But if it's the next Art Monk, Jim Brown, or Russ Grimm, is anyone really anal enough to bitch about it?
 
Same feeling here but an angstrom measure of 'reach' to fill a need is tolerable too.
 
Trade down. Fill out some of the mid rounds. This team is much further than a couple of players away from anything. Might have to wait till they're on the clock because #17 not a great position to trade from unless a team or two further down really feels the need to jump on draft day. If they get at least a low #1 or high #2 round as part of the deal I don't think they'll lose out substantially.
 
I say LB, though it's a toss up between a stud ILB & FS.
 
No matter what 'need position' we pick at 17, there will be people screaming the player was a reach, and not worthy of a 17 pick.

"but we needed that position and player, and he's a stud"
"but the price was too high....he was rated a #19 pick, NOT a #17 pick !!!"
 
I'll wait to see what they do in free agency first.We have plenty of money to spend on 2 or 3 high priced players in the mid-20's...there are a number of them out there.
 
No matter what 'need position' we pick at 17, there will be people screaming the player was a reach, and not worthy of a 17 pick.

"but we needed that position and player, and he's a stud"
"but the price was too high....he was rated a #19 pick, NOT a #17 pick !!!"

what if that player is the best player available
 
BPA.

Of course we all hope it's the next Reggie White, Dick Butkus, or Sean Taylor.

But if it's the next Art Monk, Jim Brown, or Russ Grimm, is anyone really anal enough to bitch about it?

at 17 the bpa is going to be an offensive lineman. Not our highest need. We should trade up to best DT. I give next years #1 and this yr's for Jonathan Allen and not be sorry for it.
 
at 17 the bpa is going to be an offensive lineman. Not our highest need. We should trade up to best DT. I give next years #1 and this yr's for Jonathan Allen and not be sorry for it.

No No NO! Lavauo needs to be replaced by a good LG.
 
I'd rather abuse opposing QBs instead of watching them carve us up repeatedly.

D LINE!
 
I'd rather abuse opposing QBs instead of watching them carve us up repeatedly.

D LINE!

That's a valid point and theory, but it's interesting how all 4 of this year's playoff finalists, are doing it with high-powered offenses to a large degree, rather than defense.

Not saying we should ignore defense, but just making on observation on the critical value of a potent offense. And our offense still has a ways to go before it reaches the level of GB, ATL, NE, PIT.
 
Last edited:
That's a valid point and theory, but it's interesting how all 4 of this year's playoff finalists, are doing it with high-powered offenses to a large degree, rather than defense.
True, but the "Defense Wins Championships" cliché will likely be validated again.
As the team that plays the best defense out of the 4 survivors, will hoist the Lombardi.
 
It's true that the NFL is offensive-based these days ... every rule change in the last decade or two has mandated it. But it's also true that you aren't going to contend consistently without at least a competitive defense, and that's not something we had in 2016. Absent acquisition of better pass-rushing and better coordination, we aren't going to have it in 2017 either.

Hopeful that something so obvious is clear not just to us, but to the gentlemen in Ashburn with the power to do something about it.
 
It's true that the NFL is offensive-based these days ... every rule change in the last decade or two has mandated it. But it's also true that you aren't going to contend consistently without at least a competitive defense, and that's not something we had in 2016. Absent acquisition of better pass-rushing and better coordination, we aren't going to have it in 2017 either.

Looking at in that perspective, it sounds like we would do well, and do best, by going BPA.
 
Not sure how that follows from what I said, Fear?
 
Not sure how that follows from what I said, Fear?

I was agreeing with you, and agreeing with myself at the same time.
So, since we could stand to gain improvement at virtually every position, on both offense and defense, we would be in a situation where we would better benefit by going BPA, rather than need.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top