BGO Draft Chat

[Henry]

I disagree Boone. We need starters and depth, and it will probably take a few drafts to get there. Instead of desperately grabbing guys off the street in the middle of the season or trading away mid round picks for useless jouirneymen because we refused to take the low rounds seriously and we have no depth, we might actually have ourselves covered in the future.

On top of that we ARE getting starters. All of this will come at a relatively cheap price compared to using vets.

And the odds of finding a gem in the later rounds goes up the more late round picks you have.

I've heard the reasons for ignoring the late rounds many years now. I don't think the results support the reasoning. Again, if we cannot find anyone in the later rounds we're doomed no matter what to overpaying for depth that doesn't quite fit and therefore doesn't really work.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

good pick relative to position in draft. I'll give em that.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Leonard Hankerson, WR, Miami - Scouting Report
Height: 6-2. Weight: 209.
Projected 40 Time: 4.54.
Combine 40 Time: 4.45.
Pro Day 40 Time: .
Vertical: 36. Broad: . Hand: 10 5/8.
Projected Round (2011): 2-3.
3/27/11: Leonard Hankerson had a good Pro Day workout. He's had an excellent draft offseason after a mediocre year. Mike Mayock said that Hankerson "scares the hell out of me."

1/30/11: Leonard Hankerson was the best offensive player on the field in the Senior Bowl. He made numerous outstanding catches, including a 49-yarder where he made a great adjustment on Christian Ponder's severely underthrown pass. Hankerson has a shot to go in the bottom of the first round if he has a good Combine.

 

[Elephant]

Well, there you go! Leonard Hankerson. I'm ok with that in the 3rd round.

 

[Goaldeje]

that's what a team with limited starting talent needs? good starting depth?

not picking on you...I'm frustrated and I expected to be working on other things about two hrs ago! instead I'm sitting here watching all the other teams select the better talent.

I agree it can seem backwards. But the fact is that players drafted, regardless of round drafted in, have about a 50/50 chance of sticking. So why not get more bodies to make our success rate more probable? We are not at the place where we need one or two starters, we need a lot more than that. Why not get a bunch of picks and see who sticks? Then maybe we can draft selective starters next year.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Goaldeje]

Well, there you go! Leonard Hankerson. I'm ok with that in the 3rd round.

Yes ,seems like an excellent value pick.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Since Feb., we have addressed S, OLB, DT, and WR.

Very good indeed. No more choosing three receivers in the same round.

 

[Boone]

I disagree Boone. We need starters and depth, and it will probably take a few drafts to get there. Instead of desperately grabbing guys off the street in the middle of the season or trading away mid round picks for useless jouirneymen because we refused to take the low rounds seriously and we have no depth, we might actually have ourselves covered in the future.

On top of that we ARE getting starters. All of this will come at a relatively cheap price compared to using vets.

And the odds of finding a gem in the later rounds goes up the more late round picks you have.

I've heard the reasons for ignoring the late rounds many years now. I don't think the results support the reasoning. Again, if we cannot find anyone in the later rounds we're doomed no matter what to overpaying for depth that doesn't quite fit and therefore doesn't really work.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

We're not debating free agency philosophy - what's that got to do with anything? I agree it will take a few drafts to get there - but that actually supports what I'm saying, not your argument. You find guys who can make the team and contribute. If you recognize we're 3 years away from really being competitive, you try and find guys who will stick. Our WR may make the cut - but I'm skeptical anyone else beyond this point realistically will. Of course the odds that we find a gem in the later rounds rises with the number of those picks The odds of finding a gem also greatly increase with where they are selected in the draft. That's just a fact.

It's not about ignoring the later rounds. But you don't try and make up for 4-5 years of casually trading picks by trading spots at which you can pick an impact player for a bunch of opportunities to get lucky.

Sorry - I just don't see the logic.

 

[Skinsfan76]

It's hard to draft a WR without taking a risk.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

I agree it can seem backwards. But the fact is that players drafted, regardless of round drafted in, have about a 50/50 chance of sticking. So why not get more bodies to make our success rate more probable? We are not at the place where we need one or two starters, we need a lot more than that. Why not get a bunch of picks and see who sticks? Then maybe we can draft selective starters next year.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Goal...Casserly did a ten year study and presented numbers the other day vis probability of finding a starter...by round...after four years in the league. First rounf was 75%, second round 50%...and then it fell. the math is more complicated than just stocking players...that's why Beillichek basically bets on late first, second round, and early 3rds - he takes some fixed/limited pot of money and spreads it over relatively higher probability of success players thus optimizing his value function.


anywho.....this isn't a bad draft so far .... I would still have kept the extra second round pick and said fair thee well to the 3rd/4th......but there are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[Canadian Hog]

It's very interesting reading that Hankerson is also noted as having a good sense of maturity, leadership, and character.

Leadership seems to be the common denominator with all three selections.

 

[Boone]

I agree it can seem backwards. But the fact is that players drafted, regardless of round drafted in, have about a 50/50 chance of sticking. So why not get more bodies to make our success rate more probable? We are not at the place where we need one or two starters, we need a lot more than that. Why not get a bunch of picks and see who sticks? Then maybe we can draft selective starters next year.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Where'd you find that stat Goal?

I'm guessing that the likelihood of sticking corresponds pretty strongly with the round in which players are picked. That's not an absolute rule - but we tend to focus on those 'gems' and 'bargains' teams find, and forget the 7 fifth rounders a team had to run through to find that exception.

I'm not hyperventilating over the moves the Redskins have made today. I'd say we dropped twice as often as we really needed to though. We could have gotten a solid O-Line starter for years to come. I value you more than crossing my fingers on some 5th and 6th rounders.

 

[Henry]

Boone, you seriously doubt a 4th or 5th rounder will make the cut?

EDIT: and you don't see how our past draft strategy has affected our approach to FA and vice versa?

This is Boone, right?

Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[servumtuum]

We're not debating free agency philosophy - what's that got to do with anything? I agree it will take a few drafts to get there - but that actually supports what I'm saying, not your argument. You find guys who can make the team and contribute. If you recognize we're 3 years away from really being competitive, you try and find guys who will stick. Our WR may make the cut - but I'm skeptical anyone else beyond this point realistically will. Of course the odds that we find a gem in the later rounds rises with the number of those picks The odds of finding a gem also greatly increase with where they are selected in the draft. That's just a fact.

It's not about ignoring the later rounds. But you don't try and make up for 4-5 years of casually trading picks by trading spots at which you can pick an impact player for a bunch of opportunities to get lucky.

Sorry - I just don't see the logic.

Boone, I see your point but the problem I have is the fact that we were so crippled coming into this draft that without getting extra picks we might have gotten 2 starters and maybe a couple of backups at best and that's being optimistic. So we would have had say Kerrigan and Jenkins and that's it for starters and then a bounce down to the fifth round and later for, as some have suggested "the dregs". I consider getting our third and fourth back as the foremost achievement of this trading-we got ourselves out of a miserable hole-many needs and very limited means of filling them.

 

[Canadian Hog]

Where'd you find that stat Goal?

I'm guessing that the likelihood of sticking corresponds pretty strongly with the round in which players are picked. That's not an absolute rule - but we tend to focus on those 'gems' and 'bargains' teams find, and forget the 7 fifth rounders a team had to run through to find that exception.

I'm not hyperventilating over the moves the Redskins have made today. I'd say we dropped twice as often as we really needed to though. We could have gotten a solid O-Line starter for years to come. I value you more than crossing my fingers on some 5th and 6th rounders.

I'm really hoping that the solid o-line starter is still sitting there somewhere in the fourth or fifth round. Thankfully, it seems as though if you are going to find starters for your club in the later rounds, the o-line is one of those positions where the likelihood of making it a reality is higher compared to some of the other skill positions on a football team. Maybe this is the approach and line of thinking the team took in deciding to go after the WR in the third.

 

[Goaldeje]

I did a study myself four years ago on the draft and came up with 50%. The problem is the subjective nature of the term "success". A first rounder, in my mind, needs to start for 5-7 years. Second rounder needs to start 3-5 years and so on. I'll see if I can find it, it was all on my old hard drive though. Anyway, I stand by my statement, fwiw.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Boone, you seriously doubt a 4th or 5th rounder will make the cut?

Posted via BGO Mobile Device

no...not speaking for Boone...I believe a second round pick has a much higher probability of being a starter than a 4th or 5th. the team's priorities...IMO...ought to be finding starters first....depth second.

 

[Goaldeje]

I'm really hoping that the solid o-line starter is still sitting there somewhere in the fourth or fifth round. Thankfully, it seems as though if you are going to find starters for your club in the later rounds, the o-line is one of those positions where the likelihood of making it a reality is higher compared to some of the other skill positions on a football team. Maybe this is the approach and line of thinking the team took in deciding to go after the WR in the third.

Yes. Looking at Shannys drafting history, everyone loves his RBs, but often overlook his success on the OLine. Wouldn't surprise me at all to find a starter in rounds 5-7 on the OLine.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Boone, I see your point but the problem I have is the fact that we were so crippled coming into this draft that without getting extra picks we might have gotten 2 starters and maybe a couple of backups at best and that's being optimistic. So we would have had say Kerrigan and Jenkins and that's it for starters and then a bounce down to the fifth round and later for, as some have suggested "the dregs". I consider getting our third and fourth back as the foremost achievement of this trading-we got ourselves out of a miserable hole-many needs and very limited means of filling them.

we were sitting there with two seconds. do things smartly and you have 3 high quality starters. the mass numbers philosophy...in my mind...is too much like searching the entire hillside for gold......after 10,000 other folks have already mined the same hills.

anywho....no need to get apoplectic over this. we shall see what we shall see!

 

[Henry]

no...not speaking for Boone...I believe a second round pick has a much higher probability of being a starter than a 4th or 5th. the team's priorities...IMO...ought to be finding starters first....depth second.

Al, are you and John under the impression that starting lineups on good teams are built almost entirely with first and second rounders?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device