Skinscast: What they should do, what they will do

One of many experimental iterations ...

Pappas

The UDFA
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
416
Reaction score
0
Points
0



http://web.skinscast.com/subcast/2011/03/16/what-they-should-do-what-they-will-do/

What they should do, what they will do

Predicting the 10th pick

With a lockout underway across the National Football League, delaying the start of free agency, early attention is being turned to next month’s draft. The Redskins hold the 10th overall pick in the first round and following a season that created more questions than answers at key positions such as quarterback, running back, receiver, and defensive tackle; fans are wondering how Washington will use their first round selection. In fact, all the mail we receive these days are on the subject.

Will they draft offense or defense? Will they select the quarterback of the future, or shoot for a Hall of Fame receiver? Will they continue to rebuild the offensive line, or try to get the nastiest defensive lineman on the board?

To try and help, we convened a panel of experts to try and shed some light on the upcoming draft. Given Washington’s history of draft day surprises, we asked each expert two questions about the 10th overall selection:

1. Who should the Redskins draft?
2. Who will the Redskins draft?

Rick Snider – Washington Examiner

Who should the Redskins draft?
Jake Locker. The Redskins drop down to gain picks and get the quarterback they want.

Who will the Redskins draft?
Like I said, Locker. Backup choice — Julio Jones. He’s a beast.

David Elfin – The SportsXChange

Who should the Redskins draft?
Since both Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbert scare me a little — I was on hand for the Heath Shuler debacle — and both might be gone by the 10th pick and because they’re apparently aren’t nose tackles worthy of that spot, I would trade down for extra picks, something the Redskins always need.

Click the link above to read the rest of the article...
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,458
Reaction score
372
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Finding a trade partner depends upon someone being there at #10 that was expected to go higher.

Part of the problem is with no free agency the draft is not just a tool to use in conjunction with others to improve, it is the only one.

And that places even more of a premium on making each pick count.

I will settle for SANE choices for solid football players.

What I don't want to see is the team swing for the fences and take a big risk with either of their early picks.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

Skinsfan76

The Starter
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0


I've seen the idea of the Rams trading up with us and taking Julio Jones and us going down to 14 and getting a third round pick.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,810
Reaction score
453
Points
1,113

Florida State

I've seen the idea of the Rams trading up with us and taking Julio Jones and us going down to 14 and getting a third round pick.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Doesn't sound like enough compensation, but I don't know much about draft order trade compensation.
 

Skinsfan76

The Starter
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0


You're right. Maybe they give up a 3rd and a 4th and we give up one our 5ths.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

I did some number crunching for an article I did on my blog recently.
http://walkingdeadmanblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/crunching-numbers-redskins-trade.html
Here are some possible trade scenarios:

#14. St. Louis Rams: I can see the Rams wanting to move up to #10. They've been looking for an elite #1 WR to complement Danny Amendola and Donnie Avery and stretch the field and be able to stay on the field.
Going by the Draft Trade Chart, the Skins could score a 3rd round pick by moving back 4 spots.
Redskins #10 (1300) for Rams #14 (1,100) and #78 (200)
The Skins at #14 should still be able to address either DE or OLB with their pick. They could also try and trade back again. Possible.


#16 Jacksonville Jaguars:
Jags are one of the teams that values character over many other intangibles. If they're sold on Ryan Kerrigan maybe they make a move.
Redskins #10 (1300) for Jacksonville's #16 (1000), #80 (190) and #113 (68) might be enough to make the trade. Maybe.

#17 New England Patriots: This could be a real opportunity for the Skins if the Pats want to move up. The Patriots have 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks and 2 3rd round picks. This may be the year the Pats decide to trade up for an elite talent. I personally love this scenario: Redskins #10 (1300) for NE's #17 (950), #60 (300) and #124 (48). By moving back 7 spots, the Skins gain a late 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick. Possible (I hope).
 

McD5

The Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,949
Reaction score
11
Points
318
Location
Orlando

Florida State

I believe they should take Julio Jones, and they will take Julio Jones.

You have a D Green/Prime Time speedster, with the athleticism of a young TO or Calvin Johnson, combined with the blocking and toughness of Hines Ward.

What could possibly be better?
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

I believe they should take Julio Jones, and they will take Julio Jones.

You have a D Green/Prime Time speedster, with the athleticism of a young TO or Calvin Johnson, combined with the blocking and toughness of Hines Ward.

What could possibly be better?
....w/ the injury potential of Malcom Kelly. :)
 

Yusuf06

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
0
Points
0


....w/ the injury potential of Malcom Kelly. :)
Don't you mean "Malcomb Kelly"? :D

IMHO short of a franchise QB our top priority has to be NT. I'm not enamored of any of the QB's this year so I'd have to say trade down if possible. I absolutely love the Patsies trade down previously mentioned. It would allow us to really fix both our lines in one fell swoop with probably a pick left over to grab a developmental QB.

What will we actually do? I haven't the slightest idea, which is a good thing. No telegraphed draft picks is a good thing...for a change.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

Ax

The Ugly American
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
15,000
Reaction score
257
Points
363

#17 New England Patriots: This could be a real opportunity for the Skins if the Pats want to move up. The Patriots have 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks and 2 3rd round picks. This may be the year the Pats decide to trade up for an elite talent. I personally love this scenario: Redskins #10 (1300) for NE's #17 (950), #60 (300) and #124 (48). By moving back 7 spots, the Skins gain a late 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick. Possible (I hope).
I never bothered to look up the details, but I've been hoping somebody NE wants real bad, is there when we pick. We can only hope the best deal isn't handed to Jerrah, just ahead of us.
 

Skinsfan76

The Starter
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0


The Chargers might want to move up too. They have several picks in the first few rounds also.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

The Chargers might want to move up too. They have several picks in the first few rounds also.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Very true. Both they and NE could use a DE. Chargers may want to trump NE is there was a player they really wanted. Chargers may also want to consider WR.
Chargers have the ammo to move up 2 2nds, and 2 3rds.
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

Also, don't count out Detroit to move up if Prince Amukamara is there at #10. They may want to jump up and snag him before Houston.

I've also heard Miami as a possible team to may want to jump if Jones is there.
 

Nobody

Super Bowl MVP
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
9,474
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Virginia Beach, VA

Army

What should they do? Eradicate Daniel M. Snyder.

What will they do? Let him continue to make bad decisions while masquerading under the guise that other people are now in charge.
 

Boone

GM
Staff member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
40,763
Reaction score
1,682
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia

I'm going to swim against the tide that says 'trading back' is the best option. Here's the thing:

As we have done repeatedly over the years, we've undervalued our draft picks and find ourselves well short of a full complement of them. So our natural response as fans is to want the team to somehow 'undo' that - by trading down for more picks.

Even if we find a partner (and that's proven far more difficult with recent drafts than previously), there's a problem with trading down. The good news is, we trade a higher pick for more picks later in the draft. The bad news is, we trade a higher pick for more picks later in the draft.

What I mean is, the chances of landing a bonafide long-term starter drop exponentially as the draft goes on. The Redskins haven't exactly dazzled even with their 1st and 2nd round picks - when you take a close look at rounds beyond that, it gets pretty ugly. The vast majority of their picks there are distant memories, many of whom aren't even in the league.

I have a lot more confidence in our ability to find a difference maker with higher picks than I do the chances of our looking like Bill Belichick and plucking stars from thin air. Trading back always sounds like a great idea - but I'm not sure it's quite the genius stroke we'd all like to think it is.

The answer is, don't toss half your draft picks away every year, and then you'll only be tempted to trade down if you get an offer you can't refuse.
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,381
Reaction score
44
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

I can agree with your basic logic, Boone. My only argument against what you re saying is that with a greater number of picks, a greater liklihood exists that we will choose a keeper. Now I am not sure, mathematically, how those odds compare with hitting on talent in the first two rounds. Perhaps someone who actually enjoys math, unlike me (hello, Serv!) could analyze that.

EDIT: you have to forgive us, Boone. We're still suffering from post-traumatic Vinny disorder...
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

servumtuum

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
0
Points
116
Location
Raleigh, NC

Indiana

I can agree with your basic logic, Boone. My only argument against what you re saying is that with a greater number of picks, a greater liklihood exists that we will choose a keeper. Now I am not sure, mathematically, how those odds compare with hitting on talent in the first two rounds. Perhaps someone who actually enjoys math, unlike me (hello, Serv!) could analyze that.

EDIT: you have to forgive us, Boone. We're still suffering from post-traumatic Vinny disorder...
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Hi there, G. :)

Actually, there have been studies done assessing the likelihood of QB success based on draft position but they aren't as generally helpful as one might think. Part of the problem is the fact that although QB is arguably the single most important position they don't play in a vacuum-they are more dependent on entire team play for their success than other positions. Teams getting early first round QBs, unless it's a trade-up, or early second round QBs which could also be either a trade up or down, tend to be teams than are not strong across-the-board with inadequate support systems necessary for QB success-iffy OL, lack of WR depth and such (sounding familiar?). There are exceptions but few teams in this position seem to be in the "A good QB is the last piece of the puzzle we need" category. In other words too many variables that could skew the results away from how much the QBs actual playing ability and success production are contributing factors to team success.


Having said that, I'm going to list a couple of things I found that do seem to contribute a bit of information in this area.

From the Wall Street Journal is an article outlining the difficulty of trying to measure QB success including a mention of things like personality factors common to GMs-they'll play a highly drafted rookie QB more often because they want to vindicate their choice, for example. Link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/12/30/the-count-the-art-and-science-of-drafting-qbs/

This problem also arose in an analysis by an HR consulting firm specializing in hiring practices vis-a-vis assessing potential future employment using QB drafting as an example. Link:

http://blog.criteriacorp.com/2010/09/08/the-nfl-draft-as-a-predictor-of-success-round-3/

Yet another problem is what metric are you going to use to measure QB success? Yards/pass, calculated win contribution, Pro-Bowl appearances and the like have been used and they're somewhat useful but not definitive and all contain some weaknesses. Here's an article on using Pro-Bowl appearances and the usefulness-and problems asociated with it in trying to measure article on that component. Link:

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/re-analysis-of-quarterback-success-based-on-draft-spot/

The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables operating simultaneously for any single statistical analysis methodology to have predictive success except as a very general guideline with a bunch of caveats attached to it.
 

fansince62

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
16,349
Reaction score
156
Points
343


Hi there, G. :)

Actually, there have been studies done assessing the likelihood of QB success based on draft position but they aren't as generally helpful as one might think. Part of the problem is the fact that although QB is arguably the single most important position they don't play in a vacuum-they are more dependent on entire team play for their success than other positions. Teams getting early first round QBs, unless it's a trade-up, or early second round QBs which could also be either a trade up or down, tend to be teams than are not strong across-the-board with inadequate support systems necessary for QB success-iffy OL, lack of WR depth and such (sounding familiar?). There are exceptions but few teams in this position seem to be in the "A good QB is the last piece of the puzzle we need" category. In other words too many variables that could skew the results away from how much the QBs actual playing ability and success production are contributing factors to team success.


Having said that, I'm going to list a couple of things I found that do seem to contribute a bit of information in this area.

From the Wall Street Journal is an article outlining the difficulty of trying to measure QB success including a mention of things like personality factors common to GMs-they'll play a highly drafted rookie QB more often because they want to vindicate their choice, for example. Link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/12/30/the-count-the-art-and-science-of-drafting-qbs/

This problem also arose in an analysis by an HR consulting firm specializing in hiring practices vis-a-vis assessing potential future employment using QB drafting as an example. Link:

http://blog.criteriacorp.com/2010/09/08/the-nfl-draft-as-a-predictor-of-success-round-3/

Yet another problem is what metric are you going to use to measure QB success? Yards/pass, calculated win contribution, Pro-Bowl appearances and the like have been used and they're somewhat useful but not definitive and all contain some weaknesses. Here's an article on using Pro-Bowl appearances and the usefulness-and problems asociated with it in trying to measure article on that component. Link:

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/highly-drafted-nfl-quarterbacks-the-holy-grail-for-success/

http://dallascowboystimes.com/2010/05/re-analysis-of-quarterback-success-based-on-draft-spot/

The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables operating simultaneously for any single statistical analysis methodology to have predictive success except as a very general guideline with a bunch of caveats attached to it.
surrounding talent obviously makes a crucial difference. that said...more often than not....when I listen to coaches, GMs, etc...the single factor most often discussed is the match between QB skills/talents and the offensive system he must perform inside of.
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,381
Reaction score
44
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

Great post, Serv. Your point about surrounding talent is exactly why I would have us avoid drafting a QB this year, unless someone falls to us at a preposterously low position. We need so much help on both sides of the ball that it seems folly to just put a young QB in and expect him to anything other than get knocked around. We tried that with Ramsey, if memory serves. I would like to get a little more settled elsewhere, then come back and draft a QB next year.

I keep hearing there may be a run on QBs this year anyway, so perhaps there will be a lot fewer teams looking for a QB next year, opening up our draft.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

Boone

GM
Staff member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
40,763
Reaction score
1,682
Points
2,044
Location
Greensboro, NC

Marine Corps Virginia

Great post, Serv. Your point about surrounding talent is exactly why I would have us avoid drafting a QB this year, unless someone falls to us at a preposterously low position. We need so much help on both sides of the ball that it seems folly to just put a young QB in and expect him to anything other than get knocked around. We tried that with Ramsey, if memory serves. I would like to get a little more settled elsewhere, then come back and draft a QB next year.

I keep hearing there may be a run on QBs this year anyway, so perhaps there will be a lot fewer teams looking for a QB next year, opening up our draft.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Ramsey - seriously??? Ramsey was a 1st round reach of epic proportions. Guy was legitimately a 5th round QB. He never stood a chance. There are 6 QBs in this draft alone that are flat out better than Ramsey ever could be.

It's like electing Pat Robertson President, then swearing off Rebublicans because they couldn't get the job done.

The problem isn't picking a QB with a top pick - it's trying not to screw up the pick when you make it that is the issue :)

PS - I seriously love you Goal - not beating on you, but that is flawed logic.
 

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

Private conversations
Help Users
    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Chat 0
    Top