Do we overvalue the draft?
 

First let me say, by we I don't mean Redskins Fans/The Redskins in particular. I mean football fans in general.

With that out of the way, on this boards I've seen people unwilling to part with a first round pick for proven high quality players. While it's necessary to use the draft to build your team, many players (especially at positions such as WR, DE, etc) have a huge bust rate. Going after a player that has played in the NFL and played well you know you're getting a commodity.

Hypothetically, I'd rather spend a first and a 3rd to get a proven player such as Chad Johnson, Roy Williams, Jared Allen, etc. Rather than take my chances with drafting a player and ending up with say Rod Gardner, Mike Williams, etc.

The draft is far from an exact science, and in the first round you're giving up big contracts. Every player you choose could turn out to be a stud, but statistics says most picks will be average at best. You hope to get a solid starter.

Yes, you have to build depth, etc on your team through the draft. It's necessary because even 3rd round picks are fairly affordable. You get good players, but rarely studs late in the draft.

I guess what I'm saying is I feel we overvalue draft picks sometimes. I'm not saying give away all our picks, or that they aren't important. But I will trade a 1st and a 3rd for any player thats already at the top 15 in his position currently in the NFL.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Good thread. I think we "misvalue" the draft. Having several draft picks doesn't mean their value is only for acquiring college players. Draft picks essentially collateral for acquiring talent (college or pro). I mean people want to complain about CJ and his attitude so they don't want to trade a 1st round pick for him because, to them, it's a waste of the "value" of the #21 pick. But how is that a worse "value" than using it to draft Malcolm "The Excuse" Kelly?

I tend to agree with the Beathard philosophy. Unless you're guaranteed some blue-chipper, then use your high draft picks to get proven players who can contribute now or for multiple, lower round picks that will improve your depth at a much cheaper cost.

Re: Do we overvalue draft picks?
 

[quote=Daseal;441408]First let me say, by we I don't mean Redskins Fans/The Redskins in particular. I mean football fans in general.

With that out of the way, on this boards I've seen people unwilling to part with a first round pick for proven high quality players. While it's necessary to use the draft to build your team, many players (especially at positions such as WR, DE, etc) have a huge bust rate. Going after a player that has played in the NFL and played well you know you're getting a commodity.

Hypothetically, I'd rather spend a first and a 3rd to get a proven player such as Chad Johnson, Roy Williams, Jared Allen, etc. Rather than take my chances with drafting a player and ending up with say Rod Gardner, Mike Williams, etc.

The draft is far from an exact science, and in the first round you're giving up big contracts. Every player you choose could turn out to be a stud, but statistics says most picks will be average at best. You hope to get a solid starter.

Yes, you have to build depth, etc on your team through the draft. It's necessary because even 3rd round picks are fairly affordable. You get good players, but rarely studs late in the draft.

I guess what I'm saying is I feel we overvalue draft picks sometimes. I'm not saying give away all our picks, or that they aren't important. But I will trade a 1st and a 3rd for any player thats already at the top 15 in his position currently in the NFL.[/quote]

With that sentiment you would never have an early round pick where chances are exponentially better to walk away with a homegrown starter or star.

The output of skill players is also system dependent. How do you know they are going to work with your system???

Randy Moss played for the Raiders didn't make any noise and now that he since has been traded to the Patriots he's back to being the best WR in football. The desired player has to fit like a puzzle piece in your scheme.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

I think people get too caught up in this notion that you have to build through the draft, and by doing so you should ignore free agency. The truth is you have to strike a balance. I think the true value of a draft is adding those later round role/depth players. Because in the early rounds you're still paying a pretty hefty price for an unproven player.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441419]Good thread. I think we "misvalue" the draft. Having several draft picks doesn't mean their value is only for acquiring college players. Draft picks essentially collateral for acquiring talent (college or pro). I mean people want to complain about CJ and his attitude so they don't want to trade a 1st round pick for him because, to them, it's a waste of the "value" of the #21 pick. But how is that a worse "value" than using it to draft Malcolm "The Excuse" Kelly?

I tend to agree with the Beathard philosophy. Unless you're guaranteed some blue-chipper, then use your high draft picks to get proven players who can contribute now or for multiple, lower round picks that will improve your depth at a much cheaper cost.[/quote]

The Beathard philosophy doesn't work in the modern age of the NFL.

Quality depth is needed at almost every position in the modern era. Depth isn't something that you can get if you are not using all your draft picks every year.

Using all of your picks across multiple years allows you to sign the occasional highly sought skill free agent to place in your already entrenched system. The only team to have a dynasty in the modern era of the NFL is using that method.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=Skinny Tee;441426]The Beathard philosophy doesn't work in the modern age of the NFL.

Quality depth is needed at almost every position in the modern era. Depth isn't something that you can get if you are not using all your draft picks every year.

Using all of your picks across multiple years allows you to sign the occasional highly sought skill free agent to place in your already entrenched system. The only team to have a dynasty in the modern era of the NFL is using that method.[/QUOTE]

Trading a high pick for a proven NFL player or trading a high pick for multiple picks in later rounds (again, at a cheaper cost) is not the same as "not using your picks."

Case in point, I'm assuming the dynasty you're talking about is the Patriots. Well the Pats used their draft picks last year to acquire two WRs already in the league. A 2nd and 7th for Welker, and a 4th for Moss.

So I think you're contradicting yourself.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Good thread. I just heard this on the radio so it's not all mine but i agree w/ it. Let's just look at the successful teams recently: Pittsburgh, Indy, NYG, Dallas, NE, etc. I think what you'll find is that teams that draft well are successful. Teams that don't draft well are not. In WAS, we draft decently but we just haven't drafted often enough. We've placed too much emphasis on FA. That doesn't mean that those teams haven't added FA's but they've done well w/ the draft overall.

But i do think that if you can get an impact player w/ a 1st rounder, than do it. You don't want to mortgage your future though.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

I think some people do overvalue the draft. Trading a high draft pick for a proven player is sometimes a smart move. As the saying goes, "a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush." Whether it makes sense to trade draft picks for a vet depends on many variables (e.g., who will be available at the traded picks, the age of the vet, the cap considerations, etc.).

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441433]Trading a high pick for a proven NFL player or trading a high pick for multiple picks in later rounds (again, at a cheaper cost) is not the same as "not using your picks."

Case in point, I'm assuming the dynasty you're talking about is the Patriots. Well the Pats used their draft picks last year to acquire two WRs already in the league. A 2nd and 7th for Welker, and a 4th for Moss.

So I think you're contradicting yourself.[/quote]

The Pat's haven't added many FA's until last year though. They already have their foundation built (oline, dline, secondary).

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441433]Trading a high pick for a proven NFL player or trading a high pick for multiple picks in later rounds (again, at a cheaper cost) is not the same as "not using your picks."

Case in point, I'm assuming the dynasty you're talking about is the Patriots. Well the Pats used their draft picks last year to acquire two WRs already in the league. A 2nd and 7th for Welker, and a 4th for Moss.

So I think you're contradicting yourself.[/quote]

I am aware that the Patriots have done that. They already had an entrenched system that allowed them to do that. Look further than last year for them and you will see that their most of their roster is made up of homegrown stars that were hand picked by their coaching staff.

The Redskins are by no means even close to being at the point where they can give up picks for a big signing or two to get them to be a dominant force in the league. If you've seen the depth on team I think you would agree. Just look at our draft needs posted by every analyst in the NFL and you will see that we need almost every position on our team addressed in some way.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

I think it is a similar to the problem that Schneed pointed out with JLC's posts on the Skins cap management issues. We are losing sight of the problems in talent evaluation that have plagued many previous Redskins trades and saying ergo trading draft picks is a losing strategy. It would be more accurate to say that trading draft picks of mediocre talent is a losing proposition. Trading picks for Lloyd and Duckett - mistakes. But neither Lloyd or Duckett had demonstrated elite production or been selected to five Pro Bowls.

The issue about cost is perhaps more valid, since it would apparently take $20 mil + in guarantees to lock up CJ. But, the Skins have demonstrated their ability to manipulate the cap with using cash-over-cap so as long as they got 5-6 seasons of high production from Johnson it likely would not cause huge problems. The issues with other guys they have traded for have been the lack of production they have received in return.

I think you could also argue that the Skins have, in the past, undervalued their own picks as compared to the value placed on them by others in the league. Adding a 2nd rounder in the Bailey/Portis deal or giving up a 3rd for Brunell comes to mind. In those instances the production was less a problem then the fact that most teams would not have added a high pick when giving up a comparable talent at a more valuable position or giving up a first day pick for an aging QB. Also remember that disgruntled future HOFers Marshall Faulk and Jerome Bettis were both dealt for 2nd round picks.

Now, having said that, a mid level 1st and a conditional 3rd (with high conditions for escalation) is probably not too high for Johnson (in my estimation). That strikes me as pretty fair compensation. Deion Branch netted the Pats a 1st and he's no Chad Johnson. Wes Welker and Javon Walker went for 2nds. Probably the most comparable trade we have is the first Randy Moss deal, which netted the Vikings the 7th overall pick and Napoleon Harris. So I think you can make arguments against the trade, but the firmest ground to stand on, I think, is cap ramifications. I really don't think you can say the Redskins are selling the farm in their proposal. I think there are at least several teams who would also make that sort of deal for Johnson, so here I don't think the Skins are bidding against themselves (as they have in the past).

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

This is a good thread, and to echo your sentiments, I think we do over value draft picks, not so much the draft. I particularly feel all the hype around the first round is just hype.

I think the trap the Redskins have/had fallen into was a cycle of targeting and building through free agency and placed too low of a premium on the draft in general. I've maintained all of along, save three or four top flight NFL teams, the Redskins haven't had any more free agency mis-cues than the next team. They've had more high profile free agents, perhaps, that haven't panned out. There's just got blown out of proportion because of Danny's reputation as a spender and the media's penchent for "I told you so". Simply put, I think the Skins have just been out of balance somewhat with their approach.

I don't think you can build entirely usuing one approach at the expense of the other. As much praise as the Patriots get, they have their share of free agents.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

i think it all boils down to who is making the picks, and evaluating the talent. a good general manager, that makes the right picks, can never over value the draft.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=Skinny Tee;441441]I am aware that the Patriots have done that. They already had an entrenched system that allowed them to do that. Look further than last year for them and you will see that their most of their roster is made up of homegrown stars that were hand picked by their coaching staff.

The Redskins are by no means even close to being at the point where they can give up picks for a big signing or two to get them to be a dominant force in the league. If you've seen the depth on team I think you would agree. Just look at our draft needs posted by every analyst in the NFL and you will see that we need almost every position on our team addressed in some way.[/QUOTE]

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

I would venture to say people dont have a problem trading for talent. The problem is that you cant live by it. A top ten pick is a huge huge contract. but after that the players are cheap for many years.

we trade our picks every year. yes somehow we always are under the cap. but we force our players to change their contracts. they dont have to, one day they may not.

The draft is a risk, but a cheap way to get talent. and it keeps your team young.

Id love to get CJ, or Allen... but it wouldnt hurt to acutally use our draft picks for once, save some money, hope to get talent...

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441473]And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).[/quote]


we have home grown talent, but look at your list and break it down to where we got them

1st round - Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Samuels
2nd - Smoot, Betts, jansen, Cooley (yes we picked him in the 3rd but we gave up a second)

the rest of those players arent starters... or were only starters because of injury.

If anything I think your list proves we evaluate talent well in the early rounds...but not in the later ones at all...

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

The goal is to add talent for the future in the best possible way. Sometimes, you can trade for a 23 year old Running Back with his best years ahead of him. The problem is, it's incredibly difficult to get players who aren't already at the peak of their career through free agency.

The good thing about draft picks (not in the top 5, but after that) is that for the cost of nothing (money wise) you can get top end NFL talent that will improve over the life of their rookie contracts. The picks in themselves are worth nothing, but you can't get talent that will improve unless you have them.

You have to add a veteran talent if you can get him at a bargain price. That's how winning franchises are built. Established talent is a very safe bet to continue success in the short term, but also are a safe bet to begin declining as soon as they are signed.

The draft in terms of importance, is as a whole, valued properly. By the end of the rookie contract (at least a 5 or 6 year contract), a team has already gotten most of the best games out of a player, and is often wise to let him walk if they can replace him for less money.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441473]And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).[/quote]

I wouldn't necessarily call Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Wilson homegrown stars. Just the fact that you named them as such warrants a call for using our high draft picks on premier talent. Though I like those guys and want to see them do well, I wouldn't bring their name up in a talent discussion.

In the spectrum of acquiring free agents and drafting new players, the Skins have been free agent heavy for the last couple years. Like Mattyk72 said it is all about striking a balance in that spectrum. Especially with a new coach we should be looking to solidify our roster with young, coachable players that fit Zorn's scheme.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

I didn't call them stars. I called them talent. Talent that have been able to step up when needed, and provide depth to the team.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441473]And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).[/quote]Chad Johnson fills a pretty big need, but how long would it be until we are paying him a fortune to be a mediocre--or just a bit better than that--player? 2010 perhaps?

I mean, look at Torry Holt right now. There's a guy who is past the prime of his career, and wouldn't have a lot of trade value if he was shopped. Chad Johnson is two years younger than Holt, and they've had similar career paths. If Johnson is no longer in the top 20 NFL receivers by 2010, is a first round draft pick for him actually worth it?

I mean the value of a year or two, maybe three if we are lucky of an elite receiver then 3 more years of mediocrity can't cost us more than a second round draft pick. It's classic mortgaging the future...and we are probably a year away from a Super Bowl caliber passing game with or without Chad Johnson.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

We do need a young receiver to grow with Campbell and to take over the Number 1 receiver job in a few years regardless of what we do with Chad Johnson. If we trade a pick for Johnson, where are we going to get this receiver?

Or are we going balls out the next two years trying to win a Super Bowl before we become an over the hill team in 2010, much like 2006?

Additionally, if Santana is ever going to have a rebound season, it's going to be now, at age 29. This is a perfect year to draft the WR of the future in the 2nd round, and we're doing our best to blow it.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES;441501]we have home grown talent, but look at your list and break it down to where we got them

1st round - Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Samuels
2nd - Smoot, Betts, jansen, Cooley (yes we picked him in the 3rd but we gave up a second)

the rest of those players arent starters... or were only starters because of injury.

If anything I think your list proves we evaluate talent well in the early rounds...but not in the later ones at all...[/QUOTE]

Fair points. But keep in mind the depth we've gotten in later rounds/UDFAs.

Anyhow, my point is (and I'll bet Scott Pioli would agree) that there is no one way to build a team. And having draft picks does not mean that their only value is by drafting college players.

I don't know maybe I'm missing something. But I just don't see how using one out of nine picks this year to trade for a proven NFL player at a need position is met with such apocalyptic reaction.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;441517]We do need a young receiver to grow with Campbell and to take over the Number 1 receiver job in a few years regardless of what we do with Chad Johnson. If we trade a pick for Johnson, where are we going to get this receiver?

Or are we going balls out the next two years trying to win a Super Bowl before we become an over the hill team in 2010, much like 2006?[/QUOTE]

Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months ;)

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;441512]Chad Johnson fills a pretty big need, but how long would it be until we are paying him a fortune to be a mediocre--or just a bit better than that--player? 2010 perhaps?

I mean, look at Torry Holt right now. There's a guy who is past the prime of his career, and wouldn't have a lot of trade value if he was shopped. Chad Johnson is two years younger than Holt, and they've had similar career paths. If Johnson is no longer in the top 20 NFL receivers by 2010, is a first round draft pick for him actually worth it?

I mean the value of a year or two, maybe three if we are lucky of an elite receiver then 3 more years of mediocrity can't cost us more than a second round draft pick. It's classic mortgaging the future...and we are probably a year away from a Super Bowl caliber passing game with or without Chad Johnson.[/quote]

Yea...I guess the idea is to win now though...our offensive and defensive lines are very old. our corners are old or hurt. our linebackers are old and or hurt. thats a lot of turnover or reduced ability over the next few years. We just made the playoffs. the talent is there to win now with a few pieces...we gotta make this window, or give up this window and grow for later.

id be fine trading just our first for him. but I guess now that i think about it trading more than that limits our ability to start grooming replacements for all of our older guys.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441522]Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months ;)[/quote]No! I forgot all about him!

Nevermind, we are set ;)

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441522]Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months ;)[/quote]


heh, we'll be fine. Zorn will implement timing routes, and slants, and lots of things that small speedy guys excel at that we didnt use last year.

then cooley and sellers will get all our tds until Mix gets used to the 'jump ball'

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441518]Fair points. But keep in mind the depth we've gotten in later rounds/UDFAs.

Anyhow, my point is (and I'll bet Scott Pioli would agree) that there is no one way to build a team. And having draft picks does not mean that their only value is by drafting college players.

I don't know maybe I'm missing something. But I just don't see how using one out of nine picks this year to trade for a proven NFL player at a need position is met with such apocalyptic reaction.[/quote]

It's not the player in question or even the draft pick. It is the idea of giving up on building a competitive team from within. We should trust this new coach to be able to mold young players from the draft into quality players that fit his scheme.

For the draft to be effective we need all of our picks over a 3 to 4 year span. Giving away any of this year's picks only postpones our efforts of building from within.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=Skinny Tee;441537]It's not the player in question or even the draft pick. It is the idea of giving up on building a competitive team from within. We should trust this new coach to be able to mold young players from the draft into quality players that fit his scheme.

For the draft to be effective we need all of our picks over a 3 to 4 year span. Giving away any of this year's picks only postpones our efforts of building from within.[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense at all to me. So you're saying, for example, keeping all nine picks and using the first one on Malcolm Kelly is more effective than keeping eight out of nine and trading the first one (and maybe a 3rd next year) for Chad Johnson simply because we're keeping all our picks?

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Yeah I'm not sure how trading one pick this year means the entire draft is shot.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

we finally have alot of picks rather than trade them as usual and now u guys have a problem with that?

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;441564]That makes no sense at all to me. So you're saying, for example, keeping all nine picks and using the first one on Malcolm Kelly is more effective than keeping eight out of nine and trading the first one (and maybe a 3rd next year) for Chad Johnson simply because we're keeping all our picks?[/quote]

Who said anything about drafting Kelly. Personally I don't mind another year with our receivers as is. Sure they're not the best but there if there are no UFA available or prospects in the draft then don't force one with such a high pick.

Address it next year and select someone at the many other positions of need. I rather devote a large amount of money to multiple homegrown Redskin players than just to one imported commodity. (The large amount of money being the 20 million+ guaranteed that would consist of CJ's new proposed contract)

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[quote=Skinny Tee;441577]Who said anything about drafting Kelly. Personally I don't mind another year with our receivers as is. Sure they're not the best but there if there are no UFA available or prospects in the draft then don't force one with such a high pick.

Address it next year and select someone at the many other positions of need. I rather devote a large amount of money to multiple homegrown Redskin players than just to one imported commodity. (The large amount of money being the 20 million+ that would consist of CJ's new proposed contract)[/quote]

The point is the Redskins have shown serious interest in drafting Kelly.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Steveo -- the point isn't that we have picks, it's what are the worth? Salary cap issues are a valid concern with these big WRs were looking at (although I think the owners opt out of the CBA and doubt both sides get a resolution until a strike is near making 2010 uncapped.) However, I think its a bit outrageous to think that our first and 3rd round picks would turn into more than what Chad Johnson or Roy Williams could give us. Do any receivers in this years draft really excite you? Not me?

There's nothing wrong with keeping picks, but people want to keep picks for the sake of keeping them, not doing what's best for our team.

The Redskins fanbase seems to be feast or famine. As someone said earlier, a balanced approach at FA, Trades, and drafting is necessary. Drafting is necessary for depth.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-draft&prov=ap&type=lgns]Change of tactics: Redskins put draft ahead of free agency - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Sorry, this article is more appropriate in this thread. Check it out.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Look no further than the last Super Bowl - the Giants and the Patriots BOTH built mostly through the draft. That has worked out pretty well for both. I'm hoping that we start doing more of the same.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

It depends on who you're talking to. Cause the Skins have devalued the draft for years and we haven't won anything. But if we to rely solely on the draft, we wouldn't go anywhere either. We need to find a happy medium.
I think most of us here are sick of giving our picks away and know it's time to be a little more frugal with the picks.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=Skinny Tee;441819][url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-draft&prov=ap&type=lgns]Change of tactics: Redskins put draft ahead of free agency - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Sorry, this article is more appropriate in this thread. Check it out.[/QUOTE]

The way we're went after CJ and then Boldin, we seem to be very trigger happy to give away picks again.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

What surprises me is some people seem shocked that the Redskins are trying to aquire a big name WR. Nobody from the front office ever said they are only going to look to the draft this year. Vinny spelled it out quite clearly that if a player was out there that they valued, they would go after him whether that means through a trade, free agency, or the draft.

I'm seeing alot of people trying to say that the Skins emphasis on the draft is somehow out the window now because they shopped 1 pick this year and 1 pick the next. All of a sudden it's back to their old free spending ways, the draft is blown, the future is down the crapper.... blah blah blah. Again, nobody from the Redskins front office ever said they were going to ignore free agency and or trading for players.

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442036]What surprises me is some people seem shocked that the Redskins are trying to aquire a big name WR. Nobody from the front office ever said they are only going to look to the draft this year. Vinny spelled it out quite clearly that if a player was out there that they valued, they would go after him whether that means through a trade, free agency, or the draft.

I'm seeing alot of people trying to say that the Skins emphasis on the draft is somehow out the window now because they shopped 1 pick this year and 1 pick the next. All of a sudden it's back to their old free spending ways, the draft is blown, the future is down the crapper.... blah blah blah. Again, nobody from the Redskins front office ever said they were going to ignore free agency and or trading for players.[/QUOTE]

Well, I understand your point on others jumping the gun, but speaking for myself, trading for someone like Johnson would only hurt us. His attitude is too poor for us and I think it would ruin our chemistry. Plus his size is too small for me.
Boldin doesn't have the size I am ultimately looking for (6'3" of taller), but he does have a good attitude and boat loads of talent, so I could get on board with getting him. I just can't get on board with CJ in ANY scenario. (I still prefer Roy Williams)

Re: Do we overvalue the draft?
 

Boldin is 6'1 and built like a truck, and he's been very productive. You would turn him down due to the fact he's not 6'3?