Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
NOthing wrong with building thru the draft.. Flooding the roster with 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players based on sheer volume however isn't a strategy for success.
Maybe I'll restate to clarify. In a 7 round draft where we hold picks in all rounds, a team can call 3 starters and a 2 backups an excellent draft, 2 starters and 3 backups a good draft and 1-2 starters and 1-2 backups an average draft.
2007 we had an awful draft. Landry was the only starter. HB Blades was the only backup.
2008 we had an awful draft. No starters. Davis was the only quality player, Jackson the only remaining backup.
2009 we had an awful draft. Orakpo was the only starter. Barnes the only remaining backup.
2010 we had an average draft. Williams and Riley are starters, Austin is a backup.
2011 we had a potentially excellent draft. Kerrigan, Jenkins, Hankerson all look like starters. Helu looks like he will either start or be part of a strong rotation. Gomes, Paul, Royster, Hurt, Nield all are backups.
Replicating 2011 will be difficult simply based on averages that most drafts don't provide that level of depth. But since we had an excellent draft in 2011 we can afford to be more aggressive in moving up to get a player without the risk of not filling needed holes. We also don't have a need as we did last year to 'stock up on picks' in this draft for the sake of getting younger. The 2011 draft really just averaged out the 2007-2009 drafts in terms of the number of expected starters and backups from each draft.
If anything if we move back, we should be looking to acquire 2013 picks. That's what NE does better than anyone, build forward.
Nothing wrong with getting younger, but young for the sake of young doesn't build winners.
|
Certainly good points. I like the idea of trading picks for future picks as well - making sure there's a "full" draft for the Redskins each and every year. The Redskins have about eight picks this year. Last year they had 12, and most of them all contributed or will contribute this season (Hankerson, Jenkins.) Let's say 4 out of the 8 this year become starters or at least get a lot of playing time this coming season, that's a pretty good amount of young guys in there. I don't think the Redskins necessarily HAVE to do this every season, beyond of course building and maintaining depth. And I know finding the diamonds in the rough is quite difficult when it comes to quarterback play, but on the other hand, finding a sure bet starter as a qb is not automatic by any means. For every Big Ben, Peyton Manning, or Cam Newton, there's plenty of Ryan Leafs, Heath Shulers, and Patrick Ramseys.
Joe Montana was not highly regarded coming out of college, but he turned out pretty good. I think it just really depends on who your scouts are. Anybody can look at an Andrew Luck or a RG III and easily see the talent or be fooled completely. It's finding those guys that for one reason or another, their stock went down, but knowing that they have certain qualities that meets NFL standards that aren't looked at by the talking heads on the radio or on the NFL Network. I think that coupled with the quality of your coaching staff really determines if that pick turns out great or not.
We used to laugh at the Patrick Ramsey disciples about how he was never given a "chance" to succeed in Washington. Looking back on it, I sort of understand it. I think he was probably one of those guys where he needed that development and precise coaching to really turn into a great QB, because he wasn't good enough to overcome bad coaching on his own.
I said that to say that I believe in this coaching staff, and I think picking a guy like Tannehill or maybe Foles would be the right thing for those guys, because they have a great coaching staff that could be there for them during their most critical points in their career. So, it could possibly be true that the Redskins don't necessarily NEED to bet the farm away for an RG III or an Andrew Luck. They could possibly succeed with a lower draft pick.