Do we overvalue the draft?

[SmootSmack]

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.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

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.

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.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

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

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

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.

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).

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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).

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...

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

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...

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.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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).

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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).

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.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[SC Skins Fan]

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).

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

It's not just a 1st round pick. It could be two 1st round picks, or a 1st and a 2nd. Sorry but that's too much. We've already tried this way and it doesn't work in today's NFL and that's the bottomn line. And Kelly complaining about his pro day isn't a big deal and I would put no stock in that what so ever. The 40 times are so damn silly it's not even funny and you can look no further than Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith. Two guys that didn't run great 40 times but are some of the best players to ever play in the NFL. Kelly is good character guy and he's been a productive college player. I'd draft him in the 2nd round, but not the 1st.