Pre Draft Thread 2.0

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Pervis_Griffith

I'm with ya (although not sure what happened this weekend).

I would rather grab an OT or LB at 19 ...
... continue balancing need with BPA in the second round ...
... and then maybe grab Kellen Mond or Davis Mills at QB with one of the 3rd round picks ....

And that's IF you feel the need to draft a QB.

I wouldn't be opposed to NOT drafting a QB at all, and rolling with what we have in the room currently.

I think you can draft a QB round 3 or later that will be better than at least half the QBs drafted higher. Happens every year. I am for not spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on QB, barring some unforeseen plummet, but you absolutely want to get one more young guy in to replace Allen. He has no upside, should be replaced with someone that has some.

I still hate going with stopgap Fitz instead of giving reps to potential long-term answer, horrible decision. There could very well be a QB none of pundits favor that team loves, but I think you have to take one QB somewhere in draft, but not necessarily high, if one you like is available.

Best outcome besides something improbable like Parsons falling to us, is getting a franchise LT in 1st round and locking up QB blindside next decade. None of other holes, LB, S, TE, are as important as protecting your QBs long term.

[AnonEmouse]

I'd say we're of similar mind, I'm just saying unless you have your eye on 2-3 players in later rounds that you're pretty sure you can nab with those picks AND you don't see the BPA's available at your pick as franchise level stars you want, then trading down doesn't make sense. If you trade back AND then miss out on the guys you wanted then you're left pretty much high and dry. It all hangs on how good you are at assessing talent, as always, but with a trade like this it's about the benefit from those 2-3 plays being greater than that one guy at 19. Simply filling a hole isn't enough in the NFL, you need to put a body in that hole that elevates the position if you have the opportunity to do so.

If you have a potential pro bowl LT or LB in that slot, I say you take them as the longer term benefits to this roster from that one guy outweigh the benefits of picking up guys that just make you better instead of great.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

I'd say we're of similar mind, I'm just saying unless you have your eye on 2-3 players in later rounds that you're pretty sure you can nab with those picks AND you don't see the BPA's available at your pick as franchise level stars you want, then trading down doesn't make sense. If you trade back AND then miss out on the guys you wanted then you're left pretty much high and dry. It all hangs on how good you are at assessing talent, as always, but with a trade like this it's about the benefit from those 2-3 plays being greater than that one guy at 19. Simply filling a hole isn't enough in the NFL, you need to put a body in that hole that elevates the position if you have the opportunity to do so.

If you have a potential pro bowl LT or LB in that slot, I say you take them as the longer term benefits to this roster from that one guy outweigh the benefits of picking up guys that just make you better instead of great.

We can agree to disagree, but I think trading down makes sense way more often than people think. You need some elite players at high leverage positions, but there are tons of great players in 2nd round and 3rd round and lots of busts in 1st round--and of course lots of busts in 2nd and 3rd round.

You get more talented in NFL long term by taking long view and maximizing # of picks. The best teams are those that adhere to this philosophy, especially COMP, and of course have good FOs that can hit on 50% of picks. In a pure statistics sense, you would probably actually be better off trading your late 1st for a 2nd, 3rd, and one other pick every year. That sounds counterintuitive, but it isn't. NFL FOs around the league have these kinds of arguments now. What did Belicheat do during his dynasties--trade back into 2nd round repeatedly.

When you realize there is no such thing as a sure thing pick, then maximizing number is proper philosophy, and playing the odds. It is like card counting.

But I also see your point. I again go back to 5 high leverage positions: QB,LT,DE,CB,WR, in that order. We have never once under Snyder had 5 years of a single coach and single competent GM running things, where you can get to point where you aren't starting over every 2-4 years, which also factors in, and we have actually filled the big 5. You won't find me saying that staying put at #19 and taking a franchise LT is bad, but if I'm sitting at #19 and I don't see a franchise player, especially not at big 5, or a player ranked top-10 who is physical freak with perennial all-pro potential that dropped, I trade back, assuming can get good value. I don't buy into trade chart, I'm looking for more picks, especially 2-3 rd where you can routinely find solid long term starters, even if points don't add up on ye olde chart.

Let's say we take a T this year, next year we draft 22, no QB there. We have big 5 except QB, so I trade back in a second into 2nd round and add a 3rd or whatever because in most cases isn't huge gap between late 1st round and 2nd round player.

I just think your predisposition to not trade back most of the time is completely backwards in NFL today, but then, again, discussions like these in most organizations now, analytics vs. old school. Your view is essentially old school. Mine is analytics. Neither is always right, you have to blend them.

Right now we have no starting caliber LBs on roster. Not one. I would rather have 3 average starting caliber LBs, then one stud but not all-pro LB, one average, and a gaping hole. Though it is true teams full of average starters don't win SBs, you still need some studs, ideally at high leverage positions. It is a fallacy that studs are only found 1st round though, top-5 picks notwithstanding. Studs are found by maximizing # picks and having flexibility to almost always pick BPA. There is a McL in the 3rd round every year, but most teams pigeonhole need rather than BPA, and even then takes skill to find such guys.

Interesting stuff man.

[GridIron26]

A nice read on how teams set up the draft board - ESPN article

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for our old scouting team to work under Snyder. Spending a year or more scouting on a player to give an accurate (as best as possible) grade, only to have an owner walk in and throw away your work only because he is enamored by the player.

[skinsfaninok]

https://www.nfl.com/news/charley-cas...-qb-trey-lance

Trade with the Vikings

Washington trades up to get its quarterback of the future. With Ryan Fitzpatrick already in place, Lance could be used in Year 1 in packages that take advantage of his running ability.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

https://www.nfl.com/news/charley-cas...-qb-trey-lance

Trade with the Vikings

Washington trades up to get its quarterback of the future. With Ryan Fitzpatrick already in place, Lance could be used in Year 1 in packages that take advantage of his running ability.

Here's the link if people want to copy and paste it to avoid the redirect.

www.nfl.com /news/charley-casserly-2021-nfl-mock-draft-2-0-washington-trades-up-for-qb-trey-lance

Also, I gotta think NE goes with Fields in this mock draft.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

https://www.nfl.com/news/charley-cas...-qb-trey-lance

Trade with the Vikings

Washington trades up to get its quarterback of the future. With Ryan Fitzpatrick already in place, Lance could be used in Year 1 in packages that take advantage of his running ability.

Yeah, that's why you trade the farm for a QB, to turn him into a RB, so you can get him pummeled, worn down prematurely, and possibly have him get a serious injury that permanently derails his development. Who thinks this drivel up, LOL?

You invest all that in a QB, protect him, LOL. You find a franchise QB, maximize his playing life, and that doesn't happen having him emulate Jerome Bettis. We have plenty of guys that can run and catch, we need a guy that can THROW. All this absurdity with running QBs. We need a pocket passer that runs sparingly, Lance can be that, he has a f-ing cannon. The X factor is can he read an NFL D? Shades of RGIII, Haskins, etc. Where have I seen this movie before, LOL?

You could make an argument to trade up for Lance, he has ELITE arm strength though is frighteningly raw, but you draft him to be your long-term QB, not a gadget RB. I think lots of other teams will be thinking same thing and price will be prohibitive. If we can trade Collins, Scherff, and a 3rd I'd do it though, LOL.

I see naked desperation in moves like that of SF, and this one, that are exactly what we always used to do. Our FO got it right at least in small part, be patient, don't mortgage future ridiculously.

What we should be doing is starting Heinecke, have never signed Fitz, have traded Scherff even if just for a 3rd, have rolled $28M of cap space spent on Scherff Fitz over to next year so we can lock up ALL our young talent and add 2 more studs-in-prime like we did this year next year in FA, and then draft 1-2 QBs this year. Open competition at QB and find out if we have anything on roster with long-term franchise potential. Next year we'll have at best won a playoff game but not SB with Fitz, and have no idea if Heinecke or anyone else on roster is answer because Fitz got all the reps. Even with a good draft we are simply nowhere near as talented as legit SB contenders, who also have true franchise QBs, and we have a 38 year old scrub QB who has never won anything. That is truth. We got the single most important decision of offseason wrong, sacrificing short-term for long in QB.

Additionally, if no LT there, I would trade down this year in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round, every time I can, ideally for next year draft picks.

If we started Heinecke this year and he sucked, or a rookie, we know he isn't answer. That is far more valuable long-term than one year of non-SB winning production from a career journeyman scrub in Fitz. Moreover, if whoever we started sucked, we'd have a higher pick, say 6-15, and be in much better position for a QB, especially with extra picks next year. Lot of permutations and ifs and buts and candy and nuts, but a head coach is always going to be thinking of winning year to year, their long term record (not sucking any one season), staying employed, HOF potential, etc. They are, given GM powers, almost always going to make dumb decisions like signing Fitz. That is why you usually need a GM higher than coach in organization. THE DAN made that impossible, RR never takes job otherwise, he wouldn't have trusted THE DAN.

Let's suppose we draft Lance, he's raw, but wouldn't you want to get him reps as soon as possible and develop him? Get production on rookie deal before he gets $40M a year? Make sure he is the guy? That's not happening with Fitz on roster.

Not all doom and gloom. There could be a QB outside of top-5 we like and are just being very quiet about. I hope so.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Scalper

Yeah, that's why you trade the farm for a QB, to turn him into a RB, so you can get him pummeled, worn down prematurely, and possibly have him get a serious injury that permanently derails his development. Who thinks this drivel up, LOL?

You invest all that in a QB, protect him, LOL. You find a franchise QB, maximize his playing life, and that doesn't happen having him emulate Jerome Bettis. We have plenty of guys that can run and catch, we need a guy that can THROW. All this absurdity with running QBs. We need a pocket passer that runs sparingly, Lance can be that, he has a f-ing cannon. The X factor is can he read an NFL D? Shades of RGIII, Haskins, etc. Where have I seen this movie before, LOL?

You could make an argument to trade up for Lance, he has ELITE arm strength though is frighteningly raw, but you draft him to be your long-term QB, not a gadget RB. I think lots of other teams will be thinking same thing and price will be prohibitive. If we can trade Collins, Scherff, and a 3rd I'd do it though, LOL.

I see naked desperation in moves like that of SF, and this one, that are exactly what we always used to do. Our FO got it right at least in small part, be patient, don't mortgage future ridiculously.

What we should be doing is starting Heinecke, have never signed Fitz, have traded Scherff even if just for a 3rd, have rolled $28M of cap space spent on Scherff Fitz over to next year so we can lock up ALL our young talent and add 2 more studs-in-prime like we did this year next year in FA, and then draft 1-2 QBs this year. Open competition at QB and find out if we have anything on roster with long-term franchise potential. Next year we'll have at best won a playoff game but not SB with Fitz, and have no idea if Heinecke or anyone else on roster is answer because Fitz got all the reps. Even with a good draft we are simply nowhere near as talented as legit SB contenders, who also have true franchise QBs, and we have a 38 year old scrub QB who has never won anything. That is truth. We got the single most important decision of offseason wrong, sacrificing short-term for long in QB.

Additionally, if no LT there, I would trade down this year in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round, every time I can, ideally for next year draft picks.

If we started Heinecke this year and he sucked, or a rookie, we know he isn't answer. That is far more valuable long-term than one year of non-SB winning production from a career journeyman scrub in Fitz. Moreover, if whoever we started sucked, we'd have a higher pick, say 6-15, and be in much better position for a QB, especially with extra picks next year. Lot of permutations and ifs and buts and candy and nuts, but a head coach is always going to be thinking of winning year to year, their long term record (not sucking any one season), staying employed, HOF potential, etc. They are, given GM powers, almost always going to make dumb decisions like signing Fitz. That is why you usually need a GM higher than coach in organization. THE DAN made that impossible, RR never takes job otherwise, he wouldn't have trusted THE DAN.

Let's suppose we draft Lance, he's raw, but wouldn't you want to get him reps as soon as possible and develop him? Get production on rookie deal before he gets $40M a year? Make sure he is the guy? That's not happening with Fitz on roster.

Not all doom and gloom. There could be a QB outside of top-5 we like and are just being very quiet about. I hope so.

If they have someone still with a first round grade when they pick I think you have to take them. If not definitely trade back and maximize. On the flip side I see the Ravens get raked through the coals for their handling of their own talent in order to maximize picks. They will let a known talent walk and accrue comp picks and while yes they have been successful they really haven't had a deep playoff run in over a decade.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

If they have someone still with a first round grade when they pick I think you have to take them. If not definitely trade back and maximize. On the flip side I see the Ravens get raked through the coals for their handling of their own talent in order to maximize picks. They will let a known talent walk and accrue comp picks and while yes they have been successful they really haven't had a deep playoff run in over a decade.

First round grade is a wide range. It is about value. If there is someone with top-12 grade, and your FO can grade properly, then yes. Do we pick someone ranked 31 at 19? No.

They invested in a running QB who is not an actual throwing QB. Ravens. You can get everything else right and still never win it big if you botch QB. But Ravens have been good team for years. And they are but one example. Ravens have certain valuations on what certain players are worth, and don't pay them more than that value. So do Pats, or did during dynasty. You think Ravens would have franchised Scherff? Never.

The Ravens draft well enough that they can NEVER afford to keep all their talent, which is the point you are missing. EVERY year they have talented players they cannot afford to keep, and most every year they get comp picks, which they then use wisely to draft more talent. . . If you are always trading up, never trading back, always signing tons of FAs, you never get to this point. With a good FO, having 2-4 more picks per year means you will be better than other teams over long term. This is again a case study in why you don't let a coach be GM, they'll almost never take this long term view because their contract is up before the benefits of this strategic long-term approach accrues. Even great guys like RR succumb to this.

The other thing is that you almost always overpay in FA, bulk of team should be guys you draft and resign.

You'll know we are finally being run properly when we are letting a guy like Scherff or Allen or Kerrigan walk every year. . .

[sdskinsfan2001]

2 more weeks! 2 more weeks!

[Chief X_Phackter]

Watch the Jets take Justin Fields, and SF take Zach Wilson...

[MTK]

I think SF takes Lance, just my guess

[skinsfaninok]

I'm fine with Fitz for 2021 and even 2022 if he balls out.. If Ron wants Lance then go get him. We are in a good spot with overall talent right now, just need a LB and add some OL depth

[skinsfaninok]

ProFootballNetwork’s
@TonyPauline
Washington is willing to move up to 7 or 8 if a QB they like starts to drop.

AKA Trey Lance lol

[skinsfan69]

This time of year before the draft is so annoying. Every talking head heard so and so likes so and so.