[PSUSkinsFan21]

D'BOYZ:

I just don't think you can consider one (draft strategy) without the other (free agency strategy). First of all, a number of our offseason acquisitions were acquired by trading our future draft picks, so in those instances the two are directly related.

Second, the moves that the skins make in free agency allows them the luxury of not being dependant on the draft. For the Skins, spending 2 or 3 picks to move up and get the one player they want makes sense because they fill all of their other needs in free agency. The teams that do nothing in free agency are dependant on the draft to fill the holes in their roster. So while it may be a bad idea for Philly to trade away a bunch of picks to move up and get one or two guys, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for the Skins to do it. The Eagles choose to use the draft to fill holes, the Skins choose free agency and trades. As such, stocking up on draft picks just isn't a necessity for the Skins. Conversely, the Eagles choose to do nothing during the off season leading up to the draft. They, therefore, don't have the luxury of spending multiple picks to make sure they get the one guy they want, because doing so leaves them with holes all over their roster.

The point is, what works for one team (and what doesn't work for one team) does not necessarily translate over to every other team in the NFL. By not considering the Skins' other offseason moves, you are refusing to recognize that there are multiple ways to build a great team.....and that not every team needs to value their draft picks the same way. Future draft picks don't matter as much to the Skins because of their approach at free agency and trading. Therefore, criticizing them for simply trading away future draft picks isn't taking all factors into account. You may want to isolate the issue, but that's not a good way of going about criticizing a team.