Grade Rocky McIntosh

[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.

[D'BOYZ]

Originally Posted by 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 .

Name 1... one player you adquire in exchange of a draft pick and don't count 6th or 7th rounder we both know those are crap pics.

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.

I get your point on this 1 but there's a think about overpaying and this type of moves limmits you to not allways get that player that fits your sistem bacause you're out of leverage. Now we know for expirience that FA like drafts not allways result and your team is limmiting it's chance to get good replacement for those players.

Because of FA and not draft your team doesn't has dept in a lot of areas becasue FA cost more is ST goes down, or rogers or washignton yo udon't have a capable backup behind them that's what not having picks does to you

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

I reconice there are multiple ways thats why I seperate them because I agree that your team knows how to build via FA and that they cover the mayority of their need as we did.

But the type of aproach to the draft limits the amout of young blood that comes to the team and cheap you agree you can't have a team with 3million- 5 million players at each position, thta's what FA does and even thought your team is the best team to manege the cap and get under it it also forces them not to resign good players and cut others.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

I get your point on this 1 but there's a think about overpaying and this type of moves limmits you to not allways get that player that fits your sistem bacause you're out of leverage. Now we know for expirience that FA like drafts not allways result and your team is limmiting it's chance to get good replacement for those players.

Because of FA and not draft your team doesn't has dept in a lot of areas becasue FA cost more is ST goes down, or rogers or washignton yo udon't have a capable backup behind them that's what not having picks does to you

There's a better chance of upgrading a team in fa. And I think (even if it goes against the grain) that depth is a luxury and not a necessity. Almost every team is concerned when a starter goes down, whether it's Pittsburgh with Polamalu or with the Redskins and Sean Taylor.

I'm not sure you are either right or wrong about overpaying, but I know that you haven't listed any evidence that the redskins are overpaying. Just like how some experts were thinking that half of the starters on the team would be rookies. How crazy does that sound now ?

I think the way to see whether a team, like redskins, have done well in the offseason is to compare the roster of players and coaches from the end of the season to the roster at the current moment. Did the redskins improve a great deal ? Hell yeah and they were a playoff team last year.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

Name 1... one player you adquire in exchange of a draft pick and don't count 6th or 7th rounder we both know those are crap pics.

As TAFKAS already noted: Brandon Lloyd.......and I'll even give you a second one from a couple years ago: our starting QB for a 2nd rounder. What QB in the 2004 draft could we have gotten in the second round or later that would be starting right now and would have led our team into the playoffs last year? Matt Schaub? Luke McCown? Again, hoarding draft picks for rookies just isn't as important to the Skins.

I get your point on this 1 but there's a think about overpaying and this type of moves limmits you to not allways get that player that fits your sistem bacause you're out of leverage. Now we know for expirience that FA like drafts not allways result and your team is limmiting it's chance to get good replacement for those players.

Because of FA and not draft your team doesn't has dept in a lot of areas becasue FA cost more is ST goes down, or rogers or washignton yo udon't have a capable backup behind them that's what not having picks does to you

As has already been mentioned, who says we overpaid? And who says we have any less depth than any other team in the NFL? If Brunell goes down, we have our choice of a veteran backup who knows the system or a first-rounder in his 2nd year. If Portis goes down, we have a very capable Ladell Betts. If a WR goes down, we have arguably as much depth as any other team in the NFL at that position with perhaps the exception of Arizona and Indy. I could go through the roster, but we'd be here all day. And at some positions, you'd be right, the Skins need more depth.........But what team isn't that the case for? Let's take Philly for example. What happens when they lose a WR? They've supposedly built such a strong base of players right? Because they keep all their draft picks right? Who's their #1 WR? What happens when McNabb goes down? How about WHEN Westbrook goes down this year? Where is all their wonderful depth that keeps them going without missing a beat. How about when Lito went down last year to injury for 6 games? Their pass defense was terrible.....in the bottom third fo the league. Who steps in for Kearse? Where's their great LBs? They have more depth questions than the Skins, but they're a championship caliber team who's done the right thing by holding on to draft picks for depth? I don't see it.

I reconice there are multiple ways thats why I seperate them because I agree that your team knows how to build via FA and that they cover the mayority of their need as we did.

But the type of aproach to the draft limits the amout of young blood that comes to the team and cheap you agree you can't have a team with 3million- 5 million players at each position, thta's what FA does and even thought your team is the best team to manege the cap and get under it it also forces them not to resign good players and cut others.

Again, I'd rather have veteran depth than rookie depth. Somehow we usually manage to afford to keep the guys we really want.........and to the extent we don't, I don't see any other team in the league that is able to better than us. The Steelers lost their secondary this offseason. The Pats lost their best WR AND their best DE AND have seen their secondary depleted in recent years. The Eagles have let go of their key defensive players like they're diseased throughout the years. Indy lost Edge. I mean really, how are these teams doing any better than the Skins at keeping talent and building depth?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

As TAFKAS already noted: Brandon Lloyd.......and I'll even give you a second one from a couple years ago: our starting QB for a 2nd rounder. What QB in the 2004 draft could we have gotten in the second round or later that would be starting right now and would have led our team into the playoffs last year? Matt Schaub? Luke McCown? Again, hoarding draft picks for rookies just isn't as important to the Skins.

portis was a 2nd, brunell was a 3rd.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by That Guy

portis was a 2nd, brunell was a 3rd.

My bad. Even moreso then........what 3rd round QB would we have gotten in 2004 that would have gotten us into the playoffs last year?
Oh well, I'll probably never get answers to the last questions I asked of D'BOYZ. That seems to happen around here a lot.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by 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.

PERFECTLY stated PSU!
I think you miss the point DBOYZ. There are roughly 31 teams following a like model. Most fail. How can that be? Same model? All building through the draft? All chasing NE, Indy, etc. It's obviously because NE, and friends have something more.............innovation. The ability to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Few get it, some do.
PSU is totally correct when he states that you cannot consider draft stategy without FA. To some degree, the Skins built this years team with next years draft. All things considered, they filled all holes needed with FA's, using draft picks as tradebait where necessary. next year, they may do the same. As already stated, by draft day, they were effectively done. What more is to be said? Filled all holes with PROVEN talent before draft day. No guess work and hoping the latest 15m Kellen Winslow produces. Joe uses ALL the tools available to him, not plodding behind the rest of the IQ bereft league. That is a "disaster waiting to.............because?