Redskins 2010 Draft Class with Analysis

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by PHazard

I wouldnt say Selvish Capers is a steal yet. His game tape doesnt match what you see on the sports science video but he can be developed.

Although, i like what i see when i see in Terrence Austin as a WR (good route running, quick out of breaks, catches with his hands) i like even more what i see in his return game. He would have had alot more touchdowns if he was a LITTLE bit faster

Most of his Kick and Punt Returns as a senior
YouTube - Terrence Austin UCLA Kick and Punt Returns

As far as Capers is concerned I'm hoping that he's the next Donald Penn. If you remember Allen and company signed Penn as an undrafted free agent and today he's one of the leagues better left tackles. Now Capers obviously won't be a LT for us but if he can play up to his physical attributes he will end up being one hell of a steal.

I said before the draft that I would be very intrigued to see the team get Williams in the first and Capers in the fourth. The only thing that scares me about Capers being a 7th round pick is I feel like the coaching staff might be a little less inclined to give him a fair shake. However Shanahan has been known to give UDFA and late round picks more then a fair shake so I'm not to concerned about it.

I actually want to go back and look again at where Shanahan's lineman from Denver for drafted. If I remember right the most common rounds were the 4th and 5th. With some starters coming from the 3rd and 7th round. Only two guys in Clady and Foster came from the first.

[Lotus]

People who graded the draft at "D" or "F": why?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

People who graded the draft at "D" or "F": why?

I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.

We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.

We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.

I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.

We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.

We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.

I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.

Exactly...Dont like that arguement either. Jarmon, Shanny and Allen dont have any alligence to him and frankly wouldnt be surprised if he doesnt make the final roster. So if he gets cut, our 3rd rounder, does this draft become a D or F grade?

I gave it a B as an optimist, but I dont think everybody will make the team actually think more than a couple wont. I know from now on I will be closely following Okung vs Silverback, to see who becomes the better Tackle. I think Okung was more polished, but we will see...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.

We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.

We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.

I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.

Well you have to factor them in somehow. A pick's value just doesn't magically disappear.

Scouts Inc. devised a formula that takes trades into account:

2010 NFL draft: Scouts Inc. offers up the results of its unique formula for evaluating each team's draft performance. - ESPN

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Well you have to factor them in somehow. A pick's value just doesn't magically disappear.

Scouts Inc. devised a formula that takes trades into account:

2010 NFL draft: Scouts Inc. offers up the results of its unique formula for evaluating each team's draft performance. - ESPN

I'll read the Scouts Inc. article because I <3 formulas, but I don't think trading for a player with an existing contract is anything like drafting your own talent at all. The trade for veteran talent can be good, or it can be bad, but it always costs draft value.

To me, that's the one constant on trading picks for players: you're costing yourself draft value, so the return must be very high to justify it.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Lotus

People who graded the draft at "D" or "F": why?

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

but why take a WR like Marko or Malcolm that would offer nothing on special teams?

and arent Malcolm and Marko enough

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

How was Williams a no brainer?