Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)

[punch it in]

We have what the 21st pick in the draft? I dont think there will be any studs that stand heads and shoulders above everybody else at that point. Secure the D at all costs. Center position is the only true real life or death move we need to make this year on offense.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by punch it in

We have what the 21st pick in the draft? I dont think there will be any studs that stand heads and shoulders above everybody else at that point. Secure the D at all costs. Center position is the only true real life or death move we need to make this year on offense.

Cam Chancellor and Richard Sherman, Russell Wilson were late round picks.

I consider those three guys studs. They are among the best in the league at their positions. (I didn't think Wilson was until this year TBH)

This year won't be different than every other year. There will be studs drafted in every round.

Drafting for need means the team picking after us can get a better football player than we just got. Over time, giving teams picking after us the opportunity to draft better players than we are drafting year in and year out isn't a good long term strategy.

McLovin likes good football players (to the extent his interviews are becoming a little aggravating and repetitive.) He wants the BPA and will worry about where to put them later. He has a track record. I'm all in.

And for those saying he didn't draft BPA in the last draft, his 1st pick played all but one snap this year, and the guy everyone thought he should have taken, while incredibly talented, came into camp out of shape.

I agree that our defense needs urgent attention in all units but I disagree that we should draft lesser players just because they fill a certain position.

All things being equal, make a shopping list and pick the ingredients but rarely are players dead even in an evaluation.

[punch it in]

Totally understood but we still go into every draft assuming the studs are drafted rounds 1-3. Hey i hope like hell we hit on every round! Httr.

[Bangee7]

I think BPA is great, as long as the people assessing the players are talented and Scott McL and team have proven they are.


Slight change of topics...
I think improving ILB play is a key to stopping the run/improving the defense overall.

I saw Liz Clarke (WP) noted that the 'Skins FO isn't high on moving T Murphy to DE, but mentioned the possibility of moving him to ILB. That seems interesting to me & I'd like to see how that could play out.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Bangee7

...I saw Liz Clarke (WP) noted that the 'Skins FO isn't high on moving T Murphy to DE, but mentioned the possibility of moving him to ILB. That seems interesting to me & I'd like to see how that could play out.

I heard about Kiem's? suggestion early in this thread that they might move Murphy to DE. It didn't make sense to me to move Murph to DE in a base 34....now moving him to ILB seems more realistic move then to 34 base DE. So I agree with Liz Clarke's source/speculation.

[punch it in]

I hear what you are saying 30 gut. Believe me. And i dont want to "reach" for anything. Hence my damn good vs stud comments. Maybe im splitting hairs but after the way our season ended, and what I saw Denver do to Carolina with Half a manning at QB I really really believe we need to draft heavy D.
There has to be a happy marriage between BPA and Need and I trust Mclovin will evaluate both sides at every pick.

[sdskinsfan2001]

We need to bring in at least 1 SOLID G/C type (2 at most) whether thru free agency or the draft. I think after that, we'd be pretty secure there (obviously any injury changes this).

[sdskinsfan2001]

I agree with BPA. That being said I hope BPA at our picks are:

1. any stud on defense (preferably on d-line - also hoping we sign another young veteran d-linemen - if we don't get a d-linemen in round 1, every other pick gets pushed down 1 or out for the ST guy)
2. CB/S (either free or strong)
3. TE
4. G/C
5. RB (I'm assuming Morris is gone)
6. ILB
7. Anyone that can contribute on ST

But Scott nailed the last draft, and i'm just a fan with no access to the info he has or the skills to really evaluate the talent, so I trust whatever he does.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I agree with BPA. That being said I hope BPA at our picks are:

1. any stud on defense (preferably on d-line - also hoping we sign another young veteran d-linemen - if we don't get a d-linemen in round 1, every other pick gets pushed down 1 or out for the ST guy)
2. CB/S (either free or strong)
3. TE
4. G/C
5. RB (I'm assuming Morris is gone)
6. ILB
7. Anyone that can contribute on ST

But Scott nailed the last draft, and i'm just a fan with no access to the info he has or the skills to really evaluate the talent, so I trust whatever he does.

Truth. Also, we forget the needs of a team change, occasionally on a day-to-day basis. We might not need a wide receiver today, but could we need one down the road? Absolutely. You take the player you think will be successful. What if you take an ILB in a draft class where all the remaining options are terrible? And 2 years later he's already released. Drafting for need is how you end up wasting draft picks.

Edit: Not to mention, the entire draft is a crapshoot. Look at the first round results of the 2013 NFL draft. Here we are 3 years later and how many of those first rounders became the elite players they are expected to be? You pick the player you expect to be good. Obviously you keep your needs in the back of your mind but with a draft board changing every few minutes you have to make smart, quick decisions.

[punch it in]

Just for the record I am in no way wanting to reach for needs. Im simply saying if there is a wr sitting at 21 that grades out slightly higher than a Defensive player we need than imo go with the need.
And yea the entire draft is a crapshoot.

[That Guy]

you don't choose to draft 100% for need or 100% for bpa. it's a mix, it's always a mix. if the bpa ends up being a WR in all 7 rounds, then 4 of those guys aren't making the roster.

in a way it's all semantics, but i think as long as you go for the highest total projected value with your picks, you'll end up alright. it's not like baseball where you can have 25 pitching prospects and trade them away 3 or 4 years down the line. roster slots are limited, nfl careers are short, and trades are very very rare. if you take bpa to the point where you overload a position, that's lost value in that draftees will either have to be cut or have a very limited role that hurts their progression over the course of the contract (or possibly limit their willingness to resign).

drafting a wr makes sense since 2017 is a year where it'd add a lot of flexibility in regards to PG and DJ and what the future WR corp is going to look like. so even though there's not much need in 2016, it'd still project as a spot with high potential value over the entire rookie contract (which is all that's guaranteed to the team).

last year our RG pick tended more towards the traditional need than bpa (of course they'll always say he was the highest our their board), but again, high value. we needed someone to start right away, and he was able to do that and do it pretty well. since we had already signed like 14 guys on the DL in free agency, drafting there would have had smaller dividends, especially when you consider the depth of talent that was going to be available the next year (and scot is very big on plotting out draft plans and potential/positional draft/FA availability 1-2 years in advance).

[30gut]

First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in the case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 30gut

First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in ghetto case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.

if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period. green bay took aaron rogers because he was the best player available, even though they had brett favre (who started for 3 more years). that's bpa. he added exactly 0 value for 3 years and did not improve his team at that position, so i think your understanding may be flawed, or a convenient way to deflect criticism. by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.

and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better. same for FA. for future drafts he's looking more at positional availability than at specific guys.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by That Guy

if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period.

I can't imagie (other then Vinnie-Dannny) that any FO evaluates their team in a 1 year vacuum.

...by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.

To be clear, the above is based on some 1 year vacuum logic that you invented. Not my view.

When a team evaluates the BPA they are doing so against their own team not just this year but headed into the future. And maybe for you none of the WR prospects are grade out higher then our current WRs but that is not the case for me in the slightest.

and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better.

Looking at future years and basing draft day decisions on future drafts are 2 completely separate things. I don't claim to know why Scott did or didn't make certain draft decisions. I think that type of speculation is pointless not to mention unknowable.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

When did McLovin say this?