Pre Draft Thread 2.0

[Pervis_Griffith]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don't think it's realistic that we'd trade up to 4, but what if he starts to slide down towards the 10-12 range? That's probably when teams will start calling.

In the end if he's the next Mahomes there's no price that's too much.

Same can be said about Mac Jones being the next Tom Brady.

Who I'd obviously draft now, knowing what we know.


But chances are very good that Lance and Jones are neither Mahomes or Brady.

[Chief X_Phackter]

If Atlanta doesn't select a quarterback at #4, I can see a scenario where Washington moves up to #8, trading with the Carolina Panthers, and drafting a quarterback. NOT Trey Lance though - Justin Fields. Assuming neither NY or SF doesn't draft him.

[Chico23231]

Why Washington's priority in 2021 NFL draft could be finding a left tackle

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington...-a-left-tackle

Good article here. My advice don’t reach for Tackle in the first as the draft is deep with talent

[AnonEmouse]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Why Washington's priority in 2021 NFL draft could be finding a left tackle

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington...-a-left-tackle

Good article here. My advice don’t reach for Tackle in the first as the draft is deep with talent

This is why I don't want to see us trade up in the 1st. There's no point selling out to get someone like Lance or Jones (or even Fields) and not being able to protect them. Just look what happened to Burrow. And if the guy proves a bust then you've not only wasted the picks you've traded, you have to do it all over again next year or the year after, AND still have to build a line around them (as you threw away the picks on your failed QB). Too much potential downside for the unknown upside if you ask me.

But likewise, I wouldn't trade back. Right now I can see Darrisaw and Jenkins being gone by 19, but if not I'd take one of them, and if they are gone, I'd take an LB and then draft LT in round 2 (or maybe package a trade for that rd 2 pick that allows us to still get an LT plus an extra pick. Can't help thinking trading away that 1st round pick means we will miss out on a stud player.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

This is why I don't want to see us trade up in the 1st. There's no point selling out to get someone like Lance or Jones (or even Fields) and not being able to protect them. Just look what happened to Burrow. And if the guy proves a bust then you've not only wasted the picks you've traded, you have to do it all over again next year or the year after, AND still have to build a line around them (as you threw away the picks on your failed QB). Too much potential downside for the unknown upside if you ask me.

But likewise, I wouldn't trade back. Right now I can see Darrisaw and Jenkins being gone by 19, but if not I'd take one of them, and if they are gone, I'd take an LB and then draft LT in round 2 (or maybe package a trade for that rd 2 pick that allows us to still get an LT plus an extra pick. Can't help thinking trading away that 1st round pick means we will miss out on a stud player.

We have too many needs to be trading up for QBs with potential but also massive question marks.

You would hate to see all five QBs and the 3-4 top LTs off board when we pick, but if so, there will be studs at some other position that fall. We are looking pretty good no matter how you slice it. Trading back always depends on the value. I probably don't trade back if I feel a surefire franchise LT is there, but depends on what is being offered. If the deal is good enough, it almost always makes sense to trade back, taking a top-tier franchise QB if you don't have one being an exception.

Look at the cascading effect of Miami trading repeatedly. They have piles of picks. You never get those opportunities if you don't make first trade. You need true studs at 5 high-leverage positions but can get by with very good players everywhere else. We still need LT and QB, so it is interesting to ask how good the trade-back offer has to be to make you pass on a franchise LT. How soon will we be picking top 15 or top 10 again in a draft deep with LTs?

[sdskinsfan2001]

19: R1 P19 OT Christian Darrisaw - Virginia Tech
51: R2 P19 G Wyatt Davis - Ohio State
74: R3 P10 LB Nick Bolton - Missouri
82: R3 P18 S Andre Cisco - Syracuse
124: R4 P19 LB Cameron McGrone - Michigan
163: R5 P19 TE Tre' McKitty - Georgia
244: R7 P16 WR Ihmir Smith-Marsette - Iowa
246: R7 P18 CB Bryce Thompson - Tennessee

[AnonEmouse]

Worth pointing out with Miami that a number of their trades started out as moving players that were arguably top level to start with (Landry, Tunsil etc.). I get the idea of trading players that are not as good as you hoped or have passed their peak, but moving good players for future picks isn't always wise. Using Miami as an example with this years haul of picks is a little disingenuous, given their recent history. They've traded multiple times in recent years with middling success to show for it. Having a raft of picks doesn't translate to success half as much as knowing what to do with those picks does.

In other words I'd rather stick with what we've got and pick the BPA than have more picks and ending up with little to show for them. I mean if the brain trust thinks they have 2 or 3 nailed on studs further down the order and trading out of #19 will deliver those guys to our roster then maybe, but I'd want to be pretty damn certain before I pull the trigger on that trade. Especially if we then see the guy we would have picked at #19 become a star.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

Worth pointing out with Miami that a number of their trades started out as moving players that were arguably top level to start with (Landry, Tunsil etc.). I get the idea of trading players that are not as good as you hoped or have passed their peak, but moving good players for future picks isn't always wise. Using Miami as an example with this years haul of picks is a little disingenuous, given their recent history. They've traded multiple times in recent years with middling success to show for it. Having a raft of picks doesn't translate to success half as much as knowing what to do with those picks does.

In other words I'd rather stick with what we've got and pick the BPA than have more picks and ending up with little to show for them. I mean if the brain trust thinks they have 2 or 3 nailed on studs further down the order and trading out of #19 will deliver those guys to our roster then maybe, but I'd want to be pretty damn certain before I pull the trigger on that trade. Especially if we then see the guy we would have picked at #19 become a star.

Miami turned Tunsil into an OBSCENE bounty. Now granted, they were lucky enough to have Cerrato 2.0 in O'Brien to trade with, deep QB class, etc.

Concur that FO must make good picks, but if they can't, you need a new GM and FO. Can't be afraid of picks just because some crappy FOs suck.

I would not simplistically ever say I'm picking and not trading until I hear offers, unless sitting #1 with surefire franchise QB and don't have one already. Nor would I say I am trading. It is about opportunity cost of player might have taken vs. gains in picks. Best teams maximize number of picks, which are lottery tickets with historical 50% rate of payout for good GMs.

We could realistically use a starting caliber MLB,WLB,SLB,TE,LT,FS,#3CB,#3WR. Plus a QB obviously. Plus a backup RB. Plus. . .

So if you feel like plenty of players available later then trading down can make sense. especially when a roster still has as many holes as ours. We would need this year and another solid offseason next year to have any hope of speaking of our roster as rounded out.

I STRONGLY favor nabbing a franchise LT if there with #19, but this would not preclude from listening to any serious trade down offer. It could be FO sees tons of 2nd-3rd round LTs that grade out similar, and trading down makes sense.

[skinsfaninok]

Quarterback: Washington doesn’t need a quarterback. It will enter the draft with four of them. But it needs the right quarterback, someone who has the ability to become the starter and hold that role for years to come. Given Ryan Fitzpatrick’s presence and the team’s other needs, it’s a crapshoot whether Washington decides to draft one. The team has an interest in Stanford’s Davis Mills, as The Athletic’s Ben Standig has reported, but that’s no guarantee it would take him — or any other player at the position — for the sake of having one.

[sdskinsfan2001]

We don't need to take a QB. But if the value is there when our pick comes around, regardless of round, we should pull the trigger.

[skinsfaninok]

If Lance falls out of the top 10 (I know very unlikely) then I pull the trigger

[Chief X_Phackter]

I'm not a fan of trading up, and I definitely wouldn't trade up for Lance. If he's there at 19, and they like him, fine...

IF a QB falls and they decide to trade up, I would rather that target be Fields.

Staying at 19 or trading back if it makes sense is what I would rather them do.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I'm not a fan of trading up, and I definitely wouldn't trade up for Lance. If he's there at 19, and they like him, fine...

IF a QB falls and they decide to trade up, I would rather that target be Fields.

Staying at 19 or trading back if it makes sense is what I would rather them do.

The biggest, dumbest mistake would be trading up for Lance, Mac or Fields

[Chico23231]

I’m strongly on the not trading up for a QB after this weekend.

[Pervis_Griffith]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I’m strongly on the not trading up for a QB after this weekend.

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.