Age old Question

[81forHOF]

Am I the only one who thinks it is idiotic when analysts say that you should always draft talent over need? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the goal to build a solid team without any glaring weaknesses?

I undrstand that occasionally there is a player that can't be passed on but if I was a GM I would pick for team need 90% of the time (also taking in consideration who may be leaving soon).

I also realize that you don't want to reach for a player just because you have a need but I think you attempt to trade down for future picks in those situations.

Sorry if this is a duplicate thread - I haven't logged on for quite a while. I just wanted to know if others felt the same (because according to the media i seem to be in the minority on this one).

[steveo395]

yea thats what i always thought

but haven't you learned by now that the media doesn't know what they're talking about

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 81forHOF

Am I the only one who thinks it is idiotic when analysts say that you should always draft talent over need? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the goal to build a solid team without any glaring weaknesses?

I undrstand that occasionally there is a player that can't be passed on but if I was a GM I would pick for team need 90% of the time (also taking in consideration who may be leaving soon).

I also realize that you don't want to reach for a player just because you have a need but I think you attempt to trade down for future picks in those situations.

Sorry if this is a duplicate thread - I haven't logged on for quite a while. I just wanted to know if others felt the same (because according to the media i seem to be in the minority on this one).

I agree 1000%.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by 81forHOF

Am I the only one who thinks it is idiotic when analysts say that you should always draft talent over need? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the goal to build a solid team without any glaring weaknesses?
..........

The draft is not the only source for players. You can fill glaring needs through free agency as well as the Draft. A proven veteran is more likely to step in right away and fill a glaring need then a rookie who has never played a down in the NFL and needs time to develop.
Having said that, in a perfect world I would rather all of our players be drafted by the redskins and not have to pick up any high priced free agents. Drafting rookies is cheaper and better for the salary cap. But we do not live in a perfect world.

The reason you shouldn't always draft for need is there are very few sure things in the draft so it is usually best to take the best player available.
Trading down for more picks is great for a team that drafts well in the late rounds or is lucky, but Snyderratto proved they could not find good players after the second round.
Gibbs is doing a much better job of aquiring talented players than Snyderatto.

[Oakland Red]

You want to maximize value in my view. So, you draft the player with clearly greater talent even if it is not a position you need to fill at that time. To draft the relatively mediocre player because it fills a need does not increase the overall ability level of your team.

You want as many difference making players as you can get. If you have more than you think you need at one position, it can at least make for domination and depth.

Increasing the overall talent level of your team also gives you more flexibility in terms of trades with other teams.

In practical terms, you look to see if the talent level available at your position of need is roughly equal to the talent level of players in the draft who play other positions. If it is, then of course you can focus on need.

It isn't just about drafting for talent or needs of course either - it is also for intelligence, cooperativeness, determination, and other traits that go into making a "Redskin" type of player.

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

You want to maximize value in my view. So, you draft the player with clearly greater talent even if it is not a position you need to fill at that time. To draft the relatively mediocre player because it fills a need does not increase the overall ability level of your team.

You want as many difference making players as you can get. If you have more than you think you need at one position, it can at least make for domination and depth.

Increasing the overall talent level of your team also gives you more flexibility in terms of trades with other teams.

In practical terms, you look to see if the talent level available at your position of need is roughly equal to the talent level of players in the draft who play other positions. If it is, then of course you can focus on need.

It isn't just about drafting for talent or needs of course either - it is also for intelligence, cooperativeness, determination, and other traits that go into making a "Redskin" type of player.

:cheeky-sm :headbange :headbange :headbange :cheeky-sm :smashfrea :headbange

[VTSkins897]

of course it's not always that simple

[jamf]

I agree with oakland red.

The first and second round picks need to fill a void right away(in most cases). But, With the remaining picks, you need to add quality.

Thats why the Patriots have been so good. they draft quality and when someone is injured or leaves, they have someone to step in.

81hof, let me ask you this, Is it better to trade all your picks to move up in the draft for 1 or maybe 2 players or is it better to have 6-8 draft picks?

[That Guy]

2 draft picks means you can't get enough guys to fill a roster... you end up with tons and tons of undrafteds then...

When you draft its generally for at least 1 or 2 yaers down the road at which times your needsd may be DRASTICALLY different than at the time of the draft. If you need instant impact you either need a FA or a special college player (like those typically taken in the first round).

[backrow]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

You want to maximize value in my view.
In practical terms, you look to see if the talent level available at your position of need is roughly equal to the talent level of players in the draft who play other positions. If it is, then of course you can focus on need.

Is that you Norvall?

j/k

Welcome Oak!

Good assessment for a newbie!

[Oakland Red]

Norval? I just fired him. I'm Al D.. I mean, Oakland..uh, Red.

But seriously, thanks for the welcome guys.

Originally Posted by backrow

Is that you Norvall?

j/k

Welcome Oak!

Good assessment for a newbie!

[Master4Caster]

That thing of "drafting talent over need" came to prominance with the Dallas Cowboys in the '60's & '70's when Gil Brandt, Tex Schram and Tom Landry were running the team. It worked, but it was a different era with fewer teams to go after that talent, so there was always potential contributors who got over looked. A lot of teams upgraded scouting because of the Cowboy's success.

Today, with more teams, more scouts and the scouting combine, nobody gets overlooked. It's near impossible to get a steal in the low and middle rounds. So a team is better off with drafting for need. There isn't much difference in talent level between the Steelers and the Texans, so intangibles become more important. Character, discipline, team resiliance, coaching and injuries.

Draft for need to develop your core group, the "keepers." Recruit talented free agents for role players to fill holes.

ps.: The last time the Redskins picked talent over need, they selected Taylor Jacobs.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Master4Caster

ps.: The last time the Redskins picked talent over need, they selected Taylor Jacobs.

nope, that was just spurrier being an idiot.

[Master4Caster]

Originally Posted by That Guy

nope, that was just spurrier being an idiot.

True enough and point taken. But at the time, the Ol' Ball Coach and little Vinnie said they were "suprised" to see Jacobs available on the draft board. They had some other player in mind (I forget who) when it was the Skins turn to draft. Instead they changed their strategy to pick up Jacobs on the "best available talent" theory. This from the team that dropped Stephen Davis to make room for Trung Canidate and other idiotic moves too numerous to mention (your point).

WHEN does training camp open? :frusty:

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Master4Caster

True enough and point taken. But at the time, the Ol' Ball Coach and little Vinnie said they were "suprised" to see Jacobs available on the draft board. They had some other player in mind (I forget who) when it was the Skins turn to draft. Instead they changed their strategy to pick up Jacobs on the "best available talent" theory. This from the team that dropped Stephen Davis to make room for Trung Canidate and other idiotic moves too numerous to mention (your point).

WHEN does training camp open? :frusty:

I think that player you're talking about is Mike Doss. Strong safety out of Ohio State who now plays for the Colts.