Age old Question

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

But seriously, thanks for the welcome guys.

Is that you Norvall?

j/k

Welcome Oak!

Good assessment for a newbie!

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.

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

nope, that was just spurrier being an idiot.

nope, that was just spurrier being an idiot.

:lol: 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:

:lol: 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.

Future Pro Bowl WR Anquan Boldin was also still on the board when we picked Taylor Jacobs.
I do not like picking Wr's high in the draft. Productive WR's and RB's can be found in the lower rounds and free agency, more so than any other position.

Future Pro Bowl WR Anquan Boldin was also still on the board when we picked Taylor Jacobs.
I do not like picking Wr's high in the draft. Productive WR's and RB's can be found in the lower rounds and free agency, more so than any other position.

DBs too... and its simply because its not an all or nothing position. You can be a #3 RB and sstill get meaningful carries. whereas a #3 RDE or MLB are worthless cause they'll never see the field. WR #4 matches up on a #4 CB, so they don't have to compete against top tier OTs immmediately (or ever).

To make this more relevant to the Redskins - how pissed would you be if the Skins failed to address the needs at wr and de through free agency and then on draft day grabbed a rb in the 2nd round? We could end up fielding the same team with the same problems next year.

To answer your question JAMF - I never like trading up. You never know when a 7th (Frerottre) might out play a 1st (Shuler). As far as picks go, the more the better (now if I could only sell the Skins on this).

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

What you left out is that he is a beast SS for the Colts. Couldn't have used that guy...

I have been pretty pissed that they didn't Doss since that day. But, hey, what can you do?

Doss and Taylor...................sounds nice. But I'd rather have Jacobs...........not.