Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6

What??

We picked up ST at # 5 who made an immediate impact.


If we select at # 6 they BETTER be starting this year and many more.Do you honestly think we drafted him because it was in the best interest of the 2004 Redskins?

It's that kind of logic that put us where we are now.

It doesn't mean the No. 6 pick shouldn't start for us, it means that whether or not he starts as a rookie should not be among the factors considered when making the pick.

Do you honestly think we drafted him because it was in the best interest of the 2004 Redskins?

It's that kind of logic that put us where we are now.

It doesn't mean the No. 6 pick shouldn't start for us, it means that whether or not he starts as a rookie should not be among the factors considered when making the pick.


At # 6 there is going to be an impact player that will start for the Redskins in 2007. What are you talking about??

Would you like us to draft a running back in case Portis or Betts goes down or gets traded? That would benefit the Redskins longterm based on your theory.

Bottom line, we draft the best available player for the most pressing NEED. We're lucky to have # 6 that will be a STUD player. Don't trade away that opportunity.....top 10 defensive draft picks are as close to sure things pending health problems.

At # 6 there is going to be an impact player that will start for the Redskins in 2007. What are you talking about??

Would you like us to draft a running back in case Portis or Betts goes down or gets traded? That would benefit the Redskins longterm based on your theory.

Bottom line, we draft the best available player for the most pressing NEED. We're lucky to have # 6 that will be a STUD player. Don't trade away that opportunity.....top 10 defensive draft picks are as close to sure things pending health problems.Would you like to tell us all who we should draft at 6 who would start for us from day one?

Neither Portis nor Betts are likely to be a cap casulty in the near future (within the next 2 offseasons). So no, RB would not be a good position to select.

I don't know what you are disagreeing with me for. The idea is to get the best possible player down the road. I think this will be Okoye or Branch, even though I think Griffin and Saleve'a should start at the DTs opening day. The pick should not play until he proves better than either of them. If you think we should select someone else, please explain why. Don't turn this into a pissing match.

if you're picking in the top 10, immediate impact should definitely be a concern, since they're earning pro-bowl type money day 1. If you have to wait three years, and then they turn it on and you re-sign them, that's throwing a lot of money away.

if you're picking in the top 10, immediate impact should definitely be a concern, since they're earning pro-bowl type money day 1. If you have to wait three years, and then they turn it on and you re-sign them, that's throwing a lot of money away.Generally, I would argue that immediate impact and eventual dominance go hand in hand, but there is really no decision when picking between them.

I hope this isn't the case, but it's hard to watch game film from last year and not feel like ST's best days are behind him. If (god forbid) his best days are behind him, then he obviously wasn't worth that 5th overall selection, despite his immediate impact.

We can NOT look at any of our draft picks making an immediate impact. The whole build through the draft philsophy means we need to use the draft to prepare for a day when our key players aren't here anymore. We wouldn't be drafting Branch/Okoye to play next to Griffin, we'd be drafting them to make certain that we have a great DT situation after Griffin becomes a cap casulity either next offseason or the one after that.

The first part of a rebuilding process is getting a guy to build around. We should only look to trade down if we decide that none of the top rated D Linemen are the type we would WANT to build around. I really think they like Okoye, and I as I've been saying all along would be more than satisfied with Branch.

Using the draft to fill immediate needs IS NOT building through the draft. That's basicially building through free agency and using the draft to fill holes. Basically, its what weve been doing.

All of this assumes the front office actually plans to build up the defensive line. That hasn't exactly been their pattern.

And I don't agree with the notion that #6 picks shouldn't be expected to play. When it comes to Griffin, Salave'a and Branch/Okoye or any draft pick for that matter, the ONLY consideration is to line up the player that gives you the best chance to win.

Projects who aren't slated to start for another year or so are for the 4th round and beyond. If your draft choice in each of the first 3 rounds hasn't earned playing time in the first year, the red flags should go up.

And I don't agree with the notion that #6 picks shouldn't be expected to play. When it comes to Griffin, Salave'a and Branch/Okoye or any draft pick for that matter, the ONLY consideration is to line up the player that gives you the best chance to win.

Projects who aren't slated to start for another year or so are for the 4th round and beyond. If your draft choice in each of the first 3 rounds hasn't earned playing time in the first year, the red flags should go up.The process of who starts at DT should stay SEPERATE of the draft process. Draft the guy who you can build your future around. Start the guy that gives you the best chance to win now.

It's pretty straightforward.

The process of who starts at DT should stay SEPERATE of the draft process. Draft the guy who you can build your future around. Start the guy that gives you the best chance to win now.

It's pretty straightforward.

I don't question whether your opinion is "straight forward". I just disagree with it.

You draft players based on how you think they can help your team. Some will start sooner than others. If, as in the case of Rocky McIntosh it takes them 15 games before significant playing time, then I think that could be a problem.

It seems that you believe there is some sort of mathematical formula that coaches MUST follow which determines when a player is best suited to make a contribution to a team. I think that's absurd. Coaches look at game tape, they watch the progress of a player through training camp, exhibition games, the film room, and practice. Then, they make their best determination as to when that player is ready for a starting role.

They can't possibly be able to make that determination on draft day in the War Room, as you seem to suggest.

The more I read about this possible trade, the more I hope that it is just one of MULTIPLE options the FO is putting together to have ready on draft day. If I were them, I would get a long a list of suiters based on who will eventually might be available at six and see what happens. The "worst" thing that happens is we keep Springs and take our favorite defender at #6. The Bly trade really seems to have a, "What do we do with Springs if we get him?" contingency. I am sceptical we could get a lot for Springs (although corners are in high demand as always), and we do take a serious cap hit if he leaves. In many ways it makes sense to keep him since he is our BEST CORNER. However, age, injuries and his desire to play for us/the fact that he might have been bad mouthing the coaches are all factors that we cannot gage with certainty.

That being said, in my opinion, we would be best served to get as many 2nd and 3rd round picks as possible for the number six while still staying in position to draft DL help in the first round. If all of the top DL players are gone when we select later in the first round, trade back again and just get as many chances as possible to help improve the overall depth of the team without breaking the bank on any one player whether it be the #6 or Bly.

BTW, if we trade out of the first round completely, how many second, third and fourth picks could we net? One possible scenario that I have imagined is trading 6 to houston at 8. Then trading the 8 for a mid to late first, then trading that pick for even lower picks. Could we get 5 or six top four round players for the 6th pick?

I don't question whether your opinion is "straight forward". I just disagree with it.

You draft players based on how you think they can help your team. Some will start sooner than others. If, as in the case of Rocky McIntosh it takes them 15 games before significant playing time, then I think that could be a problem.

It seems that you believe there is some sort of mathematical formula that coaches MUST follow which determines when a player is best suited to make a contribution to a team. I think that's absurd. Coaches look at game tape, they watch the progress of a player through training camp, exhibition games, the film room, and practice. Then, they make their best determination as to when that player is ready for a starting role.

They can't possibly be able to make that determination on draft day in the War Room, as you seem to suggest.I think you just flipped positions on me. If you didn't, then I'm confused by your post.

Rocky McIntosh was selected (in part) as a quick fix replacement to Lavar's departure. The "build through the draft" philosophy states that we shouldn't have been counting on Rocky to make an impact for us in 2006. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't play him if he was the best man for the job (I believe he was), but that the no. 35 pick would have been better used on, say, a left guard, since Dockery's contract was about to expire, and we could have used the depth anyway. If we had a top of the draft class guard that we could plug in this year, our offense would be all but set for this year.

Of course they can't make the "who will start opening day?" decision from the war room. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. So you agree with me then?

Draft the player who projects the best for your team down the road. Play the players who are the best players at their positions right now. Do you or do you not disagree with this?