Draft: Need vs. Best Player

A good GM will generally put his team in the position that he can select based on the best available player rather than team need. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. We don't have a good GM and have not had that luxury for a long while. Lucky (?) for the Skins, they have alot of needs and therefore have alot of options.

best available players thinking is what a lot of teams do. The redskins did that with campbell and i believe he will evolve into a great QB. As far as need i firmly believe we have a great need for a de/dt . Okoye for me is the best available and need all rolled into one pick. He has the biggest upside to him. He's only going to get bigger and better ,considering is only 19! So for all its worth that is what i believe we should do.

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

For our team QB and RB are off limits. We are set at those spots. Everything else is fair game.

It's been said before, but the Lions ignored need, and drafted the "best player available" with Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams.

You cannot ignore your needs.

Det is stupid. Matt M. is the worst GM in the history of the NFL. Williams sat out a year. Sat on his ass for a whole year. No way he was the best player when they picked. Roy Williams was a good pick. Carlos didn't work out. 1/3 isn't too good when you pick that high.

The purpose of the draft IMO is to make a conscious effort to improve your team in area's of need, therefor I believe that drafting accordingly is imperative.

I think the Redskins have identified their needs on the DL but have not targeted a particular player whom they feel is really worth what it will cost to sign at #6. Knowing their propensity to be driven by the ideology of FA's & veteran players, any player that suites our need on the DL whether it be DT/DE is unproven and therefore a reach.

We obviously recognize the need for defense, thus the consideration of the potential Briggs trade though it would not surfice our needs up front.

Because of the Redskins philosophy in reference to aquiring players, I am always skeptical when it comes to young players, that's why it's difficult for me to embrace the concept of trading down. They haven't demonstrated that they will utilize the young players they draft that are not top ten selections.

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.

How about this? Draft the guy who is going to improve you the most. If we draft Adrian Peterson then let's be honest he won't improve us that much because we have Portis and Betts. But we could draft one the DLs and they'd most likely improve us right away. So why take Peterson? Just because he is a better player doesn't mean we get to utilize all of that "betterness". I say take the guy who you think improves you the most. In this case I find it hard to see where anything but one of the DLs improves us that much right away. Maybe CJ but that is moot. Either he's gone when we pick or I have slit my wrists because we traded up to draft him.

I can agree with that in the sense that you are wanting a player for a team. It isn't fantasy football. I would measure the value of the player that I ultimately get to play on my team as to how much he helps my team. A player like Rich Gannon didn't help the Redskins much but he sure helped the Oakland Raiders. So Gannon's value was much more for them than for us.

Still I would want to maximize the value of the spot I am trading at, then make adjustments until I got the best players - for our particular team, with its unique character.




How about this? Draft the guy who is going to improve you the most. If we draft Adrian Peterson then let's be honest he won't improve us that much because we have Portis and Betts. But we could draft one the DLs and they'd most likely improve us right away. So why take Peterson? Just because he is a better player doesn't mean we get to utilize all of that "betterness". I say take the guy who you think improves you the most. In this case I find it hard to see where anything but one of the DLs improves us that much right away. Maybe CJ but that is moot. Either he's gone when we pick or I have slit my wrists because we traded up to draft him.

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.

So then, if there were no suitors for trading down, you would still take Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn, even though we have invested so much in Jason Campbell and Clinton Portis?

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.But in our case, taking the next Dan Marino might only provide a minor upgrade to Campbell. Remember, Campbell is 2 years ahead of any QB we take this year in experience. Also, his college production suggests that, barring serious injury, he will be a top 10, maybe 5 QB in this league by 2008. Sure, if Brady Quinn was the next Dan Marino (he's not going to be as good Marino, but its a decent loose comparision considering hes the best thing in this draft), he's going to end up being better than Campbell when he gets close to his prime 4 years down the road, but we are talking about 2010 now. Generally, you don't make a top 10 selection at the QB position who doesn't project to be the best QB on your roster until 2010. Brady Quinn is going to be a great pickup for somebody, but for us he would essentially be a waste of a pick unless Campbell were to get critically injured.

And just because Brady Quinn or Laron Landry falls to us does not mean that Amobi Okoye is 1/4 the player. A more accurate comparision would be that Quinn or Landry are worth 1000 Watts, and Okoye is worth 850. And then when you factor in need and some of the special things about Okoye, it becomes very clear who the best pick for the Washington Redskins is.

I understand what you are saying about maximizing your value, but for us to take a quarterback would be about the farthest thing from maximizing our value. You have to look at needs down the road as the player you take hits his prime.

Will defensive line be a need down the road? Yes, an absolutely critical one? Will middle linebacker? Yes. Will outside linebacker? Not really.

Cornerback? Somewhat. A lot of that depends on Rogers taking his game to the next level.
Safety? Only if Sean Taylor continues to be a giant liability in coverage (to the point where we need to replace him to stop opponents).
Offensive Line? Yes.
Tight End? If we keep Cooley around, we won't need to use a day 1 pick on a TE for many years.
Wide Receiver? In a year or two, we might need to bring in another proven, competant body. This will not be a critical need until Moss gets too old to produce.
Running Back? Not in the forseeable future.

Using this method of discovering our true needs, Quarterback actually appears to be the most secure position for the forseeable future. Only a career threatening or development threatening injury to Campbell would make this a need. Since it's illogical to bank on something of that nature, picking a QB would be minimizing draft value.

The new Dan Marino/Brady Quinn example would not have any trade value until we let him play enough to prove he can play in this league. It's not reasonable to take him under these circumstances.

Trading down is the most logical option to deal with the value discrepency. Value is relative to team. This also makes trading down difficult. So sometimes, trading down is impossible, and you just have to let that "can't miss" prospect fall past you. We did this with Mike Williams in 2005 and while Carlos Rogers might not turn out to be a good pick, it still was a good decision to pass on Williams.