|
|
donofriose 03-12-2013, 08:08 PM I think you are misunderstanding me, I agree that teams build through the draft but it doesn't hurt to add a few playmakers or keep your own guys.
This penalty sux no matter how you look at it.
I agree it hurts not to be able to keep your own guys, but adding three names in free agency in one year usually does not work for that team. But it hurts the skins in terms of who they can find as 2nd tier guys, because usually those are the guys that end up being good players and depth for teams.
artmonkforhallofamein07 03-12-2013, 08:18 PM Completely agree on the second tier guys and when you look at the names I gave as examples that is exactly who I am talking about.
donofriose 03-12-2013, 08:24 PM Completely agree on the second tier guys and when you look at the names I gave as examples that is exactly who I am talking about.
Winston and Smith aren't really second tier guys in my opinion but Cox is. If we are talking about them in February, it probably means teams have noticed them a while back. I understand your premise now, I just wanted to make sure you weren't a "sign Haynesworth and build around him" guy.
That Guy 03-12-2013, 08:29 PM So what do you guys think players like Cofield, Wilson, Bowen, Garcon, and Carricker are? I would say they are building blocks and foundations of the team.
Yea we need to draft quality player but when was having to many good players a problem?
carriker isn't a great example, as he's cost us almost nothing.
every year some of the best FA moves are the ones people didn't make. we could sign revis for 10m a year and have him tear an acl immediately or not live up to the contract. outside of byrd (who never hit FA) i don't see a ton of FAs we absolutely have to have. there's a bunch of good DBs (in the draft too), but not a ton of difference makers. mike wallace would be nice i guess, but we're already paying about a billion dollars to WRs next year anyways.
donofriose 03-12-2013, 08:42 PM I would not consider Wilson, Bowen, Cofield and Carricker building blocks. Could you find better players out their in the draft? In my opinion yes. Are they irreplaceable? Definitely not. Garçon maybe, but he needs to play in more than 10 games to consider him a building block.
The Redskins building blocks to me are Williams, Orakpo, Kerrigan, Griffin and Morris. You build an oline around Williams knowing he has the left side covered, you build your defense around Kerrigan/Orakpo knowing they will get pressure and contain (even though in my opinion Kerrigan was not that good without Orakpo), and obviously you build an offense around Griffins abilities and Morris being able to carry the load with around 25 carries a game. I do not think any one of these players are nearly as replaceable as the ones that the Redskins have signed through free agency. The only for sure exception was Fletcher, but I am not sure what to expect from him anymore.
REDSKINS4ever 03-13-2013, 01:02 AM I would not consider Wilson, Bowen, Cofield and Carricker building blocks. Could you find better players out their in the draft? In my opinion yes. Are they irreplaceable? Definitely not. Garçon maybe, but he needs to play in more than 10 games to consider him a building block.
The Redskins building blocks to me are Williams, Orakpo, Kerrigan, Griffin and Morris. You build an oline around Williams knowing he has the left side covered, you build your defense around Kerrigan/Orakpo knowing they will get pressure and contain (even though in my opinion Kerrigan was not that good without Orakpo), and obviously you build an offense around Griffins abilities and Morris being able to carry the load with around 25 carries a game. I do not think any one of these players are nearly as replaceable as the ones that the Redskins have signed through free agency. The only for sure exception was Fletcher, but I am not sure what to expect from him anymore.
I totally concur with that.
warriorzpath 03-13-2013, 03:12 AM What's the point in having a free agency vs the draft discussion? Because its better to pick up good players both ways. It's like having this discussion: Redskins Defense vs the Redskins Offense. Bottom line is everyone's on the same team. And to really have a good team, you really need to be good at both.
Skinzman 03-13-2013, 04:34 AM What's the point in having a free agency vs the draft discussion? Because its better to pick up good players both ways. It's like having this discussion: Redskins Defense vs the Redskins Offense. Bottom line is everyone's on the same team. And to really have a good team, you really need to be good at both.
Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder. The teams that are good for a long period of time usually draft well, they are constantly having youth that is underpaid on their team keeping their cap manageable.
While that may not be the situation every time, it does seem to bear out over the long run. Just compare the Redskins of the past 20 years compared to the last couple. The Eagles for the longest time were a good team. Now that being the dream team is more important, how has their record been?
IMO, free agency should be used to supplement what you have built during the draft. Not saying to ignore FA, but the main building of the team cant be FA or you will always have what we had for the longest time. Some top talent, but no where near enough overall talent and zero depth. Cant afford that when you are paying FA prices for everyone.
warriorzpath 03-13-2013, 02:40 PM Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder. The teams that are good for a long period of time usually draft well, they are constantly having youth that is underpaid on their team keeping their cap manageable.
While that may not be the situation every time, it does seem to bear out over the long run. Just compare the Redskins of the past 20 years compared to the last couple. The Eagles for the longest time were a good team. Now that being the dream team is more important, how has their record been?
IMO, free agency should be used to supplement what you have built during the draft. Not saying to ignore FA, but the main building of the team cant be FA or you will always have what we had for the longest time. Some top talent, but no where near enough overall talent and zero depth. Cant afford that when you are paying FA prices for everyone.
I understand personnel strategy and differences in philosophy, but I don't understand the argument with a Redskins player vs another Redskins player like Garçon vs Morris. I want both players even at Garçon's cap number. You have to utilize both methods to obtain players and every team's situation is different at any given point of the development of the team. The philosophy should be changing from year to year and not just free agency = bad and draft = good or vice versa. That's what these arguments were all heading towards. I don't think it's that black and white.
takethecake 03-13-2013, 03:27 PM Because the draft can get you very underpaid players. Free agency usually goes to the top bidder.
THIS. This is what it all boils down to. You'll never hit on 100% of your draft picks OR your FA signings, so you have to minimize your losses when you inevitably get an underperforming player. You drafted a bust? Oh well, he's signed to a rookie deal, so you don't really lose much. You signed an Albert Haynesworth and he sucks (or Mike Wallace this year)? Too bad, you've already guaranteed him so much money that he cripples your ability to replace him.
You can argue that FAs are generally more proven than rookies, but that neglects to take into account FAs that have to learn a new system, FAs that appear better than they are because of their supporting cast (Matt Cassel), etc. Without having any real numbers, I can still guarantee you that the "Hit Percentage" on FAs is not significantly higher than it is for high draft picks. Draft vs. Free Agency? It's all about the Benjamins... :cool-smil
|