WFT's Off-Season Thread

I mean it's irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things. Not picking a new team over it. So they can have an all male dance team if they want to. But replacing a cheerleading squad with some dance team is very very lame imo.

Or is it ground breaking and starting a new era in professional sports?! I like the glass to be half full, not half empty.

So your plan is with our 8 picks starting at #19 to pick a probowl level OT and a Franchise QB. Because yes it is that simple duhhh

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It is simple, not easy, but a good GM can get it done.
It is actually pretty simple though.

1. Don't reach massively for QB in first round, take the LT, in a draft very deep with T talent. Unless you have a guy graded as a franchise QB sitting there. Or a CB if one drops that looks like shutdown corner.

2. Take a QB you like somewhere in the draft, Heinecke goes into camp as starter, draft pick Allen compete. Ideally, draft 2 QBs you like, plus stash another UDFA on practice squad. Any GM can find one QB he likes somewhere in any draft, period. If not, fire him. I'd be fine giving Heinecke a year in worst case, but would rather draft someone and have a backup plane.

3. If no CB drafted 1st 2nd round picks, I'd spend one 3rd round pick on one, the only corner on our roster I really like is Fuller, and he is much better in slot. I would not resign Darby unless on bargain, I saw him get toasted way too much and he is a health risk, we need infusion at CB.

Ideally, by end of next year's draft, we have QB,LT,CB filled with draft picks. Long term starters. That is not pipe dream BS with 7 picks first three rounds total both years. You hit just under 50% on those picks. . . Just over and 4 starters. Your FO can't do that, shitcan them.

Ideally your board would fall so high leverage positions are high on your board. Say we nab LT 1st round, reach a bit for a QB 2nd round to make sure we get one we like, get a solid #2 CB 3rd round, plus a WR 3rd round. Hit all the high-dollar high leverage positions early in draft. Won't happen, but that's the pipe dream. One or two bust, keep trying next year, etc.

Problem is, again, I think board won't fall that perfect, and we probably take a LB and maybe FS with earlier picks.

Over say a 10 year window, you should be able to spend a 1st round pick on QB,LT,WR,CB,Edge, and ideally FS,DT,C. If all or most of your 1st round picks pan out (and you don't waste them on Homer trades) you end up with a solid foundation. If your FO can't hit on say 67% of 1st round picks, 50% of 2nd round, and 33% of 3rd round, starters though not necessarily elite, then shitcan them. Over 10 years, that would be (conservatively) 6 1st round pick starters, 5 2nd round starters, 3 3rd round starters. That's 14 of 22. Yeah some won't resign, or can't afford, some won't play 10 years, but roughly.
You should be able to hit 50% of 4th-7th round picks and UDFAs, as solid role players, ST players, maybe the occasional starter like Curl. Solid role players or backups like Ismael, Settle, Io, etc. So over say 10 years, you should end up with 20 total depth players from 4th - 7th and UDFA, roughly.
So you're talking 34 players on roster per decade if you draft smart, not assuming absurd drafting prowess. Say you then average 2 extra picks per year, via trading down or comp picks (Dallas will have 3-4 this year, for example), hit at 50%, 10 more players. Now you are talking 44 players per decade, and you're approaching enough talent via draft you aren't perpetually looking at huge roster holes everywhere. Even conceding many won't resign. If you have a good FO, you hit at higher rates, modestly not massively, than these and are styling

Let's look quickly last 10 years. Super fast. 1st - 3rd round picks, we've made so many bad picks, dumb trades, hurts to think about. But we have picked reasonably high lots of times so should have. We should have had 30 picks, and as noted, netted 14 long-term starters, not all elite. 2020, 2. 2019, 2. 2018, 1. 2017, 1 (Moreau NOT a starter). 2016, 1 (counting Fuller). 2015, 1. 2014, 1. 2013, 0. 2012, 0. 2011, 1. That is 10 total. 4 more players doesn't sound like a lot, but suppose we had a starting CB, starting WR, starting LB, and one other starting OL. Or maybe QB (if pros picked QB instead of Dan, imagine, no RGIII, no Haskins, plus 2 more 1st round picks, 4 1st round picks used wisely. . .) We can then fill most holes via draft, don't have to sign many FAs, then get comp picks, etc.

Everyone on this board is so afraid of drafting but wants to piss boatloads of picks away. To all the chicken littles, you HAVE to draft well. If your FO can't find talent consistently in the draft year to year, find a FO that can, period.

Yeah, with 8 or 9 picks, we should be able to walk away with one starting-caliber LT and one viable QB prospect, and if our FO can't do it, find one that can.

I would consider Darrisaw or Mayfield at 19. Man, if five QBs are gone by 19 like all these mocks indicate, that will definitely push a top 10-15 player down the board and into WFT's lap.

This is an important consideration. I have never been in a draft room. How many players do you think a team give a first round grade? 20? maybe 25 tops. We are right in that area where if it is QB heavy a first round grade player will fall to us but depending on draft grade from other teams might be able to leverage and trade down and accrue picks.

It's very rare to find a franchise QB past the 1st round... Russell Wilson's do not fall off trees.. I'd throw Dak in that mix now too, even though he's not Elite. Also I'm not sure Tackle is that huge of an issue right now, I thought they played very well as a unit last yr.

For those that think it is easy to draft here are two good analysis put in laymen's terms:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/04/21/which-teams-consistently-win-nfl-draft-none-them/

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round


The second one is actually pretty good for fan blog

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Evo33zUXEAQ5ns9?format=jpg&name=medium

Twitter is having a fan vote this is RD 1..

It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.

It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.

I don't mind Redwolves but I want to move away from the R altogether. That ship has sailed. I think I'm officially off that name myself.

That's why I say just keep it WFT, No name will ever beat the Redskins for me.. IMO if you come up with a new permanent name they should just do a full 360 makeover

It is bad enough that we lost our team name over some weak ass political bullshit. But I could never imagine people going around making wolf sounds. That shit would be depressing to me and would drive me farther away. It ain't happening.

Hatters gonna hat.

That's why I say just keep it WFT, No name will ever beat the Redskins for me.. IMO if you come up with a new permanent name they should just do a full 360 makeover

I don't think that's a very likely possibility. They said over and over they'd value fans input, they explained in detailed the long rebranding process that justified having a temporary name. I just don't see how they can go "meeeh you know what, that temporary name works just fine, we'll leave it at that!" next year.

And I keep thinking, if they chose a new name, some people will love it, some people will hate it, some people won't care, but over time the new identity will settle down in every one's mind as the new team's identity.
Whereas staying WFT will keep sending us back to our previous name. Which I loved, don't take me wrong, it was one of the main reasons I fell in love with this team. But I just picture people in several decades "wait, why doesn't Washington have a name like the 31 other teams?"...