Do we overvalue the draft?

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

we have home grown talent, but look at your list and break it down to where we got them

1st round - Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Samuels
2nd - Smoot, Betts, jansen, Cooley (yes we picked him in the 3rd but we gave up a second)

the rest of those players arent starters... or were only starters because of injury.

If anything I think your list proves we evaluate talent well in the early rounds...but not in the later ones at all...

[GTripp0012]

The goal is to add talent for the future in the best possible way. Sometimes, you can trade for a 23 year old Running Back with his best years ahead of him. The problem is, it's incredibly difficult to get players who aren't already at the peak of their career through free agency.

The good thing about draft picks (not in the top 5, but after that) is that for the cost of nothing (money wise) you can get top end NFL talent that will improve over the life of their rookie contracts. The picks in themselves are worth nothing, but you can't get talent that will improve unless you have them.

You have to add a veteran talent if you can get him at a bargain price. That's how winning franchises are built. Established talent is a very safe bet to continue success in the short term, but also are a safe bet to begin declining as soon as they are signed.

The draft in terms of importance, is as a whole, valued properly. By the end of the rookie contract (at least a 5 or 6 year contract), a team has already gotten most of the best games out of a player, and is often wise to let him walk if they can replace him for less money.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

I wouldn't necessarily call Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Wilson homegrown stars. Just the fact that you named them as such warrants a call for using our high draft picks on premier talent. Though I like those guys and want to see them do well, I wouldn't bring their name up in a talent discussion.

In the spectrum of acquiring free agents and drafting new players, the Skins have been free agent heavy for the last couple years. Like Mattyk72 said it is all about striking a balance in that spectrum. Especially with a new coach we should be looking to solidify our roster with young, coachable players that fit Zorn's scheme.

[SmootSmack]

I didn't call them stars. I called them talent. Talent that have been able to step up when needed, and provide depth to the team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

Chad Johnson fills a pretty big need, but how long would it be until we are paying him a fortune to be a mediocre--or just a bit better than that--player? 2010 perhaps?

I mean, look at Torry Holt right now. There's a guy who is past the prime of his career, and wouldn't have a lot of trade value if he was shopped. Chad Johnson is two years younger than Holt, and they've had similar career paths. If Johnson is no longer in the top 20 NFL receivers by 2010, is a first round draft pick for him actually worth it?

I mean the value of a year or two, maybe three if we are lucky of an elite receiver then 3 more years of mediocrity can't cost us more than a second round draft pick. It's classic mortgaging the future...and we are probably a year away from a Super Bowl caliber passing game with or without Chad Johnson.

[GTripp0012]

We do need a young receiver to grow with Campbell and to take over the Number 1 receiver job in a few years regardless of what we do with Chad Johnson. If we trade a pick for Johnson, where are we going to get this receiver?

Or are we going balls out the next two years trying to win a Super Bowl before we become an over the hill team in 2010, much like 2006?

Additionally, if Santana is ever going to have a rebound season, it's going to be now, at age 29. This is a perfect year to draft the WR of the future in the 2nd round, and we're doing our best to blow it.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

we have home grown talent, but look at your list and break it down to where we got them

1st round - Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Samuels
2nd - Smoot, Betts, jansen, Cooley (yes we picked him in the 3rd but we gave up a second)

the rest of those players arent starters... or were only starters because of injury.

If anything I think your list proves we evaluate talent well in the early rounds...but not in the later ones at all...

Fair points. But keep in mind the depth we've gotten in later rounds/UDFAs.

Anyhow, my point is (and I'll bet Scott Pioli would agree) that there is no one way to build a team. And having draft picks does not mean that their only value is by drafting college players.

I don't know maybe I'm missing something. But I just don't see how using one out of nine picks this year to trade for a proven NFL player at a need position is met with such apocalyptic reaction.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We do need a young receiver to grow with Campbell and to take over the Number 1 receiver job in a few years regardless of what we do with Chad Johnson. If we trade a pick for Johnson, where are we going to get this receiver?

Or are we going balls out the next two years trying to win a Super Bowl before we become an over the hill team in 2010, much like 2006?

Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Chad Johnson fills a pretty big need, but how long would it be until we are paying him a fortune to be a mediocre--or just a bit better than that--player? 2010 perhaps?

I mean, look at Torry Holt right now. There's a guy who is past the prime of his career, and wouldn't have a lot of trade value if he was shopped. Chad Johnson is two years younger than Holt, and they've had similar career paths. If Johnson is no longer in the top 20 NFL receivers by 2010, is a first round draft pick for him actually worth it?

I mean the value of a year or two, maybe three if we are lucky of an elite receiver then 3 more years of mediocrity can't cost us more than a second round draft pick. It's classic mortgaging the future...and we are probably a year away from a Super Bowl caliber passing game with or without Chad Johnson.

Yea...I guess the idea is to win now though...our offensive and defensive lines are very old. our corners are old or hurt. our linebackers are old and or hurt. thats a lot of turnover or reduced ability over the next few years. We just made the playoffs. the talent is there to win now with a few pieces...we gotta make this window, or give up this window and grow for later.

id be fine trading just our first for him. but I guess now that i think about it trading more than that limits our ability to start grooming replacements for all of our older guys.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months

No! I forgot all about him!

Nevermind, we are set

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Um...hello? Anthony Mix! Where the hell have you been the last three months

heh, we'll be fine. Zorn will implement timing routes, and slants, and lots of things that small speedy guys excel at that we didnt use last year.

then cooley and sellers will get all our tds until Mix gets used to the 'jump ball'

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Fair points. But keep in mind the depth we've gotten in later rounds/UDFAs.

Anyhow, my point is (and I'll bet Scott Pioli would agree) that there is no one way to build a team. And having draft picks does not mean that their only value is by drafting college players.

I don't know maybe I'm missing something. But I just don't see how using one out of nine picks this year to trade for a proven NFL player at a need position is met with such apocalyptic reaction.

It's not the player in question or even the draft pick. It is the idea of giving up on building a competitive team from within. We should trust this new coach to be able to mold young players from the draft into quality players that fit his scheme.

For the draft to be effective we need all of our picks over a 3 to 4 year span. Giving away any of this year's picks only postpones our efforts of building from within.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

It's not the player in question or even the draft pick. It is the idea of giving up on building a competitive team from within. We should trust this new coach to be able to mold young players from the draft into quality players that fit his scheme.

For the draft to be effective we need all of our picks over a 3 to 4 year span. Giving away any of this year's picks only postpones our efforts of building from within.

That makes no sense at all to me. So you're saying, for example, keeping all nine picks and using the first one on Malcolm Kelly is more effective than keeping eight out of nine and trading the first one (and maybe a 3rd next year) for Chad Johnson simply because we're keeping all our picks?

[MTK]

Yeah I'm not sure how trading one pick this year means the entire draft is shot.

[steveo395]

we finally have alot of picks rather than trade them as usual and now u guys have a problem with that?