Redskins 2010 Draft Class with Analysis

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Lotus

People who graded the draft at "D" or "F": why?

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.

We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.

We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.

I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.

Exactly...Dont like that arguement either. Jarmon, Shanny and Allen dont have any alligence to him and frankly wouldnt be surprised if he doesnt make the final roster. So if he gets cut, our 3rd rounder, does this draft become a D or F grade?

I gave it a B as an optimist, but I dont think everybody will make the team actually think more than a couple wont. I know from now on I will be closely following Okung vs Silverback, to see who becomes the better Tackle. I think Okung was more polished, but we will see...

[johno]

i gave it a B. i guess B- if we were going to get specific. the addition of solid offensive line help was the biggest positive for me. everyone needs to relax about the TE pick, he will be a FB. the kid can block, and make holes for our stable of backs. if either capers or cook work into a starting position, we will really be in business.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

but why take a WR like Marko or Malcolm that would offer nothing on special teams?

and arent Malcolm and Marko enough

[MTK]

I'm kinda surprised to see so many banging on the pick of Morris. As a blocker the guy looks fierce. I could easily see him winning the #3 TE spot and if he can play FB too... bonus.

Austin could stick over someone like Marko just based on his ability to play special teams.

[Monkeydad]

I'm going to give it a High B or Low A, voted B.


We did well in the draft. Trent is definitely starting. Perry Riley is a possible starter and a solid pick for the 3-4 transition. We also have a backup Center/Guard in Erik Cook who could esily become Rabach's replacement and Selvish Capers was projected mush higher than 7th and could easily make the team as a backup tackle. We also added a FB to eventually step in for Sellers.

The WR we drafted could be our returner too.

We didn't have any huge names after Williams, but every one of the guys we drafted can not only make the team, but contribute. Even our 7th-rounders are great picks and values.

Allen and Shanahan made a draft with very few picks into a very productive draft class. I think they did great with what they had to work with. It's not often you can realistically see every pick making the team, but I think these guys could do it.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by internetcareer

Has anyone seen the sports science video on Selvish Capers?

AWESOME! This guy is a steal.

It is pretty cool.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really fall into this category because I gave it a C, but I considered giving it a D because we took one starting caliber player (who wasn't necessarily the best on the board at the position), and then didn't pick until later when we took a bunch of projectable, but uninspiring, talent.

We also didn't haul in much by way of UDFA.

We improved ourselves through the draft, I think, because we had such obvious offensive deficiencies, that Williams wouldn't have to be very good at all to improve our offense by a factor of 3-5% as a rookie. I don't know how much credit we should get for recognizing our tackles were weak, but I believe it's more than some and less than a lot.

I could see an argument that suggests that Jarmon should be considered part of this class (not sure that I would move it to a B based on that), but people who think that McNabb/Jason Taylor should be considered part of this class are reaching for a reason to like it. Trading draft picks cannot be construed as a way to get value in a draft.

Well you have to factor them in somehow. A pick's value just doesn't magically disappear.

Scouts Inc. devised a formula that takes trades into account:

2010 NFL draft: Scouts Inc. offers up the results of its unique formula for evaluating each team's draft performance. - ESPN

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

I gave it a C, but a D could have been warranted. Williams was a no brainer, but like JSarno said the TE and the WR pick was a waste. We already have a ton of TEs and if we were going to get another WR he should have been built like Marko or Malcolm. THe linemen to me were very nice picks for being so late in the draft and they fulfilled an important need. But since they were late rounders someone playing the odds will probably write them off as being cut or PS fodder. I think both linemen can make the team outright. Our LB pick was solid and I also think will make the final cut, but there are naysayers that doubt his ability since he was a late rounder. We will see how they actually do come the final roster, but if a few of these guys don't make the cut, this draft should be downgraded to a D.

How was Williams a no brainer?

[MTK]

I love how 1st rounders are always written off as no-brainers around here.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Here is how I look at our 2010 draft:


Round 1. Trent Williams
Round 2. Donovan McNabb
Round 3. Jeremy Jarmon
Round 5. Perry Riley
Round 5. Adam Carriker
Round 6. Dennis Morris
Round 7. Terrence Austin
Round 7. Erik Cook
Round 7. Selvish Capers

Given what they had to work with, I think they did well.

I look at the draft the same way as you and I gave it an A. If any of Williams, Jarmon, or Carriker end up being a "bust" then i'd have to downgrade the draft to a C or lower. Getting McNabb for a 2nd and conditional pick next year was probably the best move of the draft in my opinion, although i'm not sure if i would still make it, knowing that Clausen and McCoy fell as far as they did. It all depends on how long McNabb wears the redskins uniform. If he plays 5 more years, i'm happy. If he plays just two or three, then i'll have major regrets.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Well you have to factor them in somehow. A pick's value just doesn't magically disappear.

Scouts Inc. devised a formula that takes trades into account:

2010 NFL draft: Scouts Inc. offers up the results of its unique formula for evaluating each team's draft performance. - ESPN

I'll read the Scouts Inc. article because I <3 formulas, but I don't think trading for a player with an existing contract is anything like drafting your own talent at all. The trade for veteran talent can be good, or it can be bad, but it always costs draft value.

To me, that's the one constant on trading picks for players: you're costing yourself draft value, so the return must be very high to justify it.

[GTripp0012]

As far as I can tell, their "trade points" are not a component of our final ranking.

I think their Need Rankings got messed up though. If they gave out points 4-3-2-1 for filling of draft needs in the first four rounds, the most we could have possibly gotten is 5 points, per their method. If that finished in the top three for filling needs, I'm pretty sure that we might have been the only team to fill a need in this draft.

[Paintrain]

I consider the McNabb, Jarmon and Carriker acquisitions as part of our draft class because we got them using our picks, therefore I graded us with a "B".

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I consider the McNabb, Jarmon and Carriker acquisitions as part of our draft class because we got them using our picks, therefore I graded us with a "B".

I hadn't included them, but yes, it would be correct to since picks were expended for their acquisitions.

Including them, I'll upgrade us to an A-.