Skip to content

Need to Know: What affect will free agency have on the Redskins’ draft?

Mar 15, 2015, 5:59 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Sunday, March 15, 46 days before the Washington Redskins go on the clock at the NFL draft.

Question of the day

A few days a week I’ll give an in-depth answer to a question submitted by a fan on my Twitter feed, via the Real Redskins Facebook page, or in the comments section here. On Twitter address the questions to me at @Rich_TandlerCSN with the #NTK hashtag. There will be a comment thread set up on the Facebook page and if you’re asking your question here, put “for NTK” at the start of the comment.

Today’s question is from Twitter:

If you have been paying any attention at all since the Redskins hired Scot McCloughan as the general manager you know that his mantra is that he will draft the best available player on the board regardless of need.

Free agency, on the other hand, is all about filling needs. Unlike the draft, it’s more like grocery shopping. You make a list, figure out your budget, and you go to work.

Some think that because you draft the best player available free agency doesn’t have much of an effect on the draft. The best player before you added some free agents is still going to be the best player. But the definition of “best player available” will change. That is because needs are factored in to the grades that determine BPA. So free agent signings will affect the draft board.

However, just signing a player doesn’t mean that your draft board shifts in a major way. Since the Redskins signed Terrance Knighton, many fans believe that they won’t draft nose tackle Danny Shelton of Washington. But Knighton is only on a one-year deal. The presence of Pot Roast will have a minimal effect on a decision to draft Shelton or a nose tackle at any other point in the draft.

It might be another situation at cornerback. With Chris Culliver now signed and second-year cornerback Bashaud Breeland showing that he can be at least a solid starter for years to come. That will lessen the need at cornerback considerably. That doesn’t mean that they won’t draft a cornerback but that player would have to be the best on the board by a considerable margin, especially in the earlier stages of the draft.

This is something that we’ll look at in more detail and name some more names as the Redskins finish up free agency and the draft gets closer.


—It’s been 77 days since the Redskins played a game. It will be about 182 days until they play another one.

Days until: Redskins offseason workouts start 36; 2015 NFL Draft 46; Redskins training camp starts 137

If you have any questions about what’s going on at Redskins Park, hit me up in the comments. And I’m always on Twitter @Rich_TandlerCSN.

Like Real Redskins on Facebook!

Follow Real Redskins on Instagram @RichTandler

  1. mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 7:44 AM

    Scot tryna fix up the defense before he turn his attention to the can always fine a O-line in the draft that can come in and start right away its a fact same as wide receiver tight, and running backs so im not surprised at all with all the defensive players scot m. sign…our defense should be better…and if rg3 get protected better by his O-line and his running back we seen he can put up alot of points…the O-line had its best performance against the eagles and I agree with phil sims when he said even the best QBs sometimes need a little extra time to get passes off so if they improve in that area witch im pretty sure they is with new faces on the right side…I will be nervous if we go into the season with kirk cousins as our QB if things dont go his way on the field he lose confident and throw INTs then we will have to turn back to rg3 then we will have a QB circus all over again

    • Jax4 - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:29 AM

      KC isn’t the starter by a long shot. RG3 is the unquestioned starter this season based on necessity.

      • vkapey - Mar 15, 2015 at 12:38 PM

        Lol…is that a Joke. Rg3 has done nothing to prove he’s the starter. KC is FAR better. Little chance Rg3 starts or if he way he keeps the job. Magically in one offseason he’s gonna pickup how to be a pocket passer. Yeah…and Ive got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. RgJoke was totally outplayed by his “backups.”

        • James - Mar 15, 2015 at 1:34 PM

          Everyone is quick to forget that RG3 led us to our first division title in over ten years. Before that, we flat out sucked at the position from Ramsey to Campbell. RG3 will definitely remain the starter, till he’s injured or he’s played so bad to the point were out of playoff contention. With all that we’ve given up on RG3, it’s worth giving him one more chance before we decide whether or not to pay him big money. Regardless, I don’t see us going to the playoffs anyway. Let’s face it, we’re rebuilding. Worst case, we move on from RG3 at the end of the year, resign cousins, and then bring in another quarterback to compete with him.

        • Herowing83 - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:19 PM

          Rg3 did win Rookie of the year over Luck and Wilson as well as single handedly win us the NFC East for the first time since 1999. He also was not a pocket passer that year either. Kirk Cousins had a golden opportunity to show us what he could do in a pocket style offense and failed horribly. I heard a rumor that Gruden is going to use more of a spread type offense this year something like the Eagles run. What do you think about that?

        • Josh11 - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM

          Kirk cousins is FAR better?!! Did u watch him play?!! Rex Grossman 2.0. He made a couple plays here there, but just like rex, he shoots the offense in the foot at crunch time. RG3 may not be the starter, but cousins shouldn’t be either. Far better..that’s a laugh

      • gonavybeatarmy - Mar 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM

        “long shot”? “unqestioned”? I envy the fan that has direct, honest contact with McCloughan and Gruden.

        Here’s what we fans know. The Skins have two QBs on the roster; both have been unimpressive at best;; both entering the final year of their contracts. One of the QBs has an equally fragile body and ego; the other an apparent turnover machine. The head coach of the team just a few months ago publicly dressed down one of the QBs in a post-game press conference to a level never seen before, questioning his ability to perform the most rudimentary parts of playing the position.

        Here’s the reality. None of us knows what will unfold this year. But there’s a pretty good chance Cousins will see the field at some point this season even if Griffin figures out a way to remain healthy. At this point, the QB position is undetermined.

  2. mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 7:45 AM

    He didnt sign yet he scheduled to have dinner with scot m. Later and have a meeting monday morning

  3. mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 7:48 AM

    No he didnt sign yet scheduled to have dinner with scot m. Later and stay for a business meeting monday morning

  4. mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 7:52 AM

    No the pot roast signing is a prove it deal they wanna see if he do the same thing he did with the denver Broncos…you can count danny shelton out…and boost up the best O-linemen in the draft out of Iowa brandon S.

  5. Jim Collins - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM

    I understand best player available, but doesn’t each team have their own rank in best player available going into the draft relative to their needs? So you are saying if Mariota by draft standard is the best player available and a team already has a committed starting QB they draft that QB? I don’t think so. The concept of players falling in the draft is because teams don’t tske the player that was ranked at a high position either because they did not need them or do not feel they are the right fit for the team. So respectfully, I have to disagree we take best available by draft rankings.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:17 AM

      So, McCloughan, Ted Thompson, and these other GM’s are just making this stuff up?

      • Ken - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM

        I would like to think he is serious and I agree with him but only if it is a guiding principle and not a strict unbreakable rule. What if by chance the BPA were Amari or White? Do you think he would choose a WR over edge rusher or O line ? It’s like “build through the draft”. I believe and support him 100% but also understand it is a guiding principle not a rigid rule, because you can’t convince me he’s not hoping at least some of his FA signings so far will become long term contributors to the team. I never believed build through the draft meant never try to grab a quality long term starter if available and reasonable in FA. Likewise it’s hard for me to believe he wouldn’t consider reaching in the draft a little, not a lot, to strengthen RG’s pass protection if no FA upgrades are signed.

        • Rich Tandler - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:38 AM

          McCloughan would absolutely pull the trigger on White if he’s the BPA at 5. Top 2 WR’s are aging and expensive. And the draft is about 2017 much more than it is about 2015.

          > > >

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:48 AM

          Look at all the wide receiver turnover from this year: Brandon Marshall, Mike Wallace, Greg Jennings, Andre Johnson just to name a few. If you don’t think Garcon and/or Jackson could be their equivalents (traded for scraps or outright cut) next year you are sadly mistaken.

  6. sidepull - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:18 AM

    I still want Shelton. Pot Roast will cost more next year if he does prove it. Shelton can learn from Pot Roast. Draft Shelton anyhow. The skins need to groom their own NT for the future at a cost effective salary for the next few years. You can tell that all the people who thought we were signing a NT when we signed RJF and Paea were pretty uh wrong. You see what Scot wants now in the middle of that 3-4. Its not a lightweight.

  7. Wingking - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM

    there are two decent and available Lineman still to pick up in free agency. There is Stefen a center out of Oakland that is 25 years old and is over 300 lbs. there is Joe Barksdale right tackle that is 26 and over 300 lbs. then you move our center over to right guard release Chris Chester the $4 million saved from MPs for those two guys or at least a good portion of it. Then our offense of line has a quick upgrade in free agency all we need is a safety and let’s go to the draft.

  8. Ken - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM

    I think the question is are we talking about BPA regardless of need or BPA factoring in need. Can’t do both at the same time. While I hate teaching for need I also hate passing up a player who would fill a big need for a player ranked just a few points higher.

  9. Jim Collins - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:54 AM

    I think the GMs telegraph strategies for one purpose, to mislead their competition. They have an agenda, and they are not going to tell a reporter their true agenda regardless the relationship. We see that all the time. Like all the Mariota and RGIII stuff going on. RGIII was announced starter to keep the circus low and to telegraph a position of what we might be willing to take or not at draft. Where in fact, e all know RGIII will be evaluated and placed into a competition. There is more posturing with what GMs say vs what they do than politicians. Bottom line: they take the player in the draft that meets their agenda regardless of draft ranking. JMHO

  10. Jim Collins - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    So your saying that the Steelers would take Mariota if he dropped to their level because he is the best available, when their might be the Olineman they need right below him to protect their $99M Ben Roth?? I don’t think so… Respectfully.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:37 AM

      You can dream up a bunch of scenarios that never happen. As I said in the post right here, need is a factor in grades.

      > > >

      • skinsgame - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:25 AM

        You keep insisting need is a grading component but, I don’t see how. “Need” pushes teams to draft with their hopes and wishes, opposite of factual grading.

      • renhoekk2 - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM

        Fans thing GM’s setup their boards the same as Kiper and McShay. While Mariota might be the 3rd best player on one of their boards he might be the 10th rated player on most team boards because they don’t need a QB. That is what Rich is trying to say. GM boards are different than draft prognosticator’s boards.

        • skinsgame - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:57 AM

          No, he is saying that need is part of a grade.

        • ET - Mar 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM

          I think Ren Hoek is explaining the concept correctly. Individual GMs don’t want or need to construct their big boards in the same way a “guru” (sarcastic quotes) like Kiper does. The exact formula is every GM’s special sauce, but need, depth, relative upside for the system probably get factored in.

        • skinsgame - Mar 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM

          Then the theory of drafting BPA is not that at all. If it were done the way you guys all discuss is “Best player available at our position of need.” and I don’t believe that Scot is going to operate that way. We’ll see.

        • captblood3000 - Mar 16, 2015 at 9:13 AM

          I’m also a skeptic about needs affecting draft grades in BPA. Otherwise, after last week, the Redskins would downgrade every defensive lineman on their board. When does that end? You have to let your scouts and evaluators do their jobs. When you’re on the clock, and you have than one player with roughly equal grades, then you factor in need. What “roughly equal grades” means will differ from GM to GM.

  11. Lex - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM

    Considering our FA acquisitions Id go after Vic Beasley or Sherff

  12. Stephfan - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    Still hopeing they get Shelton or pass rusher

  13. troylok - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    I think when you put some spackiling on the obvious holes – defensive line and corners – you enter the draft with an “anyone we get at the top will make us better” philosophy which would be BPA. I also see that as a side benefit, if they make a gesture toward someone like Mariota, those teams who are interested in taking him say, “Gee, they’ve filled those other holes – there’s a good chance they could take him”. It increases the Redskins bargaining power going into the draft.

    I believe the Redskins will trade down and pick up multiple picks. I think this helps McGloughan because he has been studying the players in this draft since way before the Redskins signed him. He’s going to do some real damage in the lower rounds where he has really studied the players. He’s also going to create some real head scratching with the players he picked since the whole idea is to find those diamonds in the rough. I am looking forward to this draft. I think we’ll all see comparisons to Bobby Beathard before it is over.

  14. bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:18 AM

    Anyone thinking o-line in the first two rounds should prepare themselves for disappointment.

    • ET - Mar 15, 2015 at 12:55 PM

      Depends on the scenario.

      At #5, I agree with you. Pick up another 1st or 2nd round pick in a trade or move back, however, and I could see McC going in an unexpected direction with the extra pick.

      • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM

        I’m still saying – the way I’m reading it: “Anyone thinking o-line in the first two rounds should prepare themselves for disappointment.”

        Granted we could trade back and then it wouldn’t be a reach to draft a right tackle – or a defensive back for that matter. I’m saying the front office and coaching staff aren’t as bearish on the current o-line as the fans that want to draft o-line and for that reason I’m standing by my previous statement.

        • ET - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:25 PM

          We’re basically in agreement. I don’t think they’re as down on the O-line as many fans, either. Though I do think they’ll try to shore up RG or RT in some fashion this spring.

          If McC does finagle some extra picks, I expect he’ll use them on O-line, or other less crucial areas (e.g., classic BPA development picks without immediate starting potential).

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM

          We can certainly hope regarding the right side of the line but considering we were targeting the likes of Jeremy Parnell and Derek Newton (both tackles and no reported guards), it is likely that any answers are perhaps still thought to be on the roster.

        • captblood3000 - Mar 16, 2015 at 9:32 AM

          I think the Redskins front office under Cerrato and Shanahan tended to give offensive linemen lower grades than most NFL front offices. That would explain the lack of day 2 O-Line picks. Last year was different, and we can hope that Long and Moses upgrade this year’s line. The Redskins could still pick a pull and play offensive lineman at #40. It’s hard to see them replacing Williams or Lichtensteiger this year out of this year’s draft class. But any one of the other starters or projected starters could be replaced. We shall see.

        • Stephfan - Mar 16, 2015 at 9:43 AM

          Trent Williams won’t get replaced. He is too good a an left tackle.. One of the best in the league.. He should be here for his entire career. If not redskins are a fool if they replace him or let him walk. Trent was the only bright spot on the line, even ehrn injuried.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:12 PM

      O-line in the 3rd has been pretty disappointing for us in the past, for that matter.

      I’m not predicting it, but picking Cameron Erving in the 2nd wouldn’t make me cry.

      • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:32 PM

        I’d say the jury is still out on Moses and Long and if they end up being solid starters a year later than expected (2016) is that really a bad thing?

        LeRibeus of course is a disappointment and the fact that he was drafted by Shanahan isn’t doing him any favors.

        If we do draft a tackle or guard in the first three rounds, it would appear the jury has a verdict.

      • captblood3000 - Mar 16, 2015 at 9:38 AM

        Erving would make a lot of sense for the Redskins, given his talent and versatility.

  15. skinsgame - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:21 AM

    Not the 1st time I’ve read here where “need” allegedly is a factor in grading a player. That’s going to need to be explained or a quote from a reputable source saying/showing that Scot believes that.
    The best player available is the best player available. “Need” has nothing to do with it. Scots “theory” of drafting the best player is misleading or absolutely true. Come draft day, there’s gonna be a lot of fans upset or “baffled” somehow with selections the team makes because of this.

    • Travis - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM

      Uhm if we drafted the best player available in each round without factoring in need we could end up with 5 Qb ‘ in one draft!

      • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:10 PM

        That would be on QB class.

        I haven’t looked at draft magazines in forever but when I did there were grades and a scale that would indicate what the grades meant.
        Grade Title
        9.00-10 Once-in-lifetime player
        8.00-8.99 Perennial All-Pro
        7.50-7.99 Future All-Pro
        7.00-7.49 Pro Bowl-caliber player
        6.50-6.99 Chance to become Pro Bowl-caliber player
        6.00-6.49 Should become instant starter
        5.50-5.99 Chance to become NFL starter
        5.20-5.49 NFL backup or special teams potential
        5.01-5.19 Better-than-average chance to make NFL roster
        5.00 50-50 Chance to make NFL roster
        4.75-4.99 Should be in an NFL training camp

        This from 2014

        Trent Murphy 5.62

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:17 PM

          This year:

          Williams, Leonard DE 6’5″ 302 USC 7.6
          Cooper, Amari WR 6’1″ 211 Alabama 7.1
          Fowler, Jr., Dante OLB 6’3″ 261 Florida 7.0
          Ray, Shane DE 6’3″ 245 Missouri 6.8
          White, Kevin WR 6’3″ 215 West Virginia 6.7
          Beasley, Vic OLB 6’3″ 246 Clemson 6.6
          Gregory, Randy OLB 6’5″ 235 Nebraska 6.6
          Winston, Jameis QB 6’4″ 231 Florida St. 6.5
          Scherff, Brandon OG 6’5″ 319 Iowa 6.4
          Armstead, Arik DT 6’7″ 292 Oregon 6.4
          Shelton, Danny NT 6’2″ 339 Washington 6.4
          Waynes, Trae CB 6’0″ 186 Michigan St. 6.3
          Collins, Landon SS 6’0″ 228 Alabama 6.3
          Parker, DeVante WR 6’3″ 209 Louisville 6.3
          Collins, Jalen CB 6’1″ 203 LSU 6.3
          Peat, Andrus OT 6’7″ 313 Stanford 6.2
          Clemmings, T.J. OT 6’5″ 309 Pittsburgh 6.2
          Brown, Malcom DT 6’2″ 319 Texas 6.2
          Goldman, Eddie DT 6’4″ 336 Florida St. 6.2
          Humphries, D.J. OT 6’5″ 307 Florida 6.2
          Phillips, Jordan NT 6’5″ 329 Oklahoma 6.2
          Gurley, Todd RB 6’1″ 222 Georgia 6.2
          Collins, La’el OT 6’4″ 305 LSU 6.1
          Mariota, Marcus QB 6’4″ 222 Oregon 6.1
          Gordon, Melvin RB 6’1″ 215 Wisconsin 6.1

        • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:21 PM

          From 2012:

          Grade Title Draft (Round) Description
          96-100 Future Hall of Famer Top Pick A once-in-a-generation type prospect who could change how his position is played
          85-95 Immediate Starter 1st An impact player with the ability/intangibles to become a Pro Bowl player. Expect to start immediately except in a unique situation (i.e. behind a veteran starter).
          70-84 Eventual Starter 2nd-3rd A quality player who will contribute to the team early on and is expected to develop into a starter. A reliable player who brings value to the position.
          50-69 Draftable Player 4th-7th A prospect with the ability to make team as a backup/role player. Needs to be a special teams contributor at applicable positions. Players in the high range of this category might have long-term potential.
          20-49 Free Agent UDFA A player with solid measurables, intangibles, college achievements, or a developing skill that warrants an opportunity in an NFL camp. In the right situation, he could earn a place on a 53-man roster, but most likely will be a practice squad player or a camp body.

          Luck, Andrew QB 6’4″ 234 Stanford Pick 1, Round 1 (1) Colts 97.0
          Griffin III, Robert QB 6’2″ 223 Baylor Pick 2, Round 1 (2) Redskins 95.0

      • skinsgame - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:18 PM

        If the best player available method is what Scot wants to use, then it would be 5 QB’s then. Otherwise, it isn’t BPA.

      • captblood3000 - Mar 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM

        It doesn’t work like that. Assuming that you have 240 players on your draft board, and 5% (1/22) of them are QBs, that’s 12 quarterbacks. If one team adopts a BPA philosophy and selects 5 quarterbacks, their QB draft grades will be out of whack with the rest of the league.

        Then there’s the psychological element of Draft Day. There can be runs at particular positions of need. Tight end and safety could be examples this year. The reverse is also true. When the Redskins selected in round 3 of the 2013 draft, there were about a half dozen available safeties with third round grades. So they selected Jordan Reed. In round 4, nearly all those safeties (I recall a run on cornerbacks) were still on the Board. So the Redskins selected Phillip Thomas in round 4.

  16. kenlinkins - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM

    Rich: I am going to keep hitting on this until I understand it better. Could (or has) the new CBA changed how BPA is defined? (I am still trying to gain an understanding of the effects of the new CBA, or at year 5 were the effects limited to only keeping top draft picks under control (i.e. lower cost, reduce hold outs)?

    • fracas106 - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:02 PM

      There is nothing in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owners (clubs–not teams; teams are the collective players on a club) and the NFLPA about the vague term “best player available”.

    • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:54 PM

      I suspect that there is no longer any effect of the CBA on BPA or any draft strategy. The 1st year after the CBA, there were a bunch of teams ‘reaching’ on quarterbacks as teams no longer had to pay ridiculous contracts in addition to the 50/50 chance of finding their quarterback (Locker, Gabbert, and Ponder.) Since then, it seems to have returned to business as usual as most teams seem to pick best player available according to their boards.

    • timwillhidetimwillhide - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM

      With the new CBA and the Rookie Pay Scale players dont cost as much in the Draft wich allows for more trades and other positions being Drafted high in the Draft. Where as before you wouldn’t consider Drafting a Guard high because of the money involved, but now with the Rookie Pay Scale the money isn’t an issue. This allows players to be drafted by talent not position

  17. jscx3 - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:43 AM

    If they picked Shelton or one of the top edge rushers I would be happy. There are still players later in the draft, the gm has done his homework. If you look at the front seven the one question mark to me is Riley. I think everybody else is solid. I hope we sign that safety that comes to visit. I have a feeling he could possibly start. If that were to happen we would have addressed a lot of defensive needs. Then stock up depth and talent to get rid of the aging expensive talent.

    • mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM

      I agree perry Riley struggled I think will compton actually played better then him

    • ET - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:41 PM

      Seems like there are lots of good ILB prospects in the middle rounds. Keenan was a 4th round pick-up, SF got Chris Borland in the 3rd last year. I think some good prospects like Anthony from Clemson will still be around in the 3rd-5th rounds.

  18. Jgd2016 - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:13 AM

    Rich, any word on Jeron Johnson’s visit? We still need two safeties. Thinking maybe him and drafting one as well? Or do you think they’ll sign two FA safeties?

    • mr.moneylover - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:33 AM

      They aiming to pick up Tampa bay safety dashon ghoston once hes release…and jeron johnson is scheduled to meet with scot M. for dinner and have a business meeting monday morning so dont expect a deal to get done today maybe sometime 2mar afternoon

      • Jgd2016 - Mar 15, 2015 at 11:57 AM

        Goldson and Johnson are both listed as strong safeties right? Still leaves a hole at free

        • abanig - Mar 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM

          Yeah. I think they’re going to have to either move a corner to FS or have a SS play FS like they’ve had to do since Sean Taylor died in 07.

          Doesn’t make for great coverage on the back end once again… :(

        • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:23 PM

          Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes. Unfortunately, this isn’t a great draft for safeties.

          Nor is it a buyers market for free agent safeties…too many teams with lots of cap room, not enough talent on the market.

          I’m OK with it. For far too long this team has had a “we’re going to win it all next year!” approach when it didn’t have close to the talent necessary to do so.

          Maybe with Scot McLoughan we’re finally going to be smart and patient? Dare I dream, or is Lucy Van Snyder going to snatch the ball away again?


    • Travis - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:32 PM

      I think you could be seeing DHall at safety this year or even Amerson!

  19. abanig - Mar 15, 2015 at 12:58 PM

    100% agree. I don’t see the free agency period having much affect on McCloughan still taking the BPA with each of his selections in the draft.

  20. hcicron - Mar 15, 2015 at 1:05 PM

    People love arguing semantics on here. GMs don’t number the players 1-300. They assign grades to players. Remember the reason we drafted cousins was shanny had a 2nd rd grade on him. When Seattle traded for graham Schneider said they only had 16 players with a first rd grade. They could have a few players with similar grades. The one at a position of greater need would would then rise above the others.

  21. greed - Mar 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM

    rich will skins recieve compensatory picks for loosing orakpo helu hankerson ?

    • bangkokben - Mar 15, 2015 at 3:17 PM

      Compensatory picks are like driving four miles for gas that is 10 cents cheaper a gallon when your it takes15 gallons to fill your car. You’re excited that you saved yourself $1.50. These picks are like coupons for being cheap and poor judges of talent. Cheap in that in order to get them you have to sign less ‘talent’ then you let go. Here’s a question: who is the best player ever drafted from a compensatory pick?

      • jayovalentine - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:34 PM

        Are you serious?? U must be joking…. Tom Brady was a compensatory selection. Garcoń too.

        • bangkokben - Mar 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM

          True. Brady and Garcon. So compensatory picks are more like scratch offs than coupons. You have to pay for them by not upgrading your team through free agency and letting your own draft picks walk for the chance to draft a Hall of Famer in a late round. Seems like a strategy that I’m willing to avoid but you’re absolutely right there have been some good picks just like there are folks that have won $25,000 off scratchers.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM

      No, because they have picked up Culliver, Paea, and Knighton with contracts with higher value.

      > > >

  22. Willie Parham Jr - Mar 15, 2015 at 8:25 PM

    We just have to see how it plays out

  23. jayovalentine - Mar 15, 2015 at 9:30 PM

    If Gruden wants to keep his job he better ditch HIS ego and use Griffin suited for his strengths instead of forcing him to adapt to his whack overrated system. And you Cousins nuts should shut it. Same fools who were probably calling for John Beck, Colt Brennan, and Sultan McCullough to be starters.

  24. timwillhidetimwillhide - Mar 15, 2015 at 10:57 PM

    Like I’ve bin saying we are fixing the Defense in Free Agency and fixing the Oline in the Draft.

  25. skinsgame - Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 AM

    The draft is not designed to help the team immediately. I might have been that way once upon a time and you may have a rookie show up and be a force for the season but, by and large, that’s not how it works. And that is exactly why you who think somehow “needs” are factored in are wrong. Needs change every year. If you get caught up attempting to address needs in the draft, you inevitably create a need in every other area of your roster. The needs are relentless and that’s how clubs get caught in the cycle of toilet bowl circling. Scot knows better than to pretend that drafting a player rated 8 spots below another based on the hope he fills a “need” is no way to build a roster in the long run. I hope he sticks to that plan. Why do you suppose the Giants turned out awesome defensive linemen over and over? Because they draft BPA, not need. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter