Skip to content

Grading the Redskins’ 2016 draft

May 1, 2016, 11:15 AM EDT


Since we don’t know how the careers of the players picked by the Redskins yesterday will turn out we have to dig in a little more to come up with a grade for Scot McCloughan’s second draft with the team. Here’s my assessment, feel free to leave yours in the comments.


Scot McCloughan let the world know that he wanted to increase the number of picks he had to work with. He did not succeed in doing so. The Redskins went into the draft with eight picks and they ended up selecting seven players. He did get three additional picks for 2017 so there is a plus there. But McCloughan said he wanted “more swings” and he didn’t get them.

It appears that they were on the verge of swinging a significant deal in the first round. There really isn’t any other reason why they would take a 2017 6th-round pick from the Texans to move back one spot except to buy some time to try to complete a trade back. But there was no deal and the Redskins had to move on and pick Josh Doctson. I don’t think they’ll regret getting a receiver like Doctson but they didn’t get the additional picks they were looking for.

How the Redskins fared in that deal on the Jimmy Johnson draft trade chart is difficult to judge. By moving from 21st overall to 22nd the Redskins lost 20 points in chart value. Since picks for the next year are generally discounted by a round the 2017 sixth was only worth about 8 points, depending on how the Texans do next year. But since they accomplished what they wanted to and got a player they wanted anyway it’s hard to fret the dozen or so points they lost in the deal.

Let’s look at the other deals on the chart, for what it’s worth. On Saturday, the Redskins traded their fourth-round pick (No. 120 overall) to the New Orleans Saints for New Orleans’ fifth-round pick (No. 152 overall) and a 2017 fifth-round pick. The Redskins’ fourth is worth 54 points and the Saints’ fifth-rounder has a value of 31. That’s a difference of 23 points. That’s about the value of a mid sixth-round pick so again “deducting” a round because it’s a 2017 pick that’s an even swap. So was the Redskins deal with the jets where they sent their fifth-round pick (No. 158 overall) to the New York Jets for a 2017 fourth-round pick.

So the Saturday trades were reasonable deals if McCloughan wasn’t particularly happy the players on his draft board. But he still didn’t achieve his stated goal of adding to his stockpile of picks so the Redskins get a C+ in terms of strategy.


It think that it’s safe to say that just about all of the players they got fit what they are looking for in at some respect.

—They want players to have had to work for what they got. Josh Doctson came to TCU as a walk on and left holding most of the team receiving records. RB Keith Marshall was highly recruited but at Georgia, injuries and players like Todd Gurley and Nick Chubb limited his playing time. But he kept at it, stayed at Georgia, and got himself a chance to keep playing football by being drafted.

—They wanted versatility and Su’a Cravens almost defines that. He’ll play linebacker strong safety, cover backs and tight ends, make tackles and contribute on special teams. Matt Ioannidis could play anywhere along the defensive line, including nose tackle if he can bulk up from his current 299 pounds.

—Toughness was a major theme, with Gruden particularly citing Ioannidis, Cravens and inside linebacker Steven Daniels.

—Other intangibles such as love of football, hustling and not taking plays off, and leadership keep popping up while reviewing the various pre-draft scouting reports on the players the Redskins drafted.

When you can stick to your plan and get seven players who have the traits you’re looking for to one degree or another, that’s a pretty good draft.


If you haven’t figured it out after two drafts I don’t know if you can be helped. Scot McCloughan doesn’t care what you think, what I think, what Mel Kiper, Mike Mayock or any other draft analyst thinks, or what anyone else thinks. He is going to do things his way.

Immediate needs are not on his to-do list when he approaches the draft. Even though most viewed someone who can play nose tackle as their most pressing issue, he didn’t take a defensive lineman in the first round. Or in the second, third, or fourth rounds. The defensive lineman he took in the fifth may or may not play nose tackle.

It’s more important to him to get a good player who fits what they do not just in terms of scheme but also in terms of the culture the organization is trying to build than it is to plug a hole with a player who doesn’t really fit. If you make a habit out of that you will find yourself shopping for another player to fill that hole a couple of years later.

Again, if you haven’t figured this out by now you possibly never will and you’ll probably be perpetually disappointed in the Redskins’ drafts for as long as he’s here.

I could have gone with an A as the overall grade if McCloughan had not stated multiple times that he wanted to get more picks this year. He didn’t get them so I had to go with the B+.

The Redskins seem to be a better team today than they were last year and they could be much better in 2017 if this draft class and the group that McCloughan drafted last year start hitting their strides.

  1. Darren - May 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM

    He did,get more picks. For next year but got more,picks. The draft didnt let him get more this year. He got some,really good talent,7th round was just great. Watched daniels and marshall, will be starters.

  2. Skulb - May 1, 2016 at 11:32 AM

    It’s a little early to tell obviously but for now I tend to agree with the above. Then again we haven’t really finished evaluating the 14 draft class here, so maybe we should give the new guys some time. I really like Cravens though and thought he was a great pick.

    • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM

      It’s unquestionably going to take more time to know.

      I’m very excited about a lot of these guys. Keith Marshall is the 7th could be a master stroke. Everybody knows I wanted Billings really bad but I was actually thrilled with Doctson in the first. He’s the receiver I wanted and WR will be a big need as soon as 2017.

      The only thing I can’t stomach was the 4th round. I guess I’m one of the guys Rich was talking about who can’t be helped. But come on Scot. There’s no way he didn’t have at least a fourth round grade on Billings. He falls to 120 and we trade out of the fourth all together four a 5th and a 5th next year. Those two 5th are not more valuable than Andrew Billings. There’s just no way. You can say the move proves he didn’t value Billings. But I could argue he did, but just wanted more picks for next year and thought a decent enough DT would be available in the 5th.

      I think McCloughan has taken this “more swings” thing too far. He hit on some guys late last year now he’s maybe overestimating his own ability. Because McCloughan hasn’t done that every single year he drafted guys. The talent pool thins as you go down. At some point, you just take the stud in front of you and forget about 6th and 7th round picks.

      • Skulb - May 1, 2016 at 12:14 PM

        As far as I’m concerned the past is our only guide. Vinny used to draft the way you suggest there and obviously he would have taken Billings. Hell he might have traded next year’s first to go up and get him in the first for all we know.
        And Scot does his thing, which so far has led to more success in a year and a half than all the years of Vinny, Bruce and Shanahan combined, with the notable exception of 2012, which I consider a bit of a fluke anyway.

        The fourth round trade didn’t make much sense to me either. but maybe it was part of some larger scheme that fell flat. I don’t know. But as usual I think people tend to select a pre draft horse to root for, based on more or less well-informed per draft grades from people who may or may not know what they are talking about.

        I tend to think that if Scot passed on Billings multiple times, including by trading out of the fourth, he must’ve had his reasons. I am not going to spend another second thinking about Billings. We usually have no clue who will pan out from these drafts anyway. Our first rounder may join a cult tomorrow or decide to breed goats in Montana, and our seventh rounder may become an all pro. Time will tell on all of it, including Billings.

        • cowboyhater - May 1, 2016 at 12:43 PM

          Loved that last line Skulb….it pretty much sums up yearly drafts. Well said.

        • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 1:03 PM

          I too thought Billings would’ve been a good fit here — especially in the fourth — but have zero problem with us passing on him. I learned last year when McC took Scherff that he was his own guy and would do what he thought was best for the team regardless of what the consensus was. So far, so good for the GM.

          Looks like the Redskins will play a three end 34 defense moving forward. Let’s see how that works. Seems like they’re real high on Powe and the other DLs on the roster — a total of 13 including Murphy. How the defense shapes up will definitely be the biggest story of the off season. The FO also seems to be okay with who is starting this year while preparing the team for the next two years — picking up extra draft picks next year in case they can’t afford their own free agents and/or being prepared to let them walk — almost ensuring multiple compensatory picks in 2018.

          I fully expect Cousins to have a long-term deal done by July 15th and am on record for saying it could get done within a fortnight of the draft. That’s two months earlier than necessary and the only reason I suggest the time frame is so that the media doesn’t have to ask the question every opportunity before the deadline. As to the reasons Cousins will have a long-term contract besides him being a long-term answer: they can lower his cap hit this year and in the initial years of the contract thus creating enough space and time to lock Reed up long-term which would increase his cap hit this year while keeping it low next year when space is such a premium.

        • Skulb - May 1, 2016 at 1:10 PM

          I agree completely. It’s easy to forget that this defense was crippled by injuries last season, and that as a consequence we have little to no idea what we actually have in these guys.
          With better coverage the rush will improve, quite aside from the fact that Junior Galette is looking ready to return at full speed. And if the outside rush improves we should see improvements all along the line as well because they won’t be double teamed as much.
          The only real concern I have is ILB, where we were borderline atrocious at times in 15. I’m just not there on Foster and Compton as the starters at ILB. Then again, maybe they’ll win me over this year.

          Either way us being able to fret over defensive deficiencies instead of an eternal QB controversy is a welcome change. There was roughly two conversations on Mr Tandler’s blog about the defense all of last year and about 25 billion conversations about the QB position and the coach. We’re moving in the right direction here I think.

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 2:15 PM

          Can I clarify something? You guys are still going to kill me for it I just want to be clear.

          My only gripe about this draft was round 4. Nobody will ever convince me that Scot didn’t have Billings rated high enough to take in the bottom of the fourth. Unless I personally have a candid conversation with Scot and he tells me that he didn’t have Billings ranked that high, I won’t believe it. That was the pick, but someone called and offered him more, so he took more picks. The man is addicted to picks.

          And nobody will ever convince me that a 2016 5th and 2017 5th were more valuable than Billings in the 4th. We have no idea how these guys will work out, but as a prospect, Billings was worth a fourth. And Cinci obviously agrees as he went two selections later. Perhaps I overestimated Billings’ value, but he was worth the 120th overall pick and is a better prospect than Ioannidis. Who knows how either player will turn out? But Billings was the better prospect.

          Skulb: you’re 100% correct that I picked a guy to root for. It was personal for me. Billing is my all time favorite college player and he’s a great person. I wanted him on my pro team. So I’m biased and that’s why I care so much. Still, I am able to separate my fandom from reality and I think our team would have been better off using that pick. Whe you have a guy with that much upside sitting there in the fourth, you take him. Scot passed on him for future talent he doesn’t know will be there at a later date.

          But I wasn’t saying we should trade up or drafted him earlier or anything else. I’m only talking about how we handled the 120th pick.

      • Mr.moneylover - May 1, 2016 at 12:58 PM

        That’s not true.. Jamison crowder was a fifth round pick…there’s always sleepers who go in the late round…if scouts do they homework they can find guys who can help the team day 1 no matter what round he goes in

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM

          @Mr.moneylover: First, Crowder was a fourth round pick. Second, let’s pretend he was a fifth. Just because one fifth round pick happened to work out doesn’t mean they will all work out.

          Go back and look at as many drafts as you want. There are early busts and late gems. But one thing remains true: The higher you select the better probability of getting a good player and the lower you select the lower your probablilty of getting a good player. The player ranked higher on the board was ranked higher for a reason: they have a higher probability of success.

        • Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 9:13 AM

          Only 5 players played all 16 games in 2015 Brandon scherff was one of them…you can find DT or DE in the late round who can in and play day 1….will Compton is undrafted but the times he played he showed he was better then Keenan Robinson and Perry Riley…it doesn’t matter how early a player goes in the draft…you can find football players in each round who can come in and play day 1….Su’A Cravens gonna play day 1 he might even start if nacho and Burton don’t stepup in training camp

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 4:05 PM

          Patrick willis.. gore.. Sherman the list goes on. I think Bang hit it on the head “I too thought Billings would’ve been a good fit here — especially in the fourth — but have zero problem with us passing on him. I learned last year when McC took Scherff that he was his own guy and would do what he thought was best for the team regardless of what the consensus was. So far, so good for the GM.” I think it was a calculated gamble.

          For one I’ve been arguing that we aren’t that far away on defense. An improved secondary can make up for a weak pass rush and a strong DL can compensate for the back end. It’s vice versa so why it would have been nice to get Billings, especially because he was there (I’m still scratching my head on that) in the 4th, Scot saw more value in trading into next years draft than the talent that was available late in this years. With the Norman signing and, hopefully, Fuller plus Cravens contribution suring up our run game and being a capable cover guy. Calculated gamble you can run a 3-4 without a homerun nose tackle if you have elite pass rushers and a stout LB core.

      • Brandon - May 1, 2016 at 3:59 PM

        Two things, Trey: 1) you say “take the stud in front of you”, but there is no stud in the 4th round. No matter how much you like Billings, he had been passed over by every GM in the league 2-3 times at that point. A “stud” would have been long gone by then. And 2) isn’t the fact that that Scot traded away an opportunity to draft Billings, enough proof that he didn’t grade Billings as a 4th rounder? I mean, the proof is right there. If he’d graded Billings as the best option, he would have picked him.

        And I say all this as someone who also hoped Billings would be a Redskins draft pick.

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 6:23 PM

          That’s a very fair point Brandon. But a couple things: 1) multiple experts, including former GMs, had Billings ranked as a fourth rounder or higher. Generally much higher. 2) Cincinnati took him two picks later, in the fourth round.

          So, while maybe he was initially overvalued, obviously a current NFL GM thought he was worth a fourth round pick. Scot McCloughan is not the only GM or NFL personnel expert out there. And, while I think he’s doing a good job, he is capable of making mistakes. He has, in fact, made draft mistakes in the past. It’s my opinion that trading out of that pick was a mistake. Just my opinion.

          Billings slide happened because the NFL is evolving. It’s a passing league. Run stuffers are losing value and pass rushers are gaining value. The question was never Billings’ talent. It’s that, apparently, Scot believes he is only a 2 down player and not a pass rusher on third down. But everything I’ve read about Ioannidis is that he’s a two down run stuffer. Soooo. There is a point where trading down gets ridiculous. You’re dipping into a (projected) less talented pool of players. At some point, just take the pick.

          But it also didn’t have to be Billings. One of my points was that he could have taken any player who was highest on his board. It’s a gamble to take the player but it’s also a gamble to pass on the player for two 5ths. Scot didn’t know who would still be available in the 5th and he doesn’t know who will be available next year (which is now a fourth round pick again).

          And yes, I’m biased about Billings. But if you’re a Scot McCloughan fan then you’re biased about him. I’m doing my best to stay objective here and I simply don’t care for how the fourth round was handled. Everything else, I think he did a bang up job. Is it that unreasonable to think Scot could have messed up in just one round?

  3. wearenationals - May 1, 2016 at 11:49 AM

    Agreed, but what do you think how good the rest of the NFC East draft this year?

    • Rich Tandler - May 1, 2016 at 3:15 PM

      Will do posts this week but off the top of my head I think Philly depends on how Wentz turns out, DAL drafted like a perennial 12-4 team, and the Giants did well overall but I think they could hav done better than Apple at 10.

      • redskinscaio - May 1, 2016 at 11:53 PM

        Completely agree. I was really surprised the Giants took Apple.

  4. terps125 - May 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM

    From what I read and heard on the Sirius NFL station and NFL Network, this draft is not as strong as most and next year, if things break right, will be a very strong deep draft overall. Maybe that is why Scot took picks next year. I just thank the lord that Scot is in charge and has a plan. Way too many years of Vinny C. and Bruce Allen picking low valued guys with no view of the future. HTTR

  5. redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM

    I see this as a good draft and the grades seem fair (Maybe a straight up B overall). I felt better about the draft last season than this one. This year’s draft will be as much about who was passed up as it was who was selected. There were many players along the defense line that were projected high quality in this draft. It’s apparent Scot didn’t see it quite that way.

    The first round trade scenario is interesting and I have to wonder how different the draft might be if Scot was able to trade back into the early 2nd round.

    This will be a team that is much improved in defense coverage and could be very explosive on offense. It a roster still in build mode but I look forward to see how much the team improved this season.

    • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 12:01 PM

      I don’t necessarily think it’s apparent Scot saw it that way. I just think the guy is just obsessed with trades and trying to acquire picks. No mater who’s on the board.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM

        There’s an irony to Scot’s propensity of trading for more picks. It looks like he’ll stick at times he could have traded back. Last season many feel he could have traded back and still selected Scherff. I don’t know what really happens in the negotiations of these trades but the one thing I’m learning about about this GM is that he is not predictable.

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 1:36 PM

          Another thing about Scot being unpredictable I haven’t noticed anyone bring up yet was the size of these players. His whole “football is a big mans game,” thing.

          I love the Doctson pick but he could have had the bigger WR in Treadwell; Cravens is on the small side for a LB; Fuller doesn’t have the measurables we usually think of for a McCloughan type CB; Ioannidis is a big boy but might be on the small side if he needs to play tackle; and I don’t know about Marshall. He’s not small but he’s not big. RBs are a bit of a different Animal. Daniels seems like a thumper who just lacks ideal height, but has a broad build, so that makes sense.

          Sudfeld though. That’s a big boy. Ill give Scot that.

          My overdrawn point is that you’re correct, this guys is unpredictable. I called Doctson in the first about a week ago then struck out bad everywhere else. I got wrapped up in my pro team taking my favorite college player and it blew up in my face. Lesson learned. Nobody knows what Scot McCloughan is going to do. So don’t even try.

        • David - May 1, 2016 at 1:55 PM

          Giants would have taken Scherrf at #9, so I won’t really call it a reach

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 2:16 PM

          I had a similar comment on the other article about the direction of the defense looking to be more on the lean size. Overall, the defense doesn’t look either athletic or big. It’s seems it is shaping up to be skilled group and especially strong in coverage. It may be that Scot just hasn’t found the big men he wants in the right rounds.

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 2:39 PM

          Ha. Of course you did. I might have read it and forgot. Or maybe I missed that article.

          But yeah man. Scot is obviously targeting the passing game on both sides of the ball. And I dig it. He’s evolving with the league.

          It seems like his defensive strategy is to own the edges at both levels. Get guys who can cover or edge rush. If teams want to run the ball to try and keep up with our offense, then good luck. I can dig it.

          I’m still a believer in an unmovable interior defensive line, but I think Scot is too. I agree that either those players just aren’t available right now or he wants to lock down the pass D first.

  6. 226thebeatdontstop - May 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM

    I did not really understand the draft strategy , if it was to build depth they get a C- . They did not add any real playmakers in my view that could come in and compete for starting positions , the defensive line and inside linebacker position should have been a priority because this team is very weak against the run or athletic quarterbacks…. The kid from USC should contribute early and the receiver should be able to work himself into the rotation ..

    • lloryck - May 1, 2016 at 12:47 PM

      Scott’s goal is to get good football player. He did just that. All of the selections are all about work and getting better. None of the players coming in seem to have the attitude that they deserve start except unless they earn it. Daniels is a run stopping ILB, he got a highly graded CB in Fuller, he got a NT because they will get Ionnidis gain 20 lbs. Cravens can play safety or ILB and can cover slot receivers or TEs. Doctson is a bluechip WR and Marshall has 4.3 speed and is good at pass catching out of the backfield. Considering what Scott has done in the past, getting talent for San Fran and Seattle, I’ll defer to him is talent assessment.

  7. Jlb12300 - May 1, 2016 at 12:12 PM

    I think Kieth Marshall will be the steal of the draft. When healthy he can be great. Great speed, holds on to the ball, and good hands. He will be a threat and will get some playing time this year. With the other picks they were all good and will get plenty of time on the field this year.

    • Mr.moneylover - May 1, 2016 at 12:54 PM

      He’s healthy…he was suppose to go in the fourth round but scouts always scared when a player is coming off of ACL surgery…hes a steal because he should’ve been gone off the board

    • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 1:25 PM

      I think Marshall has the potential to be a huge steal but maybe not the steal of the draft. Some very talented guys with high grades slipped far. Starting with Tunsil. I get what you’re saying about the 7th round and all, but some very good defensive prospects dropped in this draft. We truly won’t know for a couple of years.

  8. smotion55 - May 1, 2016 at 12:22 PM

    I would give a b+ grade for draft also but a b- on the strategy of this. I say that because the Fuller pick was not something I would have done before the 5th round because of Micro-Fracture injury. I just hope he mends well doesn’t get over eager to get on the field before he should. I walked threw the first 2 nights of the draft by phone with my brother and we both were disappointed in the Craven’s pick because we wanted Billings but after seeing how they got a good big man in the middle in the 5th round that was a team caption and could gain some weight to play the middle instead of coming in Fat and watching Billing’s drop like he did I feel much better.Still would like to know why he drops so far.
    I just want to see how many undrafted free agents come in and who gets the AX when they sign and when they get to the magic # 90 . The way things are lined up keeps everybody interested and the GM and the scouts don’t have much time off Then they have the post June 1st cuts by all the teams and they get to pick up a few more and get rid of some bad money contracts to get to the final 90 before camp..
    His strategy had a backup plan and 3 picks for next year is GREAT. He has already got some ideas on next years draft and has scouted some for sure. So as most of us felt when this GM came in ==a 3 year plan minimum is right in the middle so an overall grade so far since he has been here with his vision for the future and sticking with his game plan A-.

    • murphsman - May 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM

      Don’t know details, but stuff I saw online the past 2 days seems to indicate there were some injury concerns on Billings related to his knee

      • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM

        I have firsthand knowledge on this and can say that is false. Obiously I can’t speak for every GM but Billing’s knee is perfectly healthy.

        He slid because teams viewed him as a two down player. Just a run stuffer with no pass rush ability. I vehemently disagree. But I concede that these guys are more qualified to determine that than I am.

        Still, we took a defensive linemen who is a projected two down player. Soooo…

        • Greed - May 1, 2016 at 1:51 PM

          So basically Scott got value picked a DT later in the draft who can play up and down the line instead of a guy who basically is a ng to me that’s value

        • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM

          The thing about Billings, Trey, is it wasn’t just the Redskins.

          EVERY team passed on him until the Bengals used pick 122 in the 4th on him.

          There turned out to be huge difference in opinion between the writers/draftniks and the scouts and GMs with this particular player.

        • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 6:28 PM

          Again, my only gripe about Billings (and this entire draft) is that we didn’t take him in the fourth. With the 120th pick. Not about any other round. He was taken with the 122nd pick. So the “all the other teams passed” doesn’t really apply to the fourth round. We were obviously in a sweet spot to get him.

          I’m happy with how the rest of the draft went.

    • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM

      “I just want to see how many undrafted free agents come in and who gets the AX when they sign and when they get to the magic # 90.”

      That is exactly where I am. By my calculations they could sign nine UFAs and not cut anyone. Then again. Roberts is all but gone. Not sure who else on the roster might as well last until June 1. So at least one guy could get cut and then brought back after the inevitable Roberts release or just plain cut. Seems like they are full of DL but not enough OL. Then again they might just be looking for “football players.” Bottom line: NOW is when it gets interesting.

      • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 6:33 PM

        Well it seems like Oregon’s QB, Vernon Adams, will be in our camp. I see big upside there if he really dedicates himself to learning the pro style.

        I’m hoping for one or two more FA RBs. Seems like there’s potential there every year.

        Who Scot picks up after cuts could be interesting as well. This defense could be lethal if they can stay stout up the middle. Currently it’s less about the starters and more about the depth that I’m worried about.

        • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM

          I suspect that this defense is evolving into something much different than last year’s defense — maybe something more like the Cardinals amoeba defense. No Hatcher, Knighton, Robinson, and Goldson. Murphy is no longer starting at OLB and is rotating inside. Riley is a likely back-up. Culliver could start the season on the PUP list. Hall started at corner last year. I don’t even know if we will play with a nose tackle or just keep throwing guys out there. The only defensive starter that is certainly starting in the SAME position as last year is Ryan Kerrigan. Baker could still be at end. Breeland is likely to start the season as a starter.

  9. Brenton - May 1, 2016 at 12:32 PM

    Rich , This is Scott’s second draft with the team right? Not his first. Great articles as usual though. Good at breaking down the draft. I am pumped for the upcoming season!

    • Rich Tandler - May 1, 2016 at 3:13 PM

      Oops, will fix.

  10. Justin - May 1, 2016 at 12:49 PM

    I love the players McCloughan drafted. I’m still a little nervous about potential value he may have missed on due to the day 3 trades but we’re a year away from finding out the end results on the final value they get back from those picks and players they passed on in this draft by making those moves. I trust Scot’s track record enough to give him benefit of the doubt although i momentarily panicked Saturday when it all went down. Excited for this season and future McC drafts.

  11. Mr.moneylover - May 1, 2016 at 12:51 PM

    I actually think strategy was a B…because they pick the players that they had ranked high and if the other teams not picking your guys its actually smart to move back and build up draft picks for the future…they most likely will bring in the undrafted guys who never got drafted and was ranked high on they board…like Keith Marshall everybody said he was a third or fourth round pick but the redskins pick him up in the seventh round…its hard to collect extra picks when everybody know we won last year draft

  12. Mr.moneylover - May 1, 2016 at 1:00 PM

    We got one of the best scouts in the NFL with Scott Campbell…all Scott Campbell wanted was somebody to listen to him on what guys to draft

  13. jaxjoe - May 1, 2016 at 1:04 PM

    Only time will tell but I don’t grade this draft better than a C. First off Draft strategy is a D+ since we ended up with fewer picks than we started with and didn’t add anything better than a 4th next year. Quite frankly, I would’ve loved to trade with Denver like the Seahawks did and pick up an extra 3rd rounder this year. Then there’s the obvious gap in not selecting a center. Maybe the thought is that Andy Reiter can still be the center of the future? So, for matching draft picks with need is a C.

    Quality of player is questionable as well. I give it a C+ as every single player is a future pick; not a one will be a 2016 starter. I’m sure Doctson and Cravens will get some snaps this year but Doctson, who is a classic Y receiver, won’t be utilized until 2017 if and when Garcon is released. Cravens should get some time on special teams but is that worth a 2nd round? And, I haven’t heard if they view him as a SS or a LB, only that he’ll fit in the dime package. The Fuller selection has Shanahan written all over it, because of his injury, “he ‘could’ve been a higher round selection and could be considered a steal in a couple of years.” Sounds like Chase Minefield 2.0. Same argument can be said for Keith Marshall being like when we drafted Chris Thompson but at least Marshall was a 7th rounder. But the risk / reward is a lot like CT, and that took a few years to develop. Why take a pure pocket passer QB in the 6th? Is he really considered a backup to Kirk Cousins? The two are not exactly alike and we wouldn’t be able to have a similar game plan in the event Cousins goes down. I think one of the better selections is Ionnides in the 5th. Hopefully he can add 15-20 lbs and handle the nose. But it’s hard to get excited about a 5th rounder. With Trent Murphy rotating to RDE, we still have a lot of question marks on our DL – unless we are planning on our base being a 4-3 or we need to sign a FA or two.

    Yes, I like the players we took, but it’s certainly a wait-and-see as I think these players won’t start showing help for another two seasons whereas last years’ draft we got solid production out of four players. Frankly, I don’t see that happening in 2016.

    • - May 1, 2016 at 1:16 PM

      Trust me man, I get your frustration. But the Marshall pick was great. He’s the exact kind of guy you spend a 7th on. The “could have been drafted in the 3rd if not for injury” kind of guy.

      You also don’t need a carbon copy of your starting QB as a backup. First, Colt McCoy is the backup. Sudfeld is a developmental guy. A guy who could maybe take over in 3 years if something catastrophic happens with our QB situation. He could also be trade bait in a couple years or a solid career backup for us. Or he could be the next Tom Brady. You never know. But how Sudfeld compares to Cousins isn’t important.

      There have also been numerous guys who were hurt, all the time, in college then get to the NFL and stay healthy. If that’s you’re only reason for hating the pick then I would suggest just being patient and trusting the medical staff. We have the luxury to sit him the whole year if we have to. But they’re obviously sick of hearing “Washington is thin at corner,” and are trying to remedy that.

    • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 2:37 PM

      “..if and when Garcon is released.”

      Won’t get released. Not re-signed is a significant distinction with ramifications. The Redskins could get compensatory picks if their draft picks or free agents finish their respective contracts and sign elsewhere. Where as if free agents are released before the end of their contracts (Redskins traditional modus operandi), then there is no compensation.

      As for the frustration, it is pure ridiculousness. We as fans get to sample the buffet line of NFL draft pundits and pick and chose what we like from their faulty analysis as well as any combine and pro day measurables. Then we somehow know better than the NFL GMs. I don’t think so. I know having Vinny Cerato in charge (not a GM, btw) for so long is proof otherwise but guys like McC take a lot more in then the measurables and are looking for different things then the network scouts. This is why I mock the mock drafts and big boards every year.

  14. Otis - May 1, 2016 at 1:55 PM

    if Billings kept slipping to the 4th round then OBVIOUSLY the Redskins weren’t the only team with concerns about him and OBVIOUSLY those concerns were too much for Scot.

    the draft isn’t about just this year. it’s about depth and the future after your supposed sure fire hits at the top of the draft. Scot makes it a habit to draft hard working players who come in and push for playing time. Most of these players should do just that.

    I’m putting my trust in a man who helped build two teams that won consistently for years and went to a combined three Super Bowls. That’s just me though.

  15. skinsgame - May 1, 2016 at 2:04 PM

    B B Bu But… What about “Need!”? Scot gets an A for the draft because, only time can issue a true grade. His desire to add picks was made evident but he needs another team to play along. I’m sure he also desires for every selection to be a home run and no one will be surprised if a few of these players don’t work out. He drafts BPA because he’s smart enough to know that rookies are almost guaranteed to not be consistent contributors and needs are ever present. HTTR!

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 2:49 PM

      It’s not as cut and dry as you think.

      One element in weighing a BPA for every team includes need at a position. Do you see a team drafting two franchise QBs if another is available to select? This is something maybe you can’t get your head around but BPA is best available player at a collected position of need. So you may want a NT the most out of any position but maybe there is a talented OLB that can’t be ignored so you select him. That makes perfect sense when a GM knows the coaching staff will be able to get the more talented player on the field.

      At some point the ultimate goal is to assemble the best possible players on the same field. In order to achieve that a GM will at times have to select a player of lesser talent when filling the position exceeds the need of grabbing a player that may be a bit better talent. To further emphasize, in some cases a NT may be the last one on the board available that a GM would draft and he’s at a position to select him. He also has a “thumper” that plays ILB who he has rated higher but there are others on the board he could select at the same position later. It may very well be that the NT is chosen because to the GM he was the BPA based on positions of need and what remaining stock was left in the pool to acquire for the other position. So in other words the value of the BPA can come down to the availability of other players at a similar position.

      There are other mitigating factors. Do you really think every team thought Myles Jack was a 2nd rounder??? No there were probably at least 20 teams and Scot that had Myles Jack BPA but the severity of the injury hurt his value.

      Anyway, weren’t you banned?

      • skinsgame - May 1, 2016 at 5:08 PM

        “At some point, the ultimate goal is to assemble the best possible players on the same field.”
        At what point is that not the EXCLUSIVE goal of the GM? There could be instances where need might play a role but, as a rule, good teams take BPA. We could “what-if” things to no end but drafts, if done by BPA, usually look senseless and the teams are good. Carolina taking Vernon Butler is another example. Time will tell if Scot had a good day or not. He’s been a pretty good judge of talent but not flawless.

        As far as Myles Jack, I think 31 teams didn’t think he had 1st round grade because of his injury. He may end up being great but he didn’t have a “great” grade on draft day. Obviously the league is filled with players like that.

        How about you and me be mutually respectful and bury the hatchet?

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 8:36 PM

          Anyone will agree that is the exclusive goal of GM. However I wasn’t making that comment just to state the obvious. Keeping the context of BPA, sometimes that goal can come in direct contrast with selecting the BPA based on how a team has players rated. However, from a team perspective sometimes it become best to choose a player by need that makes him THEIR BPA.

          I maybe second guess Scot’s choice as the first pick but I’m not knocking it. As good as Scot may be at finding quality players, it doesn’t make him infallible.

          Going back to Dotso

  16. kenlinkins - May 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM

    IMO this was the most interesting Redskins draft in years. There is more than one place where it could blow up in the GM’s face. Pushing 3 picks into 2017, giving another team first pick of the three WR on the board, not having a 4th round pick, picking guys with injury concerns, and picking a player where the position could be just a fad just to name a few. There seemed to be some risk taking this year by the GM and I am all for that. My first reaction to the draft results is positive. Now it is time to see how all he parts come together and await the results. The only question that matters is if the Redskins roster talent level is now better. Over-all: I think it is as the rebuild moves forward. My grade is a solid B until I see some of the risk start paying off, which could be sooner that many of us Redskins fans think.

  17. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM

    I could have gone with an A as the overall grade if McCloughan had not stated multiple times that he wanted to get more picks this year.

    You don’t think maybe McGlue was just blowing smoke, Rich?

    Maybe he wanted draft picks next year and didn’t think much of the talent left from pick 120 on down.

    • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 2:49 PM

      That is exactly what I think and I love picks next year. This is how I always want my team to operate. Constantly acquire future assets that then can be used when needed instead of constantly worrying about needs. The GM seems to think that what is on the roster before the draft was good enough and that everything from the draft if for the future. What a crazy thought?

      Having said all that, I LOVE the draft but I don’t think this team improved nearly as much as the other teams in the division — initially. And when I say initially, let’s remember 2012 with how AWESOME that draft seemed getting ROY Griffin and Alf. Didn’t turn about the be sustainable due to the QB injury and the disintegration of his relationship with the guy who drafted him. This draft has zero chance at producing the same first year results as 2012 but perhaps three or four rookies that sign 2nd contracts with the team.

      • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM

        It seems to me to be the best way to fit his actions to the facts.

        If you want more draft picks in 2016, you don’t turn your 4th rounder into a 5th rounder this year and another next year. You ESPECIALLY don’t then take one of your two 5th rounders this year and turn it into a 4th rounder next year.

        You do this if you think the talent on the board isn’t worth much, and you’d rather trade it for what’s behind the door where Carol Merrill is standing (aka the 2017 draft).

        P.S. I suppose that reference is too dated for some…


      • kenlinkins - May 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM

        Also, let’s remember that those stock piled picks can be used this year if a trade is required in season if the injury bug visits again. Not having to gut the 2017 draft in order to keep a play off run alive and well may be the saving grace in Nov / Dec if the Redskins find themselves short handed at a position. Or even being able to make a trade if another team has to make a move and clear a roster space and you want that guy (not having to wait to see if you win the waiver wire lotto is a good thing if you have picks to offer). IMO those picks still might have value this year. Not spending a asset for a over priced item and keeping your net worth up is a good thing.

  18. waqgman1 - May 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM

    You said this was McCloughan’s FIRST draft class??? REALLY??? I could have sworn he was also in charge of the 2015 Draft. Rich, you’re truly starting to worry me.

  19. wncskinsfan - May 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM

    I liked this draft and agree wtih your evaluation of overall B+. I cant help but think that the 21 spot is not a good one for trade bait in any of the rounds. I really like the fact that he stock piled some for next year, I like the vision. Back to the possible first round trade, rumors were that if one was to happen it was going to be with Dallas? If that is in fact truth, I am glad he didn’t do it. I suspect they would have put a move on a QB. I migght roll with an A minus, overall. great article.

  20. Gian - May 1, 2016 at 5:02 PM

    Moving back in the 1st. If there are 2 players you value equally (2 wr’s possibly here) and you can move back for a pick it’s a net pickup and the point system is largely irrelevant.

    Trades 2&3 net out to trading this year’s 4th for a 4th next year plus a 5th this year. I’m guessing the deferred year point loss is covered by the additional pick.

    I agree that the number of aquired picks were lower than expected but they seem to be really good trades.

  21. cbckbrown - May 1, 2016 at 5:33 PM

    Listen I like SM and credit him with a lot of our turnaround the last year. HOWEVER…the 4th and 5th round debacle-if u want to let him go on not getting a dline in THE 3 previous rounds on the 2nd worst run def in the league and possibly the deepest dline class EVER-to NOT get a Sheldon Dey, Billings, Dj reader even and ALSO to not take your pick of rbs that were avail-Booker, Collins etc there were a ton avail when we had none proven. This was a good deep class and we could’ve gotton a guy of HIS CHOOSING. I’m not buying that none of these guys couldn’t have made an instant impact both this season and upcoming. So let’s keep it real

    • abanig - May 1, 2016 at 5:58 PM

      They liked Ioannidis. He was awesome at the Senior Bowl week and during the Senior Bowl game. He was basically unblockable all year.

      The skins have a good DL. Starters are:

      RDE: RJF (30-40 tackles & 3 or 4 sacks). At times he played better than Hatcher let year, especially as a pass rusher.

      NT: Baker (40-50 tackles, 5 or 6 sacks) I don’t see him getting worse this year, he’s stout and athetic. He’ll play good at DE or NT. I think this year he’ll play NT for the skins and be just as good as last year.

      LDE: Paea (30-40 tackles, 5 or 6 sacks) Paea played well last year except when he hurt his back and then we lost him for the second half of the season when he hurt his toe. Still, he was very active early in the year. The only reason he didn’t start last year is because we had Baker break out and play great and on the other side we had Hatcher at DE. I think Paea is going to have a strong year and the year we had hoped he had last year.

      They also have signed a few good players like Reyes and Hood for depth in free agency. Hood is a great run defender, Reyes has the talent to put up 5 sack season, he did as a rookie and second year player.

      Golston is a reliable run defender and has been since 06. He’s stout vs the run.

      Murphy fits better in our defense as a defensive lineman than as an OLB. I’ve thought that since we drafted him in 2014. He’s up to 276 pounds and hopes to be at least 285 by the time camp starts. Murphy won’t be great vs the run in his first year as a rotational defensive lineman – he’ll have work to do there – but he’s going to be quicker than guards. A big problem Murphy had as an OLB & edge rusher is that he didn’t have the speed to get around athetic tackles on the edge. On the inside though, he’ll be a better pass rusher.

      • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 6:51 PM

        I don’t think it’s accurate to say Washington has a “good” defensive line when they were ranked at the bottom of the league in every category, except tackling, last year.

        And just listing their names with superlatives next to them isn’t really proof they’re. You’re just projecting. Get a non-Redskins fan football expert to examine the line and they probably wouldn’t describe them as good on paper.

        What know actually know: they were bad last year. We also know that Baker played DE and that’s why he had such a good season. Put him back at NT and we lose a good DE and we gain a mediocre NT. Baker made it pretty clear he has zero interest in playing nose tackle. He actually said he doesn’t want to play it. Doesn’t seem like a super solid plan to count on him being the guy there.

        We don’t know if Murphy will be any good at DE. We don’t know that Paea stays healthy, or if any of them stay healthy, and we don’t know that Paea will play any better even if he is healthy. And we know Reyes and Hood haven’t played well in years.

        We know this unit list Hatcher and Knighton, two starters, and starter quality replacements haven’t been brought in. We don’t know if Ioannidis or any potential undrafted free agents will contribute, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to.

        Those are the facts. I’m optimistic about this defense but none of it has to do with our interior linemen. It’s all because of our OLBs, secondary, and whatever Cravens ends up playing. But our DEs and DTs are nothing to write home about. At least on paper.

        • John - May 1, 2016 at 10:17 PM

          Yes, we lost 2 starters in Knighton and Hatcher but one retired and was hurt or just as not what we thought were supposedly getting, when we signed him. The other never produced. So what did we lose? 2 starters and that’s all.

          There are guys who start but don’t make a contributions. There are guys who stand out from time to time, maybe make the pro bowl but are at the next level up (Kerrigan) and then there are the elite difference makers who are all pros (JJ Watt). We lack that elite guy. Perhaps Norman in the secondary?

          Perhaps Reyes and Hood will do better with a fresh start with different players around them, playing in roles that fit their skills. I doubt drafting Reid, Robinson or Billings would have brought us that difference maker.

        • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 12:03 PM

          @John: you kind of missed my point. Alllllll those bad things you said about Hatcher and Billings (Throw Goldson in there too since fans hated him). You think they suck or didn’t produce right? THEY WERE STILL BETTER THAN THE GUYS ON THE BENCH. They started because the other guys couldn’t outplay them.

          So we lost some bad starters (in your opinion) and we’re replacing them with worse backups. Maybe those guys step up and play better. But you can’t say this is a good line until you see it. Based off what we know, they’re not a good line.

          And we maybe don’t have that all pro sizzle. But so what? Josh Norman was absolutely first team all pro last year, we will see this year. Kerrigan and Gallette together are maybe more valuable than one Justin Houston or JJ Watt. And we’re going to see how Smith keeps developing. Breeland has the potential to be the next Josh Norman.

          Of course there’s not guarantee Rankins, Reed, or Billings improved our line. There’s no garantee Jalen Ramsey doesn’t bust. Look at Clowney. But I would put my money on any three of them as our DT over the current roster.

          I love out edge rushers and it seems out secondary is about to be very good (can’t ever know until they play). But the interior line might but be good and we don’t have strong ILBs or safties to help them. Scot is building a different kind of defense. I like where he’s going, but that plan doesn’t seem to include a “good” defensive line. It’s all about the edges

        • abanig - May 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM

          Baker doesn’t decide where he plays, the coaches do. If they need him at NT then he’ll post there. We want our 3 best DL on the field as starters and that’s Baker, Paea & RJF or Reyes.

          The problem with the redskins last year was precisely tackling so, I disagree with you there also.

          The players who aren’t on the skins d this year that were on it last year are the ones who missed a lot of tackles or were out if position more often than not; Kighton,

        • Trey Gregory - May 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM

          Well Washington finished #2 in the league in tackling: the only defensive category where they were in the top half of the league. And the team’s leading tackler was Goldson (71), by a WIDE margin. Keenan Robinson (36) was also fourth on the team. So it’s a little hard to take you serious.

          And my point about Baker was that he excelled at DE, and wasn’t great at NT. Then he doesn’t want to play NT. So it might not be a receipe for success to put him there. You can stomp your foot and make stern statements about who decides where who plays all day but that doesn’t mean Baker is going to give as much effort. Even if it’s just on a subconscious level, people who are happy tend to perform better than those who aren’t.

          It’s the basic leader vs. manager. Having a manager who just barks orders leads to disgruntled employees, who don’t perform as well, then their negativity rubs off on other employees. It’s, literally, orgazionational behavior 101 in business school.

          Why do you think McCloughan just said they’re talking to Cravens about where he WANTS to play? Happy players = better locker room and probably more effort on the field. So why take a blossoming star at DE and move him to NT against his will? A position he was never very good at? Because coaches coach and …… it’s stupid.

        • abanig - May 4, 2016 at 12:19 PM

          That’s because they were on the field so much because they weren’t good at tackling and getting off the field early in drives.

          Their “tackling efficiency” was lousy. Goldson for the 3rd year in a row was one of the league leaders in missed tackles, same with Keenan Robinson. Trenton Robinson also missed a lot of tackles.

        • abanig - May 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM

          … Kennan Robinson & Goldson.

        • Trey Gregory - May 4, 2016 at 12:20 PM

          Keenan Robinson played a lot? Really?

        • Trey Gregory - May 4, 2016 at 2:20 PM

          Ok. I probably went out of my way to try and prove a point that doesn’t need to be pushed so hard. I like RJF, Paea, and Baker. I’m cautiously optimistic about Reyes and Murphy. I don’t have any expectations of Hood. I too was frustrated with the tackling last year. And the only guy I think they might miss is Knighton ONLY because they might have to play Baker at NT when they would prefer him at DE. But we will see how Golston and Ioannidis shake out. I’m also cautiously optimistic about Ioannidis, but I think it’s a little unrealistic to expect him to be a good starting NT in year one. Our OLBs are monsters, but we don’t exactly have stud ILBs to reinforce the guys with their hands in the dirt.

          I was just trying to say it’s premature to call this line good. We can look at their value, on paper, all day but that doesn’t mean they’re going to play well.

          The most recent time we saw them play, they weren’t good. Excuses aside, they weren’t good. Maybe they will get better. They should get better. But we did this last year too. We looked at a list of names and decided this would be a good/great line. It obviously didn’t work out that way. And I’m not sure they got better in the offseason. So, while there’s no reason they can’t play better this year, they need to actually do it before we call them good.

    • bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 7:52 PM

      Let’s put a pin in it and take notice come September through December. Unless you’ve got a scouting department working for you, you’re complaining based on the subjective opinions of NFL outsiders that are no longer qualified to run an NFL team at best (Bill Polian and Gil Brandt) or a bunch of nerds that think they know NFL talent at worst (Mel Kiper and Todd McShay). The whole lot of NFL draft pundits are — at best — able to give the masses a generic scale of talent. This doesn’t take into consideration a team’s particular scheme, philosophy, or fit for a player. It also doesn’t consider how a certain team views drug use, injury, character, or passion for the game. Yet, every draft season fans feel they know better. For YEARS we had monkeys making the personnel decisions and fans — by and large — did know better. However, it hasn’t been that way for SEVEN years.

      Last year, I was positively certain that Scot McCloughan wasn’t going to be the first GM in modern NFL history to deliberately draft a RT or a G in the top five picks of the draft. I was convinced, if he liked Scherff, he’d trade back a little — especially when Leonard Williams was on board. Nope. Rich is spot on that McC doesn’t give a rip if anyone questions his picks. He’s going to pick whomever he wants or acquire assets for the team.

  22. abanig - May 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM


    “Another Tulane player is headed to the #NFL as RB Rob Kelley confirms he is a Washington” via @youtube Skins UDFA Rob Kelley, RB, Tulane

    Skins UDFA Reggie Diggs, WR, Richmond is on this list. He’s 6’4, 200 pounds.

    Also, Ejiro Ederaine, OLB, Fresno State is on this list.

    Reggie Diggs, WR, Richmond

    “Although Diggs (6-4, 200) contributed during his first two years on campus, he exploded onto the scene in his first year as a full-time starter in 2014, garnering second-team All-Colonial Athletic Association honors with 85 catches for 1,157 yards and seven touchdowns. Even if he doesn’t get much separation from his man downfield, his height and jumping ability allow him to go up top to snag the pass. If he uses his frame to beat corners down the sideline again this season and performs well during an all-star game in January, he should earn the respect of coaches and scouts alike.”

    Ejiro Ederaine, OLB, Fresno State

    “Injuries to both shoulders limited Ederaine in 2014, yet he still managed to start all 14 games, making 64 tackles (12.5 for loss). An excellent athlete with NFL size (6-3, 234), Ederaine moves well in coverage, stands strong against the run and also attacks the quarterback when healthy (10 sacks in a second-team All-Mountain West 2013 season). However, if teams aren’t comfortable with his medical situation, he might be relegated to a later pick than his talent indicates.”

    Fresno State OLB Ejiro Ederaine has hopes to get drafted. 6’2, 242 pounds via @MWCConnection

    “Strengths: The obvious is that he gets to the quarterback and behind the line of scrimmage by racking up 99 tackles with 16.5 for a loss, two passes batted, two interceptions, one forced fumble and nine sacks on the year. He was a two-time second team all-Mountain West player but his numbers and accolades are over looked as Fresno State has not been great the past few years. His overall production is enough for Ederaine to get a look late in the draft or an undrafted free agent.”

    UDFA Michael Cooper, TE, Indiana. Looks like a good blocker & receiver. 2016 Highlights via @YouTube

    UDFA Travis Greene Highlights RB, Bowling Green. Looks like a quick scat back. via @YouTube

    UDFA Reggie Diggs Highlights. WR, Ricmond. via @YouTube

    UDFA Geno Matias-Smith, S, Alabama. Looks like a project safety. Good filling vs the run from the FS position but doesn’t have much range. via @YouTube

  23. renhoekk2 - May 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM

    Again I’ll make the point that teams are in nickel and dime packages 75% of the time in today’s NFL. That is just a fact. So using a high draft pick or FA money on a NT who plays 15 snaps a game is not good value. That’s about what a long snapper plays. Finding Ioannidis in the 5th who is a run stuffing DT but can kick out to DE if needed is better value than taking DL in the 3rd or 4th or earlier. Cravens, Fuller, and Doctson will all see more playing time than Knighton or some draft pick would playing NT. Having Cravens in certain packages instead of a CB will help in stopping the run when teams try run out of spread formations as well. That is not even taking into account Daniels in the 7th who looks like a run stuffing beast all by himself.

    • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 6:39 PM

      I think the argument was that he should have used the 4th on the NT, who may also be able to play in nickel, or a RB. Not that he should have taken a NT higher.

    • Chris - May 1, 2016 at 8:20 PM

      Did you guys watch the last playoff game of the scans we didn’t lose because of nose tackle

  24. Richard Farrell - May 1, 2016 at 7:19 PM

    I think it was a great draft and wait until we see Junor and Trent our there at DE and LB. Vernon with Jordan, cmon man it’s going to be crazy. You know Coach wants to spread it around on offense.

  25. hail74 - May 1, 2016 at 7:40 PM

    I’ll give them a solid B. I made the mistake off wanting certain players, none of whom we took. I also kept thinking that this was going to be the round Scot took billings and would look like a genius. However, he took guys with attributes he likes and will probably landed 4 guys that could be solid starters in a year or two. I also think Scot watched his defense get stuck on the field against GB and decided he needed more versatile athletes.

    • Trey Gregory - May 1, 2016 at 8:06 PM

      You know I’ve been saying so many negative things in this comment section that I probably should say Doctson is exactly who I wanted in the first.

      It was Billings forever. But after the Norman signing and after some people talked me into believing Billings, or a solid DT, would be available in the second I started to want Doctson in the first.

      It blew my mind because I’ve never gotten the exact player Inwas thinking/wanting in any round. So that was pretty cool. I’m beyond excited about that pick.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 10:13 PM

        I’m pretty open to stating Doctson is not the best choice at 22. I think we should have chosen a defensive lineman. However, I prefer being wrong if it puts a winner one the field

  26. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 1, 2016 at 8:17 PM


  27. bangkokben - May 1, 2016 at 8:21 PM

    Su’a Cravens may have a Meast Infection as he apparently will wear #36 in honor of Sean Taylor. Cravens is being listed as a safety.

    Breeland, Hall, Cravens, Norman is a much better defensive backfield.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 9:58 PM

      Dime Linebacker not SS

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 7:44 AM

        He’s been given a safety’s number. Just reporting. Doesn’t mean he won’t play linebacker but everyone has to get a number for the position they play. He’s getting a DB’s number.

  28. John - May 1, 2016 at 8:54 PM

    They did not fall for the “we need a DLineman or Linebacker” in the early rounds because the kind of guy they wanted, someone dangerous in the mold of JJ Watt was not there. They passed on Billings probably because from who you listened to, the talent evaluators either loved him or hated him. There was no in between, unless your name is Trey. They dropped hints that they were not hurting for a fulltime nose. They said plenty of times that they are in base 25% of the time because of the way the teams they face operate, throwing it more, spacing things out to help the run game, etc. The kid from Temple in the 5th can do that rotating with Baker and Golston. Most of the time they are forced to run in nickel or dime with a 4 man front, hence the kid from USC. Both Jackson are due for free agency next year and assuming they have big years will demand big $. So we draft insurance with the best receiver in the draft. Fuller fits the scheme but is coming off a knee. He’ll somehow have a years vacation, stashed on IR. From most reports he was a 2nd rounder. Marshall as one of the fastest, running a 4.31 and he’s not small like Thompson. To bad he was behind Gurley and Chubb and injured in college (to bad for the other teams that is). The other kids, the one from BC is tough and built to play the run. Notice all those guys had to work for it. Nothing was handed to them. Money is probably not going to make these guys relax.

    I’d give them a B.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 10:02 PM

      John, the kid you are talking about is a 3-4 DE not NT. He’ll need at least one season to even think he can step into a NT spot

      • John - May 2, 2016 at 1:29 AM

        As mentioned before, he’s not going to be playing much to begin with. They’ll be mixing and matching with the various defensive packages. As it is they hardly find themselves needing a true nose because of the way the opposing offenses run. The vast majority of the time they’ll be running in nickel with 4 down or some other combo.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 1, 2016 at 10:09 PM

      I agree with your grade but I’m not sure you nailed down the roles of these draft picks accurately. Most won’t make any real contribution this year

  29. redskinscaio - May 2, 2016 at 12:17 AM

    Reality check. The Redskins’ middle linebackers were pretty bad last year compared to the rest of the league.

    To make things worse, our best linebacker, Keenan Robinson, who started last year, got signed by the Giants.

    Why is no one talking about this!? The middle linebacker! The quarterback of the defense. The most important position besides the quarterback! Hello, wake up everyone! Keenan is gone, and in his place is a 7th round draft pick.

    Why didn’t they take Ragland? Ragland was the best projected middle linebacker, this according to all the major news sources. Instead they draft a wide receiver?! Why draft a wide receiver when you already have Jackson, Garcon and Crowder but you don’t have a middle linebacker!? In other words, they should have drafted one of the best middle linebackers out of college this year. Are you really telling me, that there wasn’t a single middle linebacker worthy to be a good player in the NFL? That is hard to fathom. Really? A wide receiver in the first?! We have three great wide receivers. We have zero great middle linebackers. And in case you are new to my comments, I was the guy screaming for the Skins to draft Sherff in the first round last year and I was completely 100% right when they did. So don’t come and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    To summarize, the Skins picked a wide receiver, even though they have 3 pretty good starters already on the roster, and they have one of the worst starting middle linebackers in the league. Who is going to start, Compton? OMG Yes, I understand that Garcons and Jackson will be free agents NEXT year, but who is going to play middle linebacker this year? The average middle linebacker gets over 100 tackles a year. Who is going to call the plays? Who is going to go audible for audible against Tom Brady? Tony Romo? Yea, we are f*&^@ ed

    • John - May 2, 2016 at 1:34 AM

      Robinson won’t play with pain. He has physical talent but he was not all that good last year. They were much better with Compton and Foster. They just could not cover anyone in the Green Bay playoff game. Drafting Ragland would not fix that. Also Ragland benefitted from playing with Reid and Robinson.

    • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM

      Well a couple things:

      1) Keenan Robins was NOT our best ILB last year. I was in love with the guy after 2014 but it’s time to face reality: that was a one year anomaly. He was bad in 2015 and was benched for the guys you’re complaint about.

      2) You’re greatly overstating the importance of ILBs. “Quarterback of the defense” is a great catchphrase and all: doesn’t make it true. It’s not 1970 anymore man. Things change. Positions have a value scale attached to them (and the easiest way to figure that out is to look at the franchise tag money for each position). If this was still run first league, then a big run-stuffing ILB like Ragland would be valuable. But it’s a pass first league now. ILB is the single lest valuable position on defense, followed by safety. It’s all about passing the rusher and shutting down the receivers.

      There’s some Hybrid Kam Chancelor guys out there who are really safties/ILBs who fit that bill. But Ragland isn’t that. Obviously an extremely talented ILB like Kuechly is a game changer. But the position as a whole, just like RBs, isn’t as important as it used to be. Especially with teams being in nickel formations so often.

      3) I have no idea what they’re going to do with Cravens. But it wouldn’t shock me if they tried him at ILB to be that hybrid who stays on field in nickel.

      4) Yes, Compton and Foster will probably start. They actually played pretty well together once they got going. Not elite, but not terrible. I’m comfortable with them starting.

      5) Who knows? Maybe Spaight will be ready to contribute some this year. Also, Who knows? Maybe Daniels is a gem. This year’s Jarrett and will contribute. Just give it time to either work or fail before you say our ILB situation is garbage. It’s all going to be okay man. There were some weird moments in this draft (all around) but I think Washington did very well overall.

    • Fred - May 2, 2016 at 4:33 AM

      Three “great” receivers? What you smoking? Hasn’t been three great ones since the posse!

  30. pyroman99 - May 2, 2016 at 12:44 AM

    Late to the party here (as usual). But the thing that stands out to me is that, by all accounts, all the guys we drafted worked their tails off in college to get where they are. This speaks well IF (and a big IF) the coaches and veterans can teach them what they need to know to be contributors – they’ll do the work. NO draftees, with very few exceptions, are ready to step in on Day 1 – they’re all raw material who have to learn how to fit into schemes and refine their talent. So, let’s check back in a few years and see how many are still on the Skins roster, or the NFL as a whole.

    • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 1:59 AM

      Which is a fair, good, and generally true point.

      I do, however, believe Doctson can contribute day 1. And the trend of recent rookie WRs breaking out should give us reason to be optimistic about that. I believe we did get the best WR in the draft (as far as projecting prospects goes). I think some of the other guys will be very good, but I like Doctson and how hefits our team.

      I think Doctson has AJ Green type potential. A true stud receiver and I think he can start now. He’s slightly shorter than Green but his athleticism, ball tracking ability, hands, toughness and wingspan put him in that mold to me. Doctson was a bit thin in college but he will gain weight if he hasn’t already (did you guys see the pic of him standing next to Cravens and fuller? Doctson is taller but looked thicker than the 226 LB linebacker standing next to him).

      The beauty is we don’t HAVE to start him right away. We can allow him to take a limited role and develop him even more. One of our starters is bound to gown at lest one game (probably Desean) and we will still have a guy defenses must account for. That’s a great luxury. I just hope they don’t risk injuring him on ST. Let Ross fall on that sword.

      I get your point about all rookies being raw, it’s true, but I think Doctson is further along.

      And if Ioannidis can somehow start at NT at any point this year, then wow, I like our chances to be very competitive again.

  31. darren - May 2, 2016 at 8:26 PM

    Billings obviously wasnt what scott wanted for th who want him. He dropped that far for a reason. Scott git a bettet one in ionnitis. Its more than D line that stops the run!! Daniels and craven will help alot!

    • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 8:33 PM

      You’re completely correct that it’s not just the Dline who stops the run. But that still makes me nervous. I’m a big fan of stout lines on both sides of the ball. So this is hard for me. I can see the plan and I can see how it could work. I just love those immovable forces in the trenches. I’m just putting a lot of faith in McCloughan in this one.

      Also hoping that Ioannidis can add some weight and be the man at NT right away. Because, if he can be even average, this defense could be scary. I like the pick, I’m just hoping he comes along sooner than later. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter