Skip to content

Need to Know: Needs are low on McCloughan’s list of draft considerations

May 2, 2016, 5:08 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Monday, May 2, 11 days before the Washington Redskins hold their rookie minicamp.


—The Redskins last played a game 113 days ago. It will be 133 days until they host the Steelers in their 2016 season opener.

Days until: Rookie minicamp 11; OTAs start 22; Redskins training camp starts 87

Hot topic

I know that Scot McCloughan could talk about taking the best available player and not drafting for need from now until the cows come home and many of you won’t believe him. But maybe some of you will after reading this.

I have heard from some people I consider to be reliable and have read from some media types that the Redskins’ top target in this draft was Alabama center Ryan Kelly. If he had been there when pick No. 21 came up McCloughan would have turned in a card with his name on it.

To be clear, I’m not quoting a sourced report here or anything like that. I’ve seen and heard it from enough reliable people to believe it but I certainly understand if others are skeptical.

But let’s assume that it’s true. Most would figure that if he was going to draft a center in the first round he must have considered center to be a position of need.

If it is a position of need, however, you would think that the Redskins would draft a center somewhere along the line. But they didn’t draft a center in the second round. Or the third. Or the—, well, you get the idea. Six centers went in the draft and none went to the Redskins. Jack Allen of Michigan State, a center who could well have gone in the middle or later rounds, went undrafted but the Redskins did not bring him in as a free agent. They didn’t draft a guard they might convert to center either.

In fact, if you go back to free agency, McCloughan didn’t sign a center then, either.

McCloughan didn’t want just any center; he wanted Ryan Kelly on the team. As the draft went on he tried to find players that had the same traits that Kelly has—toughness, leadership, dedication—whether or not he played center.

Again, the Kelly report seems accurate but you can take it however you’d like. If you want more evidence that needs don’t mean a whole lot to McCloughan, however, you need to look no further than taking cornerback Kendall Fuller in the third round a week to the day after signing Josh Norman to a huge free agent contract. Few believed him when he said that he wouldn’t hesitate to draft another corner and those who took him at his word figured he might take a developmental guy in the sixth round, not take one in the second day.

We will see how this works out. Until the Redskins become consistent contenders to go deep into the playoffs it’s fair to question McCloughan’s methods. But don’t doubt that he doesn’t care about the conventional wisdom and that he will do things his way as long as he is in charge.

In case you missed it 

139 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. chad - May 2, 2016 at 6:22 AM

    You know mr. tandler, I remember hearing similar things last year. I must admit u was like crowder who? Preston smith?? espn even question a few of the picks. looking back a year later Scott has proven he knows way more then any of us or espn. i learned after last year i may question the pick, but I know and trust a gm who’s done it forever knows more then ANY of us at home.
    nice article, as we’ll as the similar one you wrote few days ago. Scott don’t give a dam what you,I,espn,Mel kiper…etc…

    • chad - May 2, 2016 at 6:23 AM

      ops, typo. suppose to say I was like Crowder who…

      • chrisswitzer2189 - May 2, 2016 at 6:34 AM

        Crowder was an absolute stud in college. I went to the VT at Duke game that year and crowder would beat fuller on inside routes but fuller was lockdown on the outside. Jarrett to me was the best DB VT had when it came to an all around DB

  2. rlundy1123 - May 2, 2016 at 6:28 AM

    Rich, this was a great article–thanks for offering a look into McCloughan’s brain. Your explanation made a lot of sense, although I’m sure that a lot of folks still won’t get it.

    I am a little confused about why he traded a pick away rather than taking Billings. Maybe I’m still stuck in “drafting for need” mode, but Billings seemed like a home run for now and the future. Clearly McCloughan was not the only GM who wasn’t interested in him. Do you have any sense of why that is the case? Was his injury worse than reported, or was there some other issue?

    • ericstylezz - May 2, 2016 at 8:18 AM

      Yea I was cool wit everything until that move… Still feel like we got a bunch of steals though

      • coolestfrood - May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM

        I was disappointed as well when we passed on Andrew Billing, but I will be first in line to give McCloughan credit if Matt Ioannidis ends up being a comparable player on the field and also a leader in the locker room.

    • sidepull - May 2, 2016 at 11:00 AM

      Funny I was not upset that they did not take Biillings in any round and even with him sittiing there in the 4th, I was hoping for a different 4th rounder just that was just sitting there, RB Booker. I swear the non pick in the 4th was what got me more than anything. I like the RB they took but is he better than Booker? That one got me a bit.

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 11:24 AM

        I seem to be in the minority in this or the “silent majority.” Who knows? I love the trading the pick for more assets — two picks for one pick. I appears to me that no one suited McC’s fancy at that spot. And cue Allen Iverson: “We’re talking about the 120th pick. The 120th pick! The 4th round. The 4th round.”

        • jonevans511 - May 2, 2016 at 6:50 PM

          Could not agree more, ben. Scot has set us up for 2017 with 10 (i think, from memory) picks, and not just saturday picks but at least a couple extra 3rd rounders. This means, once the already young team has another season to gel and improve, we’ll be bringing in a whole new stable of “football players” who will add value.

          I’d be absolutely lying to say I didn’t want Billings at some point in the draft, but when I saw we grabbed Ioannidis I immediately stopped complaining. I’ve said this several times in several comment boards but I’ve watched Matt grow from a small, somewhat awkward freshman to a powerhouse senior at Temple and there was one consistent trait throughout- dude NEVER took ANY plays off, and EVERY time the Owls made a big defensive play at or behind the line of scrimmage you would see Matt in the middle of it. He’s going to add some weight and move all along the DL. Billings would have been a solid contributor too, I have little doubt, but Matt fits what we need in terms of versatility. Until he proves otherwise he’s going to be our defensive line swiss army knife, and I couldn’t be happier for him and and us.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM


          It’s nine picks I believe. We gave one up for something last season.

        • bangkokben - May 3, 2016 at 4:23 PM

          Right — Derrick Carrier (5th)

      • skins1970 - May 2, 2016 at 12:24 PM

        Yes Keith Marshall when he is healthy is better then Booker,

    • ET - May 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM

      Trading out of the 4th was the one major misstep, IMO. We don’t need to fixate only on Billings, Billings, Billings—there were some good value players still there for the taking, including prospects at C, DL, FS, RB. That particular move I don’t get, but overall I’m pretty stoked about the incoming draftees.

    • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 12:39 PM

      I can tell you, with absolute confidence, that injury had nothing to do with Billings’ slide. As in, I’m referencing more than what I’ve heard in the media. He slid because teams considered him a two down player i.e., only a run stuffer and not a pass rusher. Pass rushers have more value than run stuffers in a passing league. This is going to become more and more common as the NFL evolves.

      Now, Ioannidis isn’t known as a pass rusher either. But McCloughan spent a 5th, and ultimately gained a 2017 fourth, by taking him. Ioannidis also has more versatility coming out of college.

      I think both players could be very good. I also think they have he potential to shed that “two down” player stigma. But only time will tell. Cinci got a good prospect in the 4th and Washington got a good prospect in the 5th. That’s what it boils down to man. It was a good draft and we should be celebrating that.

      • jonevans511 - May 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM

        Just for the record, Matt “isn’t known as a pass rusher” isn’t quite accurate. The way coach Rhule used him at Temple just so happened to require him wreaking havoc so that other players could bull rush the QB, but don’t get it twisted- any time his number was called to get to the QB he did so and did so quickly. If you go back and watch film from the Temple-Penn St. game in 2015, you’ll see a kid determined to make Hackenburg poop in his pants every single play. Now is Matt a bonafide pass rush specialist? Not at all, or he’d have been taken Thursday/Friday. But you will see his ability very quickly and if he gains weight while keeping his explosiveness you’ll get a pleasant surprise watching him work his tail off.

        • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM

          I appreciate the insight from a fan who actually watched the guy play throughout his career. The statement I made was strictly based off the scouting reports available through ESPN,, etc., etc. I haven’t watched this guy take a single snap.

          They did make a point to say he his role was to fill gaps at Temple, not shoot them. But they also questioned his ability to do so against NFL level competition.

          I’m excited for this guy’s career man. Please don’t get me wrong. He seems like my kind of player. I was simply drawing a comparison to how similar people speak of him and Billings, but Billing was ranked higher. After watching every snap Billings took in college, I think he has pass rush ability too. Probably the same way you feel about Ioannidis. That was all.

          I’m happy with the draft. I just needed my moment to pout. I’m ready to move on.

  3. colorofmyskinz - May 2, 2016 at 6:32 AM

    Very nice chunk of data to prove his methods. I am a believer in Scot. So glad Snyder turned the reigns over to Allen and Scot. We are so much better. We could be barreling down the direction Dallas is otherwise. Thank god Snyder found humility. Kudos to him for doing so!

    The more I research the more I realize each of these picks had a purpose. A cultural fit but also a positional and contractual fit. These were critical to stave off disaster in the future.

    The Fuller pick was a hedge against Cullivers contract and recovery. The Donston pick a hedge against the contracting of Garcon and DJax. The Sudfeld pick a hedge against Cousins contract.

    Then nice conversion of Su’a to Safety! Conversion of Ioannidis to NT concept. The ILB and RB were need.

    Great draft to stabilize the future excited to see the production of these fine men!!


    • chrisswitzer2189 - May 2, 2016 at 6:49 AM

      Sudfeld pick is more of a develop him to be the back up and then hope he plays good enough in the preseason that someone trades for him. Culliver and Andre Roberts will both get cut. I’m not buying the whole let’s move culliver to safety. We already paid a safety starter money and we can duke coming back and will Blackmon. Billings health is probably a question and maybe his work ethic and/or character is too but us fans will never know that. Plus, I think Scott wanted to get a 5th rd pick back since he lost one in the trade with the 49ers last season. I think they didn’t want to waste a pick on a center unless it was Ryan Kelly because they like spencer long and they probably want to give him a chance to compete for the job. Fans get caught up in mock drafts and all that stuff. I’m kinda like Scott in the sense of I rather have a less talented player that is smart, tough and has a high motor over a talented guy that doesn’t give full effort. So, I get the 5th rd DT and 7th rd ILB. Even the kid from FSU we got as an UDFA. Those are the culture players the guys that fight every day to stay on the roster and improve, the special team stud, that third string player that will play 2-3 positions. Those are the guys that can push an average team to a playoff team.

    • rlundy1123 - May 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM

      I’m glad to hear someone giving Snyder a little credit for learning from his mistakes. I’ve not been a big Snyder fan over the years, but it is important to give credit when it is due.

    • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 5:47 PM

      Redskins release Culliver today. The writing was on the wall after Norman and drafting Fuller. Getting younger, cheaper and hopefully more talented. Who said we were singing Cousins within a fortnight of the draft? I owe you a beer, looks like it might just happen.

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM

        I said that, but now with what both McC and Cousins said on the radio today along with the savings made by cuttng Cully, I’m considering to do the backstroke. The savings necessary to extend Reed has been made.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 6:30 PM

          Putting on my rag tag GM hat wouldn’t it be better to lock Cousins up now and try to see what we can do for Reed in the off season, maybe tag him? TE tag is a lot cheaper than QB. Don’t back off it, I think it’s really going to get done. I also didn’t hear this interview so…

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 6:46 PM

          In my mind, yes. Avoiding the tag for Reed is good idea as well. Say Reed should get paid $10,000,000 a year which is right around the tag. If you extend him, you can pay him $5,000,000 this year and $5,000,000 next year increasing his cap hit this year, keeping his cap hit half the tag next year, and funneling in chunks of the signing bonus in these first two years giving the team exit ramps later on.

      • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 7:03 PM

        I don’t think the Culliver cut and Cousins contract are related at all. Washington already has 20 mil on the books for Cousins. That’s the money they would use in 2017 if they sign him. And, if anything, a long-term deal should lessen that cap hit in the contract’s first year and actually free up money. That’s generally how those contracts work. Not always though.

        I think it’s best to avoid tagging any player if he’s important to the long-term plans of the team. Get Reed that contract now, keep him happy, and let’s not risk him walking in 2018. But yes, technically, if I had to choose I would sign Cousins and Tag Reed because the TE tag is more reasonable and what Reed should be making.

        I don’t see any reason why both Reed and Cousins can’t get deals done before the season starts though. There’s no need to overthink this. Either both sides want to, or at least one side doesn’t. But there’s nothing cap related holding them back.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 7:23 PM

          I’m reading it more like, the deal hasn’t been done because Cousins wants more money. Now contract TERMS, I understand. The accounting and scheduling of payments, CAP SPEAK, not my strong suit. That said, the skins number was 16M (does that include the bonuses or is that additional?) anything south of 20M we could cover. If they wanted to give him the big, slightly over reasonable, money contract they have a little bit more room. We still don’t know what Cousins’ number is but it’s probably in the 18-19M range (again I’m not sure if the guarantees and/or bonuses are included or tacked on). Couldn’t it be possible that the draft plus the 20 UDFA’s sucked up the rest of the cap and by cutting Culliver we have enough room to really secure the guy?

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 7:39 PM

          Cousins has until July 15 then he can’t sign a Redskin contract until the season is over. (Franchise tag rules.) Reed can sign at any time.


          Those numbers are Average Per Year (APY) which include bonuses. Cousins camp apparently wants $20M APY. Osweiler just got $18M APY and that is why there is this pickle. Cousins clearly has outperformed Oz and has a larger sample size but not really enough sample size for that money. I would think that $18.1M or $19M would get it done. Again that is the AVERAGE so usually the cap starts out less than that and then reaches that in year three of a five year deal.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 5, 2016 at 4:35 PM

          You called it good job.

        • Trey Gregory - May 5, 2016 at 9:42 PM

          It’s great man. I think we’ve had a lot of reasons to celebrate and be optimistic over the last couple weeks.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 5, 2016 at 10:15 PM

          Hail yeah! Reed taking care of his body in the offseason will be key. I totally forgot we even picked up Vernon Davis. Kirk has almost no excuse. We’re getting better on both side of the ball and hopefully all three phases of the game.

  4. Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 6:49 AM

    He’s also drafting for leverage against expensive players though. He can deny that till he’s blue in the face, but it’s quite obvious. Smart too, but obvious. For example you are not selling me on Nate Sudfeld as BPA. Not in a million years. He was drafted because they were always going to draft a dev QB in this draft, after Robert’s departure. My highly accurate pre draft mock was 1: Kelly, 2: BPA/leverage/character/being a “fooppallplayer”, 3: Dev QB. And they did exactly what I thought they would do, except for trading out of the fourth for scant rewards. Not because Billings was there but because the BPA in this year’s fourth should have a shot at being higher value than an extra fifth. I am still trying to understand why they did it.

    • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 6:55 AM

      Oh and not to mention that Doctson is obvious leverage against the impending contracts of Garcon and Jackson. It’s smart and you needed to do it, but if it wasn;t for those contracts I’m not so sure they’d have gone WR in the first. Doctson is good, but he’s not that good.

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 9:34 AM

        Just like the word this year was that Kelly was the pick; last year it was Amari Cooper.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM

          That’s true. But Kelly is the most complete center to appear in the draft in years. Cooper was not at that level at his position, even though he is obviously good.
          The difference between Cooper and Doctson at WR is much smaller than the difference between Kelly and whatever centers are likely to float along next year. So that’s why he was a player you take if he’s there. Which he wasn’t.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM

          Cooper was every bit of that AND the difference from having the best center in the league to having the 20th best is so much more narrow than having the best WR and the 20th best. Having said all that, I’m not suggesting a center will be drafted next year but wouldn’t rule it out if Long can’t become the best center on the team this year. I think the prospect of drafting a center for next season in this year’s draft didn’t suit well for the GM. He may have had his eyes on other centers in the 2nd and 3rd but they too were taken.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM

          We disagree a bit on Cooper then. He was 20th in the league last year, which is good for a rookie obviously. But if Kelly is what he is projected to be he is a budding top 5 center, who has been compared favorably to Travis Frederick. They don’t come along all that often, but there is someone more or less like Cooper in every draft.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM

          Not this draft. More or less like Cooper is getting picked in the top five. That’s Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Justin Blackmon, and Sammy Watkins in the past ten years. Comparatively its Alex Mack and the two Pouncey brothers — you might be able to add Nick Manigold and Travis Fredrick to that list but both of those were taken after the 21st pick. So in other words. The ‘skins had a 40% chance at landing Kelly.

      • Brandon - May 2, 2016 at 10:36 AM

        Doctson was rated a 1st round pick by everyone I read and as the top WR in the draft by a lot of them. And obviously McCloughan thinks he was good enough. Besides, when has McCloughan – or any GM tor that matter – denied that long term planning is part of the job. It’s pretty much known by everyone that GM’s have to look ahead. I’m sure I’m not the only one who predicted a WR would get drafted early for that very reason. It really seems like you’re just looking for something to complain about.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM

          Sure. But what is the point of pretending that anyone ever has drafted BPA exclusively then? It is quite obviously not the case with anyone, and it’s not the case with Scot now. Lots of things go into the draft and BPA is just a part of it.

        • ET - May 2, 2016 at 11:40 AM

          “Lots of things go into the draft and BPA is just a part of it.”


          But BPA doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it’s informed by other variables. No GM can afford to ignore all the other variables (age, positional depth, scheme, philosophy, short v. long term, health, payroll, etc.) and select players based on “pure” BPA. So I’d argue that in practice, BPA is influenced and/or distorted by all those other factors. As it should be.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM


          I completely agree about there being variables that are part of the calculation. But, don’t you think that 95% of these variables have already been weighed and measured in creating the team’s board before draft day. Then there is the wonky La’el Collins thing and Laremy Tunsil thing that comes up on the day of the draft and perhaps some supply and demand reads that may affect the board?

          Isn’t the argument really: Did the Redskins stick to their board? If that is the question, I think they did. I, seriously don’t understand how some here — not you — can’t marry BPA with stick to their board but instead take the fallible gospel of the draft pundits like they are some mindless sparrows following the Faith of the Seven.

        • ET - May 2, 2016 at 12:52 PM

          Ben, yeah, I think that most (perhaps all) of the variables have been factored in to the Big Board. And if the question is whether Scot & Co. stuck to their board, I’d say yes as well—with the caveat that they may like future pick gathering more than players X and Y in the present day. Hey, that’s part of the overall strategy as well, so as long as it continues to pay dividends, I’m onboard.

    • colorofmyskinz - May 2, 2016 at 7:47 AM

      I think it is a combo of both. I think it’s more about following their draft board versus BPA but it’s all taken into consideration to do the best for the future of the organization in my opinion.

    • Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 8:09 AM

      I think automatically boots out Andre Roberts and if rashad ross don’t improve from year 1 to year too he will be gone too..josh doctson and LaRon Byrd could lead to them cutting Ryan grant too…the head coach likes everybody until the summer time hits and they get on that field…scot m. Will find away to keep them both if they ball out this year… And from the videos I seen of djax that boy still got it that boy speed is back he wasnt fully healthy after that hamstring injury

      • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM

        Roberts is gonezo and he has been since he blamed the sun for dropping a ball last year. Wear a visor and stop dropping easy balls you jerk! I sort of like Ross and Grant though, but they probably really need to step it up a notch this year.

    • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 12:47 PM

      @Skulb: I don’t have time to catch up with the rest of this conversation yet. I just wanted to say I basically agree with everything you said in your first post. You could even argue that Fuller is insurance for Breeland depending on how much he wants to get paid when his rookie contract is up.

      But I disagree with your assessment of Doctson. I think the guy is a beast. This is going to sound like a self brag, that’s not how I mean it: but I called Doctson in the first 5 days before the draft on Twitter. The more I thought about it (because of the leverage or both Garcon/Jackson being gone in 2017) the more it made sense. I’m pretty sure that had something to do with his pick. But I think he’s a monster so I’m psyched about the pick.

      • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 2:51 PM

        I’m not disagreeing with you about Doctson. We even needed a taller WR#1 and have done for quite a while. I’m just saying that him being BPA wasn’t the only reason why we drafted him. He may well have been, but there is also the WR situation at the club, the need, his height and hands etc to factor in. He fills a hole, ergo he was a need pick in my view, not a BPA pick.

        I think you see my point better with Sudfeld though.There is just no way you can present him as BPA at the spot he was drafted in, based on anything I have been able to find out about him. He was drafted because the were always drafting a dev QB here and because he has some upside.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 6:06 PM

          @skulb BPA according to whom? This was a deep defensive draft why reach at 22 when everyone we were rumored to take went into day 2? Reed, Ragland, Robinson, Billings hell Myles Jack all went into day 2. Granted they didn’t fall to us but it was sound logic on the MADTV guy’s behalf because look at the WR crop going into day 2. Not to mention Texas moved up and began the run on WR’s. If we didn’t pick them JD wouldn’t have made it past the Bengals. Actually the Bengals basically did the same thing we did, they have glaring need for another WR but after the top WRs were taken chose to pick BPA and see who would fall into the second. Your grade on him and Scot’s ranking on who the BPA are two completely different things. Remember MADTV guy doesn’t consider need, only whether the guy meets the criteria and if it’s a reach to get him. Don’t worry I lobbied for JD since early March and once the Cowboys picked Elliot I panicked and begged for Billings. End of the day it’s probably best to be able to score over 20pts a game.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 7:20 PM

          I’m not sure you understood what I said. I never said BPA wasn’t a factor, just that it very obviously wasn’t the only factor. You said it yourself that it was sound logic to take Doctson because the teams around us were taking receivers. And if it’s sound logic and based on what other teams are doing it isn’t BPA either. It’s logic and tactical drafting.
          I really think we agree here. All I was responding to was the slight hyperbole of pretending that BPA took precedence over everything else when it quite obviously did not with at the very least Doctson and Sudfeld.

          Great guys and that and I’m sure both are very good at what they do. Just not drafted primarily for BPA.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 7:35 PM

          I said specifically “BPA according to whom?” Meaning who you saw as the BPA may not have been how Scot graded his prospects. If Scot was very high on JD then it probably wouldn’t have mattered what other teams were doing around us. Not saying it was sound logic because of what other teams were doing, more so because I believe Scot only liked a few WRs in this draft and if we didn’t get him we weren’t getting anyone. I only mentioned the other team’s decisions to point out that Doctson wasn’t going into day 2, whereas half the guys we were rumored to take lasted into the 2nd day. It all depends on Scot’s board not necessarily who WE like or perceive to be the BPA. Scot has a very specific criteria so if a WR with those measurable and leaping ability meet his “football player” eye test then we were taking him no matter what.

          Sudfield, yeah, now that I’m not sure of. There was an earlier run on QBs but I can’t justify this. Not when the Vikings took a blocking TE right after us. I know he doesn’t consider need but I would think a grinder TE would be ranked higher than a dev QB. But it’s Scot’s board… We just die by it.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 9:01 PM

          No I get that. But when you have as many ulterior motives for a pick as we obviously had with Doctson and Sudfeld it’s not accurate to call it a BPA pick.
          And again, Doctson is great apart from his speed and I’m sure he will be an impact guy. I’m not knocking him or the pick.I just don’t agree that BPA was the big factor in those two picks. And I would say that even if they were BPA, on Scot’s board or anyone else’s, which Sudfeld at the very least just was not. Not in a million years. Arguably the two guys they got in the seventh would have won a BPA contest with Sudfeld at his number.
          Again, great guy, great height and a good dev prospect. Also completely expected that they would draft someone like him on day 2 or 3. Just not as BPA. Give me a break and learn to smell the spin here man.
          And by all means, repeating this trite stuff endlessly certainly beats Jerruh saying immediately after the draft that he got the wrong QB.Talk about pep talk from the owner at your new job for Whatshisface.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 9:25 PM

          Doctson had first round grades all over him. He was a projected first rounder. Who knows who Scot had on his board. Could’ve been Elliot. Could’ve been Rankins. Could’ve been Ryan Kelly. Could’ve been Apple, since NY reached to get him. To your point maybe JD was 4 or 5 on the board but all the picks went early and that’s who was left for us with a first round grade. I don’t think at all that JD was a reach, maybe a little tact in the decision but I’m sure if there was anyone that Scot liked more for any position he would’ve picked them over Doctson. Then we would’ve had to hope for someone sliding to day 2 or going without a WR at all.

          I get what you’re saying, he obviously took a peek at the depth chart and saw the position needed addressing. In the back of his head all along. I’m just saying I don’t doubt for a second that if he was higher on someone else he would’ve picked them.

          I have no comment on Sudfield. We’re in total agreement with that. You take a career back up (’s words not mine) in the 6th with Hogan still on the board and he ran a pro style offense? Head scratcher.

          Then again I said the same thing when we picked RGIII and KC in the same draft.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 9:45 PM

          Well it’s at least partly semantics here. I love Doctson as a prospect too, and feel confident that he will be a big contributor here. And he probably was at or near the top of the board. Still I consider him a need first pick, not a BPA pick because of all the obvious ulterior motives.

          Sudfeld just hammers it home for me how much of an oversimplification this is. He probably wouldn’t even have been BPA in UDFA. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a bad pick here,because we needed a developmental guy behind Cousins and McCoy, which was more than obvious going in. Whether or not he is any good or there were better QBs available doesn’t even interest me all that much. He just was not BPA in the slightest. Anyone who tells me he was is a big fat liar, including Scot. But it’s what you say to inspire your new draft pick and it’s what I would have said too if I were the GM. It just isn’t true and I refuse to take it seriously is all.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 3, 2016 at 6:07 PM

          “Bruce Allen on Josh Doctson: The board the way it was, we just couldn’t pass up Josh to help our offense. @Redskins”

          Sounds like he was the top guy or maybe they had someone ahead of him that they thought would fall to us at the second round like a Ragland, Reed or Jack but the drop off from JD to their next highest rated receiver was too steep a la BPA.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 8:15 PM

          Still a need pick. Fuller was a BPA pick.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM

          Once again this is according to your own rankings of players or the rankings the pundits assigned. To sit here and act like we know who Scot had on the board is pointless. He got the consensus top WR AFTER trading back and seeing 2 WR’s get picked ahead of him. I just don’t think Scot was going to draft a defensive guy first because of the depth of defensive talent available UNLESS the guy was an absolute homerun. Now if the trio of R’s (Reed, ragland…) got passed on by 32 teams then it would seem that our GM was in line with the thinking of the other 31. Which means it would’ve been a reach to draft them 1st even if we were projected to take them because the market spoke and the market said “not enough value.”

          Point is you can call it what you want but it’s senseless to try to contrast who you viewed as the BPA and who we drafted as a need pick just because a need was addressed. Cravens addressed a need. Fuller addressed a need. Marshall addressed a need. Ionnatis addressed a need. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t also the BPA on SCOT’S board. Remember he’s not listening to Mayock and Kiper Jr, we are. So we have been groomed to think that this is the order these players should go at. This player’s better than that. Even if you came up with your grades on your own, we didn’t interview prospects. We don’t know if Billings has an ex gf that says he used to beat on her. They could’ve kept it in house to not hurt his draft stock but made the decision they weren’t going to draft him as a lot of other teams did. I saw some where that BPA doesn’t happen in a vacuum, that’s a great assessment. What determines a BEST player? Why is he the Best? Those factors are why different teams have different rankings on different players.

          I do have one question; if Doctson wasn’t a reach, meaning he wasn’t going to make it to the second round he went around where everyone projected him, how is he NOT the BPA at 22? You wanted us to pick who in the first… a NEED PICK?

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 10:50 PM

          For someone who writes so much you have severe reading comprehension issues. I’ve tried explaining several times already and got this enormous wall of text in return; so now I formally give up.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM

          As you should because you’re trying to tell me it’s a need pick like JD wasn’t the BPA. What data are you basing that off of? You’re own? Mayock? Kiper Jr? Every pick in any teams draft addresses a need so to simply deduce it as a need pick shows maybe someone doesn’t comprehend what BPA means and how subjected it is to many factors. I can’t comprehend what doesn’t make sense. Sorry bud.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 11:41 PM

          Look: I was serious when I said I give up. I’ve still given up and you can’t force me to not give up. You’ve drained my spirit.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM

          Yet you respond.. tsk tsk tsk. You shouldn’t let people on the interwebs drain your spirit, it’s a sign of a weak mind. #Jedi

        • Skulb - May 4, 2016 at 6:27 AM

          It’s like talking to a wall so I won’t bother. Leave it alone, Mr Lastworditis.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM

          Says the guy who told me he’s not responding in three separate replies.

        • Skulb - May 5, 2016 at 10:32 AM

          Just so you would stop writing replies I wasn’t reading anyway. I’m a very polite person you see.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 5, 2016 at 3:32 PM

          A very indecisive one as well. You seem to enjoy talking to me. If you really wanted me to stop replying you would stop commenting. Yet we wait in anticipation for your next reply “I seriously can’t do this with you”maybe?

        • Skulb - May 5, 2016 at 5:53 PM

          I am challenging your Lastworditis. I am a firm believer in confrontational therapy. That and water spray for behavioral modification.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 5, 2016 at 6:02 PM

          As we appear to both suffer from it. At least you aren’t veiling it anymore. I just love when people take the time to TYPE that they aren’t talking to me anymore instead of just not talking to me anymore. Kind of like you want me to care but instead I find it entertaining. Sad, yet entertaining.

        • Rich Tandler - May 5, 2016 at 6:49 PM

          @skulb, @lezziemckyderson: Guys, you’re not alone in a room. Others are being exposed to your sandbox fight. Knock it off now, first and only warning.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 5, 2016 at 8:56 PM

          See Rich?

        • Skulb - May 5, 2016 at 7:54 PM

          Well, it’s a serious condition either way.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 8:43 PM

          @lezzoe: I think there is probably a lot of truth to that.

          I thought there was a much bigger drop off at WR and defensive back talent than Dline or Centers. And, we saw what happened, those players fell.

          I also think there’s a decent chance Doctson was just about the BPA. He has huge potential. You never know how these guys will pan out but he has the potential to be great.

          Doctson was the #1 receiver for TCU, my school’s arch nemisis. It was scary playing him. I’m so happy I don’t have to root against him anymore.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 3, 2016 at 11:32 PM

          At least someone gets it. Well actually for once from the looks of this thread I’m in the majority. No one knows how any of them will shake out but looking at the guys drafted AFTER Doctson at any position I’m not sure how this is even a thing.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 7:59 PM

          This gem “Isn’t the argument really: Did the Redskins stick to their board? If that is the question, I think they did. I, seriously don’t understand how some here — not you — can’t marry BPA with stick to their board but instead take the fallible gospel of the draft pundits like they are some mindless sparrows following the Faith of the Seven” What I meant by BPA according to whom?

        • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 7:47 PM

          Oh, we’re in complete agreeable then. I began to think we would take an early WR because of those needs.

          There’s needs (like how some people perceive we have a need at center even though we have a capable one and a couple other younger candidates who could probably do well) there’s NEEDS. That being where there’s no starter quality replacement in sight. The Norman signing all but guaranteed we had a huge hole at WR in 2017. Bringing two old receivers back for that much money makes zero sense when we still have Cousins, Reed, Baker and maybe Galette to try and sign. That cap room shrunk with Norman. So if you need a WR in 2017, you draft him in 2016. Crowder seems like he could be a great slot guy but he’s not a #1.

          Plus our redzone offense was struggling due to a lack of lengthy receivers. Reed can’t literally be the only guy. The quality receivers where at the bottom of the first. We could have tried for Michael Thomas in the second, but I believe we got great value with Doctson. It was a need + great player combined thing.

          I think Doctson was the best WR in this draft for what we need. Corey Coleman may end up a monster in a couple years, same with Fuller. But we needed a jump ball/redzone/perimeter guy and we got him. But people are fooling themselves if they think we take Doctson if this team had two, talented, young receivers under rookie contracts on this team.

          People should be excited about the Doctson, Crowder, and Reed show in 2017 though. It’s going to be fun

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 8:55 PM

          Agreed. Btw I just heard Kevin Sheehan’s interview with Scot from earlier today, and to my surprise he seemed to just point blank confirm than both Pierre and Jackson will be back at the same salary next year. God knows this offense is borderline uncoverable right now, at least by the looks of things. But that was still a bit of a stunner to me, if indeed it is correct and not just a smokescreen.
          He also confirmed that Kelly would have been “a good fit” if he had been available at #22, which is what I assumed before the draft.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:36 AM

          @Skulb: I don’t, for a second, believe that both Garcon and Jackson will be back next year. Especially at their current salaries. I expect them to both be gone unless they take a significant cut.

          And I’m a huge Garcon fan. I would love to keep him but it doesn’t make sense.

          What’s Scot supposed to say? “We’re cutting bait with these guys as soon as we can but I hope that doesn’t make them bitter and tank the season for us.”

          It’s GM speak.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 11:33 AM

          Yeah probably. Maybe they want to stay on for a restructure though, at least if they think the team is on the verge of something.
          Jackson has been in a bad situation before and might consider it to avoid another one. They love him here.
          And Garcon is not guaranteed to get another big contract anywhere at 30. And he loves it here.
          I’m not gonna close the door on either of them until I have to.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:20 PM

          The word underrated gets thrown around way too often. But I truly believe Pierre Garcon is an underrated WR. He doesn’t get the recognition because he hasn’t really been on any relevant teams and he doesn’t make flashy plays.

          He was a monster in 2012, but was hurt for somehing like 6 games. In 2013 he led the league in receptions, but that team was garbage. No receiver did well in Washington in 2014 because of the QB situation. And I kind of feel he was underutilized last year. Probably not intentionally. Gruden was just trying to spread the ball around to Reed, Crowder, and Jackson too.

          But that guy can still play. There’s nobody I would rather have catching a slant on 3rd down. He makes those though catches. If we can get him back, awesome. I’m not a huge DJax fan. I would prefer he didn’t rub his un professionalism off on our young receivers. But I understand his value.

          If Scot wants to roll with Garcon, Jackson, Doctson, Crowder, Reed, and Niles Paul in 2017 then wow. That would be a monster group of pass catchers as Doctson and Crowder should be more polished by then (I’m not counting Davis for 2017. I don’t expect him to still be here). Then, let’s assume Matt Jones progresses to at lease an average RB, paired with Chris Thompson: those two can catch too. That’s a lot for any QB to work with.

          I wonder if that would stunt the development of our young WRs though. Seems like an awfully crowded group when you add in the TEs. And would be really be getting the value out of their contracts? If each guy listed had three receptions a game that would be 21. That’s about right for how many completions we should have. Is it worth keeping all those guys for such little production instead of allowing less guys to produce more then use that money elsewhere?

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 2:39 PM

          I agree and certainly do not underestimate him. It’s not just the stats with Pierre. It’s the individual catches he does make. For a recent example, go look at the final drive in the home game against the Eagles. Without Pierre we would NEVER have scored on that drive. Not just the impossibly contested TD catch but two other receptions in traffic coming down the field. He was amazing, and I seriously doubt whether more than a couple of other receivers in the NFL could have done what he did on that drive. He won that game for us almost by himself. Without him on the team we would therefore have gone 8-8 in 2015 just based on this one game.
          If memory serves he dropped a single catchable pass all year. And that was against the deflaters, where all the receivers except Andre Droperts dropped balls.

          If there is one player on that offense we can’t easily replace it is Pierre Garcon in my mind. Both because of his toughness and safe hands but also because of his aggressive leadership from the first snap in TC to the final play of the season. If we can keep him in some we must keep him.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 3:23 PM

          You nailed a point I meant to make.

          I love his toughness. That aspect of his game is what makes him so valuable. His toughness is the underrated part. He’s fearless.

          And people like to focus on the couple tough TD passes he caught but he made s few first downs like you were describing.

          Garcon, Doctson, and Crowder paired with good TEs sounds like an amazing WR corps to me. Jackson just doesn’t do enough and elite speed isn’t the only thing that makes a deep threat and opens the offense. Otherwise Ross wouldn’t be useless. Those three would be talented enough to open the offense and keep the defense honest.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM

          Well I’ll say this: if they have to pick one or the other of Jackson and Garcon it has to be Garcon. I do like Jackson because he forces teams to readjust to his presence. But of the two he’s the one with something to prove right now. His boneheaded return against Dallas compounded what was by his standards an unimpressive year of injuries and off the field baloney. And he probably got injured because of that baloney when he tore his hammy.

          It’s not good enough and hopefully he knows it and rolls up his sleeves this summer. He should.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 3:51 PM

          Well they both better play their tails off if they want their last big payday after this season. Could be a monster year for us.

          But so many fans disagree and want Jackson over Garcon. I guess it’s just a personal preference but it seems like such a no brainier to me.

        • Skulb - May 3, 2016 at 3:55 PM

          I guess that right now it would depend on which of the two you think Doctson might best replace. As far as I can tell he’s got the tracking of Jackson, the superhuman hands of Garcon and could probably replace either of them nest year.

          Or we could keep everyone and be unstoppable in 2017. I’m gonna hope for that because like both of them.

  5. blazerguy234 - May 2, 2016 at 7:28 AM

    I believe Scot has said that if the person he has targeted is gone, he will go for the best player on his board. He never saw another center that hadall the key factors he wanted. He has time now to look at undrafted guys as well as free agents. There is always next year. My guess is Scot wants a center…not someone to try converting…you never know how that will work out. converting D Ends to backers. They have had no experience in how do you know they can learn quickly to do so.
    Don`t question his methods without allowing things to play out. Scot ALSO said you can never have too many corners.

    • Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 8:17 AM

      Cowboys was looking for good headlines to make with they draft picks Eagles messed up they future Giants was reaching for players witch I know for sure messed up they draft board and redskins was bein sneaky but very smart by trading back adding draft pick and picking the best players available out of each round…A-

      • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM

        Essentially. Hoping the Cowboys can repeat the “DreamTeam” magic a la Eggles circa 2011

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:39 AM

          I actually think the Cowboys had a great draft. Really the whole NFC East drafted decent other than Eli Apple and depending on how Wentz works out.

          I think Washington and Dallas are on a collision course to be major competitors in a year or two. Assuming the QB situation holds up for both teams.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM

          The Cowboys did have a great draft that’s why I just called them the dream team and wished for their demise next season in the same breath. Tony’s good for healthy double digit INTs every year, you think that number is going to improve against our improved pass rush? Hell, everyone’s improved pass rush considering how Rich (Tandler) this draft was with def help? Up hill battle for Ro-no.

    • murphsman - May 2, 2016 at 6:46 PM

      Why does everyone say we need a center? Did people forget we got Austin Reiter last year?

      • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 7:17 PM

        Well generally people rely on 7th round picks to contribute, ever. Unless they’re a Rico Gather or Keith Marshall type pick. Guys with huge upside but injury or not playing football since high school is holding them back.

        Probably the most we can hope of Reiter is to be a decent backup someday. Certainly not a starter in year two. There have been zero indications that he’s ready to even get off the practice squad.

        But we don’t need a center as bad as some are saying. Long, Leribus, and Kory L are all candidates to be our center. Our Oline is pretty set for right now.

        • mtskins - May 2, 2016 at 10:37 PM

          Leribus filled in at Center last year. He is definitively not the answer. They tried Long briefly at Center but it ended quickly. Opinions vary if they will try to plug him in again. Kory is our starting center heading into 2016. He’s done well but is better suited to the zone blocking scheme and getting a little long in the tooth.

          Not sure how you can say the Oline is set here or at left guard considering Lauvao’s foot injury.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:33 AM

          Ok. So, just because a guy struggled in his first season trying, when he didn’t even have camp to prepare, means he will never be good. Got it. I guess I hallucinated Cousin’s season last year. Or the 1,000 other guys who struggle at a position change one year then caught on later. There’s no way a guy could improve in year two with an offseason.

          If that’s your logic then fine. We have an average center with Kory. It’s not the end of the world.

          Pre draft, the Oline, compared to other units on the team, were probably the most complete and strong group on the team. I’ve said this multiple times but I guess I’ll say it again. We have an elite LT. We truly have one of the best Oline coaches in the league. The. We spent a first round pick (5th overall), two thirds, a fourth, and a seventh on the Oline just in the past two seasons. Add an extra third for Leribus 3 seasons ago. The a high price free agent, Lauvau, too. We have heavily invested in the Oline. We can’t just keep drafting offensive linemen and let the rest of the roster erode.

          Lauvau is a solid LG and should be healthy. If not, Long and Kouandjo are there to take his spot. I don’t think we have invested more heavily in any other position group other than Oline recently. Unless you count QB from all the picks we have up for RG3. We have a group of young and talented guys ready to grow under Callahan. So we don’t have an amazing center. Get over it. Good guard play can help that.

          The plan can’t be to only draft Olinemen and forget the rest of the team. It just can’t. I’m sure we will start investing there again as soon as next year.

  6. Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 7:54 AM

    I said Ryan Kelly was the top pick…he describe Ryan Kelly game as bein another Brandon Scherff…after you lose your top draft choice you gotta go with just best player available

  7. Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 8:00 AM

    Its overall a good draft…josh doctson got sneaky speed to get deep down like Djax and catches almost everything that comes his way…Keith Marshall got enough talent to become special…and so Kendall fuller

  8. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 2, 2016 at 8:39 AM

    “We need a tall WR! We need a tall WR! ” = Skins fans

    Skins draft a tall WR.

    “We didn’t need a tall WR!!!” – Skins fans

    • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 9:37 AM

      What in the name of Marko Mitchell are you talking about?!!


    • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:25 PM

      So true man.

      I’ve been begging for a taller WR. A true #1 with length to work the perimeter. We got one and I’m psyched. He’s not exactly Brandon Marshall with his body type, but he makes up for it in athleticism.

      We have to compete in a division with Romo/Dez and Eli/OBJ. We needed out own monster WR. I hope we got him. It’s crazy not to be excited about this guy

  9. mtskins - May 2, 2016 at 8:43 AM

    Good article as the lack of a center selection was pretty glaring in a draft supposedly deep at the position. Will be curious what the plan is there. For now it looks like we stick with Kory. I thought the Long to center experiment was dead but remembered reading something form John Keim this spring saying it is still an option. Hoping Reiter made some big strides because LeRibeus is not the answer.

    • ET - May 2, 2016 at 10:34 AM

      Whatever the answer is at center, it sure ain’t Josh LeRibeus.

  10. garg8050 - May 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM

    Just listened to McC on 980. Definitely not as confident about getting a long-term deal done with Cousins prior to the deadline as he was pre-draft. May just be posturing. Idk. I think the Norman deal makes it imperative to get a deal done to keep the cap hit manageable for the next two years while Norman gets big money.

    • Mr.moneylover - May 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM

      They said they not pushing for a long term deal now because they wanna make sure kirk cousins is not a one year wonder and if he plays well they wouldnt mind giving him a 20 mill dollar a year contract…its a smart move you don’t wanna get stuck with a player with a big contract that only had one average season

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM

        It IS a dumb move. You ARE stuck paying $20 million for this year and IF he plays the same way this year, you then have to pay him $24 million next year (63% of the available cap space) or give him a more lucrative long-term deal than a deal today. If he plays MUCH worse — which you’re hoping he won’t — you can start over at quarterback. If he plays just a little worse; you can let him go and start over at QB or pay him market value at QB which will be $16/year (what you wanted to pay him this year).

        Suffice it to say, I’m betting on a long-term deal getting done with exit ramps after two-three seasons — this is where Cousins has to agree but since he has always bet on himself and won, he might not.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM

          You can’t blame me for this. I am on record saying, to general merriment here and elsewhere, that they should have signed a contract with Cousins after the Tampa game last year. It was obvious then that he had turned a corner and could be at the very least average on a consistent basis. Miami are paying 20 mill a year for an average QB, so apparently that is the going rate. And we could have had our potentially average QB for 12 mill a year back then. And now he’s potentially good; even potentially great for all we know, and the price just keeps rising.
          Like you said: he either plays poorly, in which case what is the point? Or he plays well again and gets even more ludicrously expensive, in which case what the hell were you waiting for? Scratch that, what the hell are they waiting for? There is zero upside for the Redskins in waiting around with this, and there hasn’t been for months.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 10:11 AM

          I think convincing the owner at that point was too difficult and then after each game, the agent had to be telling Kirk we’ll get more at the end of the year. The kicker had to be the idiots at Redskins park chanting RG3 at 2:00AM as Kirk was getting off the bus after delivering the division against Philly.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM

          Yes it was all very depressing. The perfect time to sign Kirk Cousins would have been at half time in the Tampa game for me. Not even his agent would have been likely to cause a fuss then.
          And it’s not that I want to short change Cousins, but he, and the Redskins, might just have been better off on a two year prove-it deal at 12 mill, signed in October of last year.

          That way, even if he stinks royally, you’re not in the worst position in the world after 16. Now he needs to play well in 17 for the sort of money he is likely to command and signing the deal becomes very hard for everyone involved. And it will only get harder until he either sinks or floats when the season starts. Then we’ll know and his market value will become more set.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 10:27 AM

          Bottom line it’s the reverse of taking the option on Griffin. There, they bet that he would do well and instead they had to release him. Meanwhile, Seattle doesn’t pick up the option on Bruce Irvin and is now looking at a 4th round compensatory pick for letting him walk. The Redskins could’ve not picked up the option and then they would too be looking at a possible 4th round compensatory pick which then would’ve been negated by the Josh Norman deal.

        • Skulb - May 2, 2016 at 10:32 AM

          Right. And the window to avoid this situation was last autumn at some point. Until then it would have been easy to get Cousins to sign a prove it deal for moderate wages, and he would have said please and thanks you. Once he got on a roll the window closed and he was going to be expensive or we would need a new QB.

          For people like me who felt very good about Cousins chances and applauded the move to name him starter right from the start this looks very much like a wasted opportunity to get him in the building at a reasonable price while the offense gels. Instead he is now very expensive, not under contract and will hurt the cap space available for the rest of the team. His team by the looks of things. This and the option are the two biggest fails under the Gruden/McLovin era for me.

  11. hail74 - May 2, 2016 at 9:34 AM

    Kelly was my top choice as well. Say what you want but two years of selecting BPA seems to have landed some pretty solid players to me.

  12. captblood3000 - May 2, 2016 at 9:36 AM

    Best Player Available is just that. Best Player Available at a position of need is something different. We have posters on this blog who don’t believe that, and they can complain about this draft. But they’re wrong.

    Two caveats: if you have two prospects with equal grades at the top of your board, use need as your tiebreaker. And grading prospects is an art. But need doesn’t rule.

  13. zatoichi7 - May 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM

    i love this approach, but there’s an exception to every rule. . scherff is good, but not bpa at #5 last year.

    • jonevans511 - May 2, 2016 at 7:03 PM

      But the “rule” of BPA INCLUDES need so when you factor that in, Scot felt Scherff was the BPA at 5….. I know what you’re likely thinking, that Leonard Williams was the BPA at that point, and it’d be hard to argue with that. But fact of the matter is Scot factors in personality/passion,fit, skill, need, and other factors in to his BPA analysis. And guess what? Im sure he looked at the 2016 and 2017 classes of potential prospects during last year’s draft and said to himself there are players I’d rather have in future years and would rather not pass up the opportunity to take an OL who can be inserted in to the starting lineup day one and hold his own. Personally I was a little befuddled by the pick at first but after seeing what he can do I’ll shut up and let Scot do whatever he thinks is best.

      • captblood3000 - May 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM

        BPA does not include need. All teams grade prospects and rank them. Teams differ on how they arrive at those grades. But those grades, when rank ordered, set up the draft board. The team can then follow their board and draft for top grades, or draft for needs. By drafting for top grades, you seek to get the most of what you value on your roster.

        BPA is a dogmatic philosophy that defies first impressions. How can you ignore NEED in your process? Well, if you include need in your grades, you distort your grades. If you reach “for need”, why grade prospects at different positions?

        The only caveat is that you can have more than one player with the same grade at the top of your draft board. Only then does need come into play.

        • Trey Gregory - May 5, 2016 at 12:50 PM

          You’re really just making a semantic argument. About the technicality of a word/phrase and definition. Now how it’s commonly used. But, speaking colloquially, when people around here, and GMs, say BPA: need is one part of that equation.

          So, hypothetically, say they use 4 criteria to figure out BPA. Need is one of those 4. Different criteria have different value, with a max value of 9. So say a player gets X points from each criteria:

          Player 1:
          Criteria 1: 2 points
          Criteria 2: 1 point
          Criteria 3: 2 points
          Criteria 4 (aka need): 1 point

          If a Player 2 earns the same criteria 1-3 points, but not the need, then the BPA is player 1.

          But if Player 3 is:
          Criteria 1: 4 points
          Criteria 2: 2 points
          Criteria 3: 2 points
          Criteria 4 (aka need): 0 points

          Then player 3 is BPA.

          It’s just a part of the equation. And teams place different values in need. Need may be enough for one team to jump 3 points and another team to only jump 1. But it’s a part of it. Multiple GMs have confirmed that.

          From a pure and straight definition of the words “best player available,” need shouldn’t be a factor. But, that’s not the way it’s being used. It’s completely pointless to argue otherwise.

        • captblood3000 - May 6, 2016 at 12:29 PM

          Wrong again, and I’m not making a “semantic argument”. Need is not a factor in how the Redskins front office grades prospects. It is only a tie breaker among players with equal grades when the Redskins are on the clock.

          What is pointless is arguing with you. You want the grading process to make sense by filling holes on the team. Instead, the process maximizes the talent, attitude and cohesion of your team.

        • Trey Gregory - May 6, 2016 at 1:34 PM

          I actually didn’t state what my preference was at all. I’m just stating a fact. You’re making assumptions.

          I’m a big fan of the true BPA approach. Like, for example, in 2011 when two teams passed on JJ Watt for Jake Locker and Blane Gabbert. I’m not a big fan of that. But at the same time, Washington selected Ryan Kerrigan (after trading down) instead of reaching for a QB or taking Prince Amukamara because they really needed a CB. I like that.

          Just because I state a fact doesn’t mean I’m taking a stance on something. Your argument is the textbook definition of a semantic argument. When the common person says BPA they mean with need as a factor into a bigger equation. Good GMs aren’t going to significantly overreach for a player of need over the true BPA. But they will take a guy they’re just a hair lower on if he fills a gaping hole. Thus the need guy becomes the BPA for that team. That’s reality man.

        • captblood3000 - May 6, 2016 at 11:22 PM

          The front office evaluates need by looking at NFL tape of players already on the roster and grading them. That determines need by position. That’s the definition, if you don’t believe that, it’s you making the semantic argument.

          And this front office doesn’t use need in grading draft prospects or assembling its board. Then they follow their board. That’s what Rich says in this post.

        • Trey Gregory - May 7, 2016 at 12:11 PM

          But, if they use need as part of the formula for when they make their board then that would still be sticking to their board right?

          This is kind of pointless unless we can find a quote about it straight from McCloughan’s mouth. I know I’ve hear other GMs talk about need being part of the BPA formula. I could swear I read an article with McCloughan talking about it. But I could be misremembering it.

        • Trey Gregory - May 7, 2016 at 12:13 PM

          Sorry I read your post wrong. Ignore that first part.

  14. bk70 - May 2, 2016 at 10:37 AM

    HTTR! Yes a good draft by McG, missed out on Ryan Kelly at Center. I’m OK with Lich and BUs for 2016. But,

    2017 CENTER PROSPECTS to watch for:
    Ethan Pocic
    6-6 309 5.02 1
    Dan Voltz
    6-3 302 5.37 2
    Cameron Tom Southern Mississippi
    6-4 292 5.07 3
    Tyler Orlosky West Virginia
    6-4 298 5.32 4
    Kyle Fuller Baylor
    6-4 315 5.29 5
    Deyshawn Bond Cincinnati
    6-2 298 5.17 6
    Jay Guillermo Clemson
    6-2 325 5.34 7
    Lucas Crowley North Carolina
    6-3 290 4.97 8
    Michael Selby Marshall
    6-2 292 5.12 9
    Jon Toth Kentucky
    6-4 310 5.23 10
    Freddie Burden Georgia Tech
    6-3 302 5.04 11
    Casey Dunn Jacksonville State
    6-2 290 5.14 12

    • Trey Gregory - May 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM

      It’s way too early for that man. I love Kyle Fuller but he’s played with a gooood group the past couple years. This year, they’re all new starters except him. It could be a tough year and he could get destroyed. It’s too early to know.

  15. bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 11:03 AM

    In case anyone missed it. Doctson will wear number 18 and Cravens number 36 — now listed as safety.

    • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 5:51 PM

      The late great Sean Taylor’s rookie number? Big shoes to fill.

  16. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 2, 2016 at 2:35 PM

    The other shoe knee drops…


    • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 2:41 PM

      Crazy. Messed up but that is the NFL.

    • ET - May 2, 2016 at 3:06 PM

      Not sad.

      Andre Roberts, prepare yourself for the axe …

  17. bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 5:09 PM

    Rich, how is that the Redskins can cut Culliver when he clearly has not recovered from his injury from last year? Is it because it was last year’s injury? But if that is the case, why is Andre Roberts still on the team or they just waiting for June? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM

      You’re much better at cap speak than I am but I think I’m remembering Robert’s is a hit until June 1st (?) then he becomes a savings. I’m not sure what Culliver’s situation was.

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 6:39 PM

        They could’ve cut him at anytime and made the June 1st designation, had they wanted to — but not being able to use the savings until then. My understanding is that they couldn’t cut him due to health reasons — which seems to be erroneous. Post June 1st cuts puts some of the dead money into next year which used to cause problems. Now with rolling cap savings (I believe that to be a new thing since the last CBA), post June 1st cuts can help create extra room next year while continuing to add dead money. For instance: Andre Roberts has cap hits of $5,000,000 in each of his remaining seasons with the Redskins (2016 and 2017). At the same time the remaining prorated portion of the signing bonus — which is charged to the cap at the time of release — is $2,000,000. Therefore, cutting Roberts saves the team $3,000,000 this year and $5,000,000 next year unless he is cut or designated cut after June 1st in which case the savings is $4,000,000 each season. However, if none of the money is used this year, that three or four million along with any other surplus will roll over next year increasing the cap. So cutting Roberts could create as much as $8,000,000 in cap savings in 2017 whenever he is cut this year.

        • lezziemcdykerson - May 2, 2016 at 6:47 PM

          *Slow Blink, carries the 1* So it’s a negligible difference in cutting him after June 1st. I didn’t see a bunch of people calling for Culliver to get cut but once we got Norman I knew it was a matter of time. Culliver was making like 9M a year so to me it was obvious especially if they drafted a corner.

          Now Roberts, I don’t know why they’re being so hesitant. Especially if it’s only a difference of 1M this year that’s like one UDFA salary, maybe two, if they make the 53. Myonly theory, which makes no sense DISCLAIMER, is that maybe Roberts is still here to bring Crowder along in learning the nuances of running slot at the pro level. We have DJax for that and, honestly, Roberts isn’t in a position where he can be advisable to anybody losing balls in the lights. Plus he’s been hurt so how much of a locker room presence can he really have? Your guess is as good as mine.

        • Trey Gregory - May 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM

          I believe we will have a 2.5 mil cap hit next year for Culliver because of the June 1 designation. If that helps clear anything up. There’s been so many questions and answers that I don’t even know where to try and start after that.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 7:02 PM

          Thanks. This was recently added to the Keim story: “Culliver was released with post-June 1 and failed physical designations on the NFL’s official transactions report.” Not sure what the ramifications are of that last clause — if any.

        • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 7:18 PM

          So $8,000,000 added this year and $6,750,000 added to next year’s cap.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 2, 2016 at 6:26 PM

      I recall there was some loophole, perhaps due to a suspension?

      Lest I be found to be wrong on the internet, I looked it up.

      • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM

        I remember the suspension made the feasibility of getting off the contract sooner than later possible. I just didn’t think you could cut injured players — which Culliver clearly is.

  18. murphsman - May 2, 2016 at 6:38 PM

    Rich- said the team waived 4 players and released 4. What’s the difference?

    • bangkokben - May 2, 2016 at 7:27 PM

      7 of 8 defenders. Looks like we shall see a bunch of UDFAs sign on that side of the ball.

      My guess with the waived is that they have two years left on their contracts and by getting put on waivers teams can claim them off waivers keeping the same contracts and the team with the lowest record gets first dibs. After the waiver period expires, then the player is free to sign with any team.

      Some of that has got to be 100% spot on. ;)

  19. renhoekk2 - May 2, 2016 at 8:42 PM

    There was a lot of talk about Long moving to center, and when they didn’t draft one I figured that was the plan all along. But now that there are reports that they wanted Kelley in the first, it seems like they have no definite plan what they want to do at that position? Isn’t that a problem for the coaching staff and front office not to have a plan at a very important position like center?

    • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:23 AM

      I think the plan was to draft center because they thought he would be BPA at 21 if still available. Not necessarily because they believe center is a gigantic need.

      If this draft proved anything to you, it should be that Scot isn’t drafting for immediate need. A lot of factors go into BPA, need is one part of that equation, but not all.

      We truly are better off at center than people are making it out to be. Just breath, it will all be okay. Kory is still here, Long could still play it (the would be Kelly pick is irrelevant to Long), Leribus could play it, Austin Reiter could play it (although that’s a long shot). You never know but you’re drawing conclusions from things that don’t follow. I promise that they have a plan at center.

      • renhoekk2 - May 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM

        I look at it like this. If you were willing to use a first round pick on a C then you can’t be happy with what is on the roster. I don;t care how they spin the BPA plan. If they drafted Kelly it would be reasonable to assume they would have cut Lichty for the cap savings. You go from a guy you were planning on cutting to keeping him as your starting C? Again don’t care how it’s spun, they can’t be excited with the idea of Lichty coming back as the starter. Long has never played C as far as I know and LeRibeus was underwhelming in run blocking. But that’s the plan for 2016 as of now.

        • Trey Gregory - May 3, 2016 at 2:37 PM

          Well a couple thing:

          1) Long played center as recently as last year.

          2) you have no idea that they would cut Kory L. If they drafted Ryan Kelly. You’re assuming that. You’re also assuming they wanted Ryan Kelly because they believe the Center position is weak and not just because he would be an upgrade or the future at a position they’re already comfortable with. You jumping to a conclusion based off assumptions.

          I’m sure they’re reasonably happy with our WR situation for 2016. But they drafted a receiver in the first. Does that mean they hate Garcon or Jackson and will now cut them? No. Eventually young/cheap talent has to replace even the great players.

          3) Just because a guy struggled in his first year of trying a new position doesn’t mean he will always struggle. I wrote a long rant about this at the top of this comment section. But again: neither Leribus nor Long had a preseason to prepare as centers. Neither did very well but it was their first time starting at a new position they didn’t prepare for. That doesn’t mean they will suck at it forver. Plenty of players have been bad their first year starting and good their second. Like…. hm…. Kirk Cousins.

          Trust Scot McCloughan and Bill Callahan to work this out.

    • John - May 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM

      In the short run they have Lichtensteiger and the other options on the roster. Not many were drafted so perhaps they can get one of the undrafted ones, like the one from USC, Mizzou, Wisc, Iowa. The Post did an article on the kid from Iowa. One never knows. It must not be a bid deal if the coaches and GM are not worried about it. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter