NFL DRAFT SCOUT 1/30 mock (Alan Branch, DT)

The reason why I think help at DT will have a far greater impact on Carter's performance than another end is based upon Carter's playing style. Carter is not a versatile end who can bull rush and outpower tackles. Carter is a speed rusher who relies on beating tackles by generally trying to go far outside. Outside rushers are generally ineffective if there is no push up the middle from DTs as the QBs can simply step up into a nicely formed pocket. Given that we got virtually no pass rush up the middle, it is not surprising that Carter didn't have a Pro Bowl season. Adding another DE who gets an outside push will not help collapse pockets, it will just push the pocket back inside. Moreover, if we need an upgrade at MLB (which we both think is the case), who is going to help stuff runs in the middle better, a DT or a DE?Great points. I think it goes even further, into our blitz packages. Carter in this defense was useless in our blitz packages. With our weaker DTs, Carter would draw the double teams on the 4 man rush. With 7 guys back in coverage, this was acceptable, but not outstanding as Daniels was the only guy getting pressure on the QB. Now when we brought 5 or 6 guys on a blitz, Carter would not be doubled. However due to the change in assignment, he would in many cases be unable to use his speed rush, and be no more effective in getting to the QB then he was in getting to him with a 4 man rush. With only 5-6 guys in coverage, we would get torched in the secondary. For the first time in three years, our D was best off not blitzing.

In the future, never blitzing isn't a realistic option, although we should be less blitz dependant. The D has to find a way to be more effective at getting to the QB, with the Blitz. I believe this starts up front in the middle with the biggest baddest athlete we can find. Alan Branch. If he can beat single blocks and get in the QBs face quickly, our pass D will improve.

The effect a DE has against the pass is overrated. The DTs are closer to the ball. A dominant DT is more valuble against the pass than a dominant DE.

Great points. I think it goes even further, into our blitz packages. Carter in this defense was useless in our blitz packages. With our weaker DTs, Carter would draw the double teams on the 4 man rush. With 7 guys back in coverage, this was acceptable, but not outstanding as Daniels was the only guy getting pressure on the QB. Now when we brought 5 or 6 guys on a blitz, Carter would not be doubled. However due to the change in assignment, he would in many cases be unable to use his speed rush, and be no more effective in getting to the QB then he was in getting to him with a 4 man rush. With only 5-6 guys in coverage, we would get torched in the secondary. For the first time in three years, our D was best off not blitzing.

In the future, never blitzing isn't a realistic option, although we should be less blitz dependant. The D has to find a way to be more effective at getting to the QB, with the Blitz. I believe this starts up front in the middle with the biggest baddest athlete we can find. Alan Branch. If he can beat single blocks and get in the QBs face quickly, our pass D will improve.

The effect a DE has against the pass is overrated. The DTs are closer to the ball. A dominant DT is more valuble against the pass than a dominant DE.

I could not agree more. Excellent post.

I thought Golston played very well for a 6th round pick, but I would not trust him to start. As for Montgomery, again we saw so little of the guy (and considering the competition, that says something) that it is hard to evaluate him.

As for Carter, I thought he looked pretty damn good the last 5 games of the season. Four sacks and a lot of pressures and tackles is pretty damn good for any end. And when Griffin was out against Tennessee, we got run at up the gut and not around the edges.

I definately think we need improvement on the edges, but Carter showed enough in the latter part of the season to definately justify his starting position if not his salary. I think just about everyone concedes that we need help in the middle too. I just happen to think that we need more help in the middle than on the edges.

The reason why I think help at DT will have a far greater impact on Carter's performance than another end is based upon Carter's playing style. Carter is not a versatile end who can bull rush and outpower tackles. Carter is a speed rusher who relies on beating tackles by generally trying to go far outside. Outside rushers are generally ineffective if there is no push up the middle from DTs as the QBs can simply step up into a nicely formed pocket. Given that we got virtually no pass rush up the middle, it is not surprising that Carter didn't have a Pro Bowl season. Adding another DE who gets an outside push will not help collapse pockets, it will just push the pocket back inside. Moreover, if we need an upgrade at MLB (which we both think is the case), who is going to help stuff runs in the middle better, a DT or a DE?

Finally, I think that Holdman's departure and, hopefully, Rocky's rise will alleviate some of the problems we have with teams going outside to the left on our defense.

So, while I think you make a lot of good points and certainly agree that we need help at DE, I think we would get more bang for the buck with a DT.

What you're saying is that while we need help at DE, there isn't going to be any. We have to hope and pray that Carter is better than what he showed last year, that Daniels/Wynn have a season left between them, that Rocky will "rise", and that Branch himself is not a bust. I think the safer play is to trade the pick down and try to improve in other areas of the defense.

Also, I want to be clear that I respect Carter's speed and athleticism and I think he can contribute, it's just that whenever our opponent needed to get something going, they ran right at him with power. They will do so again next year. I think its unrealistic to expect a rookie DT to cover his gap and the LBer's gap and Carter's gap.

What you're saying is that while we need help at DE, there isn't going to be any.

No, I am saying there will be help for the DEs in the form of a DT who can command double-teams and free up guys like Carter. And I think my basic point that we need more help at DT than DE was validated by the fact that when opponents double-teamed our D-linemen, it was Carter (who, of course, plays DE).

We have to hope and pray that Carter is better than what he showed last year, that Daniels/Wynn have a season left between them, that Rocky will "rise", and that Branch himself is not a bust. I think the safer play is to trade the pick down and try to improve in other areas of the defense.

We don't have to hope and pray that Carter is any better than what he showed last year. We just have to expect that he will continue to play at the same level that he was playing at for the last 5-6 games (a healthy chunk of the season).

I'd love to trade down. I've been a big fan of doing so. I just don't think it will happen. And barring a trade down, are you hoping and praying that our 2006 5th and 6th round picks blossom into stud DTs or that Griffin is actually BOTH healthy and productive?

And yes, I do have to pray that Rocky will "rise." I think every Redskins fan does. Unless you are prepared to replace the guy (and junk the two second rounders we spent on him) before he's even really seen the field, you'd better hope the guy can play. I don't understand how you have so little faith in Rocky, while you seem to have so much in Montgomery and Golston.

I don't know if you have a plan or, if you do, what it entails but I am sure that it prays for a lot too. You've already implied that we need 2 new ends, a linebacker to replace Holdman/Rocky, and have other holes. I have no idea how you plan to fill such holes.

Also, I want to be clear that I respect Carter's speed and athleticism and I think he can contribute, it's just that whenever our opponent needed to get something going, they ran right at him with power. They will do so again next year. I think its unrealistic to expect a rookie DT to cover his gap and the LBer's gap and Carter's gap.

While it is definately true that opponents ran left, I don't think Carter is solely to blame. First, Holdman was playing behind him and he....well sucked. Second, opponents were also running away from Marcus Washington (our best defender). Third, Carter really improved the last few games in both pass rushing abilities AND stopping the run.

Here's who we have at Defensive Tackle:

Griffin
Salavea
Golston
Montgomery
Bosghetti


Here's who have at DE:

Daniels
Wynn
Carter
Evans
Sykes

When I look at that I think it's obvious which area is of greater need even if we assume Carter plays at the maximum of his ability. Of course what we really need is MLB so Marshall can take Holdman's spot and that would make everybody look better so were back to trading the pick as the only sensible thing to do. That I think we agree on.

Also, I want to be clear that I respect Carter's speed and athleticism and I think he can contribute, it's just that whenever our opponent needed to get something going, they ran right at him with power. They will do so again next year. I think its unrealistic to expect a rookie DT to cover his gap and the LBer's gap and Carter's gap.It's not about having a rookie DT play a two-gap. First, this is a move being made for the future. Branch would only be a rookie for one season, and hopefully we'd rotate our tackles (and ends) instead of relying on one guy. He would have time to grow into the role playing intitally behind Salevea, and next to one of the game's best DTs when healthy in Griffin, who may not be here in 2008.

We know that Carter was a player designed to improve our pass rush. The downside, of course, is that he is far worse vs. the run than Wynn was. If you run right at him, he can be overpowered at the point of attack. This is not a unique problem in the NFL, it's just unique for the Redskins who had Wynn and Daniels at end prior to this year.

What a dominant DT will do (if successful) is he will force the running back to bounce outside the gap he was shooting at. If we can get opposing runners going laterally, a player like Carter can be very, very good against the run. He's athletic enough to chase the runner down the line of scrimmage and make the tackle. He's just not strong enough to shed the block of a tackle and make the play head on.

Sure the DT doesn't have to do that to be a successful DT, and if the DT fails to get push and the back goes right inside Carter's gap, Carter is the one at fault. However, when you add an unbalanced talent at the end position who is far better at rushing the passer then stopping the run, the scheme has to account for that weak link against the run. We clearly don't have the horses to do that right now, and that's probably because of some pretty mediocre talent at the DT position.

If I didn't think Alan Branch would fix the problem, I wouldn't be pushing to draft him.

Here's who we have at Defensive Tackle:

Griffin
Salavea
Golston
Montgomery
Bosghetti


Here's who have at DE:

Daniels
Wynn
Carter
Evans
Sykes

When I look at that I think it's obvious which area is of greater need even if we assume Carter plays at the maximum of his ability. Of course what we really need is MLB so Marshall can take Holdman's spot and that would make everybody look better so were back to trading the pick as the only sensible thing to do. That I think we agree on.Right now, I would analyze this list by saying that the ENTIRE D Line lacks talent. Of the ten, Carter is the most promising guy, while Griffin is the best. But lets look at a very real sitaution that could happen as early as 2008 without naming a 2007 first round pick:

DT:
Golston
Montgomery

DE:
Carter
Evans
Daniels? Maybe?

The point is by 2008 there could be so much turnover, we are talking about our next two years of draft picks and FA signings producing 2 or more starters on the DL. There are no quick fixes. However we have one potential building block, and thats Carter. Not that confidence inspiring, but its something we have to work with. If we go into the 2008 draft with no starting DTs, that could be disaterous.

Thats why we have to put this issue to rest right now, so we can focus on the ends later.

older d-linemen? Griffin was like 27, Daniels 30, Joe Sal 29, Carter 27. One guy was 30.

And we have discussed Springs' 'injury prone' status and I think most agreed that he wasn't not injury prone rather he had one injury that bugged him over a two season period. He had the monkier totally undeserved. And he hadn't exactly missed a whole hell of a lot time for us until the hernia.

Griffin, Daniels, and Salavea are all over 30. Washington Redskins (http://www.redskins.com/team/;jsessionid=LJGNNOIIEODF)

Griffin, Daniels, and Salavea are all over 30. Washington Redskins (http://www.redskins.com/team/;jsessionid=LJGNNOIIEODF)

I think FRPLG was referring to their age when the Redskins signed them