Redskins trade for Jason Taylor (updated)

A decent article outlining the thoughts of the NFL Network analysts about the Jason Taylor trade:

Good deal: Dolphins, Redskins, and Taylor all winners (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story;jsessionid=E2DA21B23BBC4F823010812F49F9582D? id=09000d5d8096b75e&template=with-video&confirm=true)

Deion Sanders:
"Washington already had a solid defense and this just adds to it."

Steve Mariucci:
"I understand why it took so long to get a deal done. To give away a second-round pick for a guy that stated he may only play one year; you expect a player acquired for a second-rounder to play four to five years on your team. I’m sure the Redskins discussed with him about playing more than one year."

Brian Ball-dinger:
"[Jason Taylor] changes games. He’s instantly the best pass rusher in that division; he’s the most complete."

Rich Eisen:
"Jason Taylor gets a chance for a ring. Miami gets a second-round pick and the Redskins get one of the game's best."

I like John Clayton a lot, I really do, but when I read this, I instantly thought of Steve Phillips prediction the '08 Detroit Tigers would score 1000 runs this year.

I thought that was a bit overzealous as well. They are on pace for 806 runs this year. However, Phillips tends to use emotion with his predictions while Clayton is more level headed. Clayton is right A LOT. While he didn't guarentee a 50 sack season, he did say we could be close. To me, 45 is close, and 48 would be amazing!

Not going to happen. I'd be happy with a 5 sack improvement on the 33 figure from last year.

I do not think a 5 sack improvement would be something I'd be happy with. We need more than that. We have complained about our pass rush for a while, and while 33 was an improvement last year, it was not what we were looking for. Let us not forget that Taylor outsacked Carter last year. With those two together, they should create A LOT of disruption.

I have mixed feelings about the trade. I like the fact that we got a guy who is a veteran leader who probably still has some gas left in the tank and can bring a consistent defensive presence to that left-side, which we lacked last year. I also like the fact that we didn't give up a 1st rounder for him.

Now, I don't like the fact that we were relying on a 34-year old to start on that side and didn't have any depth at such an important position so we had to make a typical 'reactive' move.

To me, it would have been proactive to use one of our early draft picks on a DE.

If you asked me would I rather have:

Scenario #1 - Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, Jason Taylor

or

Scenario #2 - Devin Thomas, Calais Campbell, Fred Davis, 2nd round pick, 6th round pick

I would choose scenario #2.

I have mixed feelings about the trade. I like the fact that we got a guy who is a veteran leader who probably still has some gas left in the tank and can bring a consistent defensive presence to that left-side, which we lacked last year. I also like the fact that we didn't give up a 1st rounder for him.

Now, I don't like the fact that we were relying on a 34-year old to start on that side and didn't have any depth at such an important position so we had to make a typical 'reactive' move.

To me, it would have been proactive to use one of our early draft picks on a DE.

If you asked me would I rather have:

Scenario #1 - Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, Jason Taylor

or

Scenario #2 - Devin Thomas, Calais Campbell, Fred Davis, 2nd round pick, 6th round pick

I would choose scenario #2.

This post reminds me of the old saying..."learn to accept the things you can not change". We didn't do scenario 2, so we have to move on and work with what we have. I love the move personally. It's one of those rare moves that is a complete slam dunk for both teams.

Don't forget, there could have been a scenario 3 where we traded away a first rounder, or even a second rounder and another higher pick. I think the team did well with showing patience for a change.

I have mixed feelings about the trade. I like the fact that we got a guy who is a veteran leader who probably still has some gas left in the tank and can bring a consistent defensive presence to that left-side, which we lacked last year. I also like the fact that we didn't give up a 1st rounder for him.

Now, I don't like the fact that we were relying on a 34-year old to start on that side and didn't have any depth at such an important position so we had to make a typical 'reactive' move.

To me, it would have been proactive to use one of our early draft picks on a DE.

If you asked me would I rather have:

Scenario #1 - Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, Jason Taylor

or

Scenario #2 - Devin Thomas, Calais Campbell, Fred Davis, 2nd round pick, 6th round pick

I would choose scenario #2.

we'll see how campbell does, but as a prospect the keywords were slow and lazy....i mean, was it 8 reps of 225 when he weighs 280? yikes. the production wasn't great and the numbers were terrible.

we'll see how campbell does, but as a prospect the keywords were slow and lazy....i mean, was it 8 reps of 225 when he weighs 280? yikes. the production wasn't great and the numbers were terrible.

I'm sorry but in my opinion the measurables like bench and 40 time aren't really that important.

The measurable I would be concerned with is the 10.5 sacks he registered playing at the U (and the fact that he was a standout at the U).

Anyway, time will tell...

This post reminds me of the old saying..."learn to accept the things you can not change". We didn't do scenario 2, so we have to move on and work with what we have. I love the move personally. It's one of those rare moves that is a complete slam dunk for both teams.

Don't forget, there could have been a scenario 3 where we traded away a first rounder, or even a second rounder and another higher pick. I think the team did well with showing patience for a change.

It could always be worse. But I don't think we should base our expectations on the least common denominator though.

Again, I just said I had mixed feelings. I think he will be a solid contributor if healthy this year and next year.

I feel like they could have realized their lack of depth at this position earlier and tried to bolster this position. That's all I'm saying.

I would definitely go with scenario #1. If you're looking at stats from last year -- hands down the defense was ahead of the offense. The focus was on improving the offense. We have always had a solid defense, two DE's injured on the first day of training is pretty rare. Just like last year losing two starting OL , that's pretty rare. Luckily we had cap space to sign Jason Taylor, now that's planning!!!

Now, I don't like the fact that we were relying on a 34-year old to start on that side and didn't have any depth at such an important position so we had to make a typical 'reactive' move.

To me, it would have been proactive to use one of our early draft picks on a DE.

If you asked me would I rather have:

Scenario #1 - Devin Thomas, Malcolm Kelly, Fred Davis, Jason Taylor

or

Scenario #2 - Devin Thomas, Calais Campbell, Fred Davis, 2nd round pick, 6th round pick

I would choose scenario #2.And that statement, plus the fact that "40 times and bench press aren't that important" is why I'm thankful you're not our GM. While speed is not essential for a LDE, strength certainly is. When a guy is supposed to be an NFL caliber LDE and he posts the WORST bench numbers at the combine, that's a major red flag.

To clarify That Guy's bench #s: Campbell put up 8 reps at 225lbs in Jan 2008, at the combine in April he put up 16 reps at 225lbs (still the worst of all D-linemen).

You make the assumption in Scenario # 2 that Campbell would be able to step in and start for Daniels today. That assumption is dead wrong, whether Campbell eventually turns into a productive player or not (he won't IMO) we would still have to fill Daniels' spot NOW even with Campbell here. And worse, what if Campbell is a bust (good probability).

So now your Scenario #2 looks like this:
D. Thomas, bust and/or still a need at LDE, Fred Davis, 2nd Rounder & 6th rounder.

And that statement, plus the fact that "40 times and bench press aren't that important" is why I'm thankful you're not our GM. While speed is not essential for a LDE, strength certainly is. When a guy is supposed to be an NFL caliber LDE and he posts the WORST bench numbers at the combine, that's a major red flag.

To clarify That Guy's bench #s: Campbell put up 8 reps at 225lbs in Jan 2008, at the combine in April he put up 16 reps at 225lbs (still the worst of all D-linemen).

You make the assumption in Scenario # 2 that Campbell would be able to step in and start for Daniels today. That assumption is dead wrong, whether Campbell eventually turns into a productive player or not (he won't IMO) we would still have to fill Daniels' spot NOW even with Campbell here. And worse, what if Campbell is a bust (good probability).

So now your Scenario #2 looks like this:
D. Thomas, bust and/or still a need at LDE, Fred Davis, 2nd Rounder & 6th rounder.

I'm guessing you don't know much about football. What did Reggie White bench? What did LT bench?

Ask anyone who knows football about the importance of bench. Players don't lay on a bench and lift weights in the NFL - they get on a field and knock heads.