What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

GTripp0012 · 02-26-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.

^^^ Probably the understatement of the year.

If we are going to use our first round picks on DL over the next few years, I'd hope we can find guys that are good at both.

That Guy · 02-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.

That Guy · 02-26-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

he's not good against the pass, and he can disappear at times too. all three of those guys have knocks on them. I'd still probably opt for branch, but you've got to do the research to make sure he isn't going to be lazy before taking him. 1st round DTs tend to be one of the safest positions to draft and golston is better at the #3 DT spot anyways.

GTripp0012 · 02-26-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.

I never said anything about "making the safe pick". I was talking purely about positional value. For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Calvin Johnson is (presumably) a far better receiver than Randle El or Lloyd. But are we a better offense with Johnson starting instead of Randle El. Yes, but only by a very very slim margin. There just isn't much significance in the position.

Conversely, if we were to replace Saleve'a with Branch (assuming of course that Branch will be a dominant player just as we presumed Johnson would be), the defense will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger vs the run. The team would be much better off.

That's positional value. I don't think any position is "safer" than another position. I think that (4 year starting) seniors are always safer picks than underclassmen, simply because there is so much film on them. If a senior has bust potential, surely there will be red flags that scouts will find. If an underclassman has bust potential, there might not be adequate film on him, and some red flags may sneak beneath the scouts observations. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald was a safe pick though. He came out of school early, and thats never a "safe" thing. I remember him being regarded as the "best player in college football," and he was the 3rd pick--so don't say he wasn't highly regarded.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 02-26-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Supposing that Calvin Johnson is the next Jerry Rice, would you still stand by the above statements? There's no doubt a DT is worth more to OUR team than a WR, but that's not going to be true for a team with a good D-line and a poor WR-corps.

Redskinhog1963 · 02-26-2007, 08:41 PM

what's the big DE from florida's name?he looked like a walking mountain at the senior bowl.

GTripp0012 · 02-26-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think you can make the above statement in good-faith. Supposing that Calvin Johnson is the next Jerry Rice, would you still stand by the above statements?

There's no doubt a DT is worth more to OUR team than a WR, but that's not going to be true for a team with a good D-line and a poor WR-corps. Take San Diego as an example. If they had to choose between a DT, DE, or WR with a top 5 pick, they'd be crazy not to spend it on the WR of CJ's caliber.

If Calvin Johnson was the next Jerry Rice, it would justify a top 5 selection. If he ends up being the next Joey Galloway, a very real possibility, it becomes a wasted selection.

My point is that the next Jerry Rice is not nearly as valuable as the next Reggie White, Joe Montana, LaDainian Tomlinson, Bruce Matthews, Walter Jones, or Darrell Green. Assuming that each player has an equal chance to become the greatest ever at his position, it would be better to take a shot on either line or in either backfield than at the WR position.

As far as teams drafting for need...one would think that every team in the league as a need more pressing than WR. Any team that picks Johnson in the top 10 is taking a big risk knowing that the possible return on their investment will not be as great as another position. His selectior must realize that he must be everything his scouting report promises to justify his selection. I don't believe this is true with any other position.

CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR · 02-26-2007, 08:54 PM

trade down please need to get extra picks

That Guy · 02-26-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I never said anything about "making the safe pick". I was talking purely about positional value. For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Calvin Johnson is (presumably) a far better receiver than Randle El or Lloyd. But are we a better offense with Johnson starting instead of Randle El. Yes, but only by a very very slim margin. There just isn't much significance in the position.

Conversely, if we were to replace Saleve'a with Branch (assuming of course that Branch will be a dominant player just as we presumed Johnson would be), the defense will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger vs the run. The team would be much better off.

That's positional value. I don't think any position is "safer" than another position. I think that (4 year starting) seniors are always safer picks than underclassmen, simply because there is so much film on them. If a senior has bust potential, surely there will be red flags that scouts will find. If an underclassman has bust potential, there might not be adequate film on him, and some red flags may sneak beneath the scouts observations. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald was a safe pick though. He came out of school early, and thats never a "safe" thing. I remember him being regarded as the "best player in college football," and he was the 3rd pick--so don't say he wasn't highly regarded.

first, adding 800 more yards in passing offense, and another 100 running offense (cause he blocks much better than any WR we have) is a huge improvement. Maybe as much so as the couple hundred fewer yards branch would prevent. Just cause you think you can arbitrarily assign positional values on complete unknowns doesn't make it fact :P

and there is benefit in taking a WR in the top 10 if he'd be gone by pick 12 or 13 and ends up in the HoF. so saying there's no benefit is just crap. fitz was a fairly safe pick, and i didn't say he wasn't highly regarded, i said he wasn't as highly regarded as CJ on draft day.

That Guy · 02-26-2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If Calvin Johnson was the next Jerry Rice, it would justify a top 5 selection. If he ends up being the next Joey Galloway, a very real possibility, it becomes a wasted selection.

My point is that the next Jerry Rice is not nearly as valuable as the next Reggie White, Joe Montana, LaDainian Tomlinson, Bruce Matthews, Walter Jones, or Darrell Green. Assuming that each player has an equal chance to become the greatest ever at his position, it would be better to take a shot on either line or in either backfield than at the WR position.

As far as teams drafting for need...one would think that every team in the league as a need more pressing than WR. Any team that picks Johnson in the top 10 is taking a big risk knowing that the possible return on their investment will not be as great as another position. His selectior must realize that he must be everything his scouting report promises to justify his selection. I don't believe this is true with any other position.

again, you have any "proof" of this, or are you just making it up? a great QB always excedes everything else, but after that, it really depends on the situation. if you have a solid CB core and no WRs, rice is going to improve your team a lot more than darrell green might. such blanket statements are really pretty silly.

I mean, look how well minnesota did with no WRs. but they had a good OL and defense, so i guess it didn't matter, right? and you saw how much donte stallworth or TO improved the eagles offense when they were in the game. #1 WRs absolutely DO matter. the depth isn't really as important.

GTripp0012 · 02-27-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

first, adding 800 more yards in passing offense, and another 100 running offense (cause he blocks much better than any WR we have) is a huge improvement. Maybe as much so as the couple hundred fewer yards branch would prevent. Just cause you think you can arbitrarily assign positional values on complete unknowns doesn't make it fact :P

and there is benefit in taking a WR in the top 10 if he'd be gone by pick 12 or 13 and ends up in the HoF. so saying there's no benefit is just crap. fitz was a fairly safe pick, and i didn't say he wasn't highly regarded, i said he wasn't as highly regarded as CJ on draft day.

Those 800/100 figures seem pretty arbitrary. The 2nd receiver got thrown at about 45 times this year. I highly doubt that CJ or anyone else can change 45 passes (about 40 receptions if he's really good) into 800 yards (~20 yards/reception). That's pretty preposterous. Realistically he might add another 75-125 yards to the passing offense over the ARE/Lloyd combo over the course of an entire season. Marginal.

Randle El had 32 receptions for 351 yards (11 yards/reception). Are you saying that Calvin Johnson could have gone for 1150 yards in a similar amount of oppertunities?

Maybe he creates a few more yards than Randle El does in the running game...but 100? Is he some sort of lineman out there who takes multiple players out of every play? Randle El isn't a crappy blocker and already does a good job taking the corner out on front side plays. But you honestly think that CJ would create 100 more rushing yards (Not to mention that ARE had over 100 yards rushing last year)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, you have any "proof" of this, or are you just making it up? a great QB always excedes everything else, but after that, it really depends on the situation. if you have a solid CB core and no WRs, rice is going to improve your team a lot more than darrell green might. such blanket statements are really pretty silly.

I mean, look how well minnesota did with no WRs. but they had a good OL and defense, so i guess it didn't matter, right? and you saw how much donte stallworth or TO improved the eagles offense when they were in the game. #1 WRs absolutely DO matter. the depth isn't really as important.

Minnesota's offense sucked because Brad Johnson had a horrible year, and because Chester Taylor didn't come through when they needed it (no running game+no passing game despite the quality of the O Line which had an underachieving right side). Phili and NE have skimped on the WRs for years and have made top 10 offenses. Look what KC had done for many years.

Having a Santana Moss is a big deal. The guy can turn a simple screen into a 80 yard touchdown. That's a rare ability, and most top WRs in this league don't have that ability.

I think you are misunderstanding my point though. If a team has a great CB core and a weak WR core, they probably shouldn't be drafting someone in the hopes of being the next Darrell Green. However, they probably have much bigger needs than WR. Maybe they should be looking for the next Orlando Pace or Warren Sapp as opposed to the next Rice.

Common sense says that the 9 players who have the biggest effect on the offense are the guys closest to the football. If they all do their jobs to ultimate perfection, playing WR in this league is going to be pretty damn easy :P

diehardskin2982 · 02-27-2007, 10:33 AM

is it me or does Alan branch have an eierry simularity to Big Daddy Wilkinson

diehardskin2982 · 02-27-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

is it me or does Alan branch have an eierry simularity to Big Daddy Wilkinson

Plus I know I spelled name wrong

Beemnseven · 02-27-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

is it me or does Alan branch have an eierry simularity to Big Daddy Wilkinson

In what way? Is it because they're both big defensive tackles?

Mattyk · 02-27-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

In what way? Is it because they're both big defensive tackles?

I can see it, the knock on Big Daddy was that he played lazy at times. The knock on Adams is that he takes plays off at times and isn't known as a high motor guy.

02-26-2007, 08:41 PM	#36
Redskinhog1963 Special Teams Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: somewhere on this planet Age: 49 Posts: 178	Re: What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick... what's the big DE from florida's name?he looked like a walking mountain at the senior bowl. __________________ Parcells' legacy with the Cowboys can be framed this way: Instead of joining Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer as coaches who led them to championships, he leaves lumped with Chan Gailey and Dave Campo. (ESPN QUOTE)

02-26-2007, 08:54 PM	#38
CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR Impact Rookie Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: va Age: 45 Posts: 890	Re: What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick... trade down please need to get extra picks

02-27-2007, 10:33 AM	#42
diehardskin2982 What will Shanny do this offseason? Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,924	Re: What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick... is it me or does Alan branch have an eierry simularity to Big Daddy Wilkinson __________________ Let's win games now...PLEASE

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

NFL Draft Central