Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


Interesting mock draft

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2007, 01:54 PM   #46
Playmaker
 
mlmpetert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Richmond
Posts: 3,257
Re: Interesting mock draft

That would be awsome if that happend. Lions fans have to be even more hyped.
mlmpetert is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-16-2007, 05:11 PM   #47
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper View Post
So with a defensive line that needs a run stuffer and a pass rusher, why would it be stupid to take two first round talents to fill them as opposed to betting the ranch that one guy is going to make a difference?

How do you know that the Pats are going to pick Landry?

Since offensive and defensive success is predicated on line play, you can't honestly think the Redskins defense would be better off taking a rookie safety over two defensive linemen. If you do, you need one of Al Koken's virtual physicals.

Why do the Eagles only draft linemen with their first round picks year in and year out? Because it makes sense.
Well first off if you would pay attention they are not first round talent, they are second round talent, so it would be stupid to take them in the forst round, but of coarse that is are MO we over pay for talent.

Second if you would pay attention the article refering to this trade said they would probaly move up to take Landry to take over for Harrison.

But does it really matter who they move up and take? If they do move up it's because they see more value with 1 player than with 2!

Please don't compare our personel department with the eagles, as they will actually draft a player that belongs in the first round. But part of the reason they draft lineman is because of there ability to draft other players later in the draft, example Westbrook, we give up the farm for Portis, they take Westbrook later in the draft and he becomes every bit as valuable if not more to them for minimal $, then Portis is for us at 52 million. That is why they can draft lineman, we are not that savvy.

So in closing by all means draft these 2 guys just like we had to give up a #2 this draft for Rocky. Having a need and properly filling it are 2 totally differnet things.
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 05:23 PM   #48
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
The Lions didn't NEED all those wide receivers, but their philosophy was to take the best players available. How'd that work out?

We have gaping holes with the pass rush and run stoppers up front. You think we should just ignore that and draft Adrian Peterson?
Did they take the best player available? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

They took big Mike Williams funny right before that draft we were conteplating taking him and I said he could be a huge bust he was to slow of foot getting off the line, funny they couldn't see it? So the fact is they have the right philosophy but have no idea how to impliment it because of thier inability to evaluate talent.

Why would we draft Peterson? Portis is better right?

But we should draft CJ if he's available, even though we are stocked at WR from last season's spending binge. CJ is a can't miss barring injury!

How did our pick of Rocky work out last draft? Apparently we still need a LB. And that's what this is about if you can't fill that need with a bonified stud [pro-bowler] at the 6 spot then fill another need!

I don't mind trading down, but we better trade down for the right players!
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 05:28 PM   #49
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07 View Post
I would like this trade if we are sure we can get some guys that we like on our draft board. I personally am a big fan of Ben Grubbs the OG from Auburn. He wouls be an upgrade over Doc. I'm sure of it. That guy has a high motor and put 225 40 times at the combine. He would be a steal at 28.

Now at 21 I like Justin Harrell but there also could be a DE there to. I have been saying I would like this trade to go down since we brought up trying to trade for Samuel ( who we don't need at this point). Now the question is how do you make up the 200 or 300 draft value points, and to be honest I don;t have an answer because I don't see the Pats coming off more picks unless they really think Landry is the missing piece or really put alot of value on finding Harrison's replacement.
I am with you on that, I do not want Harrell in the first, but either Grubbs or Blalock I think we have a huge need for, I said in a earlier post as well as SS, Blalock and Moss, but I would be happy with Grubbs and Moss, but I think we have glossed over the importance of the need for a OG, give me one of those 2 guards and either Moss or Carricker. that would be nice.
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 06:16 PM   #50
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
Did they take the best player available? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

They took big Mike Williams funny right before that draft we were conteplating taking him and I said he could be a huge bust he was to slow of foot getting off the line, funny they couldn't see it? So the fact is they have the right philosophy but have no idea how to impliment it because of thier inability to evaluate talent.

Why would we draft Peterson? Portis is better right?

But we should draft CJ if he's available, even though we are stocked at WR from last season's spending binge. CJ is a can't miss barring injury!

How did our pick of Rocky work out last draft? Apparently we still need a LB. And that's what this is about if you can't fill that need with a bonified stud [pro-bowler] at the 6 spot then fill another need!

I don't mind trading down, but we better trade down for the right players!
We don't know about Rocky yet, but in my opinion, it doesn't look promising. But your criticism of that pick can be used with the Mike Williams example - you have to separate the philosophy of drafting for need from player evaluation.

A team can ignore their needs, draft what they perceive to be the best player available and still whiff on a player because their evaluation was wrong.

But what you clearly can't do is draft the best player available regardless of the makeup of your current roster San Diego wouldn't draft a running back, Indy wouldn't make a huge swing for a quarterback, and neither would we when we have to consider the development of Jason Campbell, salary cap constraints, and the obvious understanding that there is only one ball to go around on every single play.

If your team is completely stocked, and you have no glaring needs at any one position, I could fully understand drafting the best guy on the board when you pick.

We have zero pass rush, and we could not stop the run last year. It would be madness for us to take Brady Quinn or Adrian Peterson because Quinn would never see the field, and Peterson would never see the ball.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 06:43 PM   #51
Registered User
 
100% PURE WHOOP ASS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 42
Posts: 51
Re: Interesting mock draft

we should take L. Laundry, covers the field and is a beast at saftey, next to sean taylor, these guy reeve havoc on the field, great run stoppers and great cover safteys
100% PURE WHOOP ASS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 06:57 PM   #52
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
We don't know about Rocky yet, but in my opinion, it doesn't look promising. But your criticism of that pick can be used with the Mike Williams example - you have to separate the philosophy of drafting for need from player evaluation.

A team can ignore their needs, draft what they perceive to be the best player available and still whiff on a player because their evaluation was wrong.

But what you clearly can't do is draft the best player available regardless of the makeup of your current roster San Diego wouldn't draft a running back, Indy wouldn't make a huge swing for a quarterback, and neither would we when we have to consider the development of Jason Campbell, salary cap constraints, and the obvious understanding that there is only one ball to go around on every single play.

If your team is completely stocked, and you have no glaring needs at any one position, I could fully understand drafting the best guy on the board when you pick.

We have zero pass rush, and we could not stop the run last year. It would be madness for us to take Brady Quinn or Adrian Peterson because Quinn would never see the field, and Peterson would never see the ball.
Of coarse, unless you use 1 of those players in a trade for need with someone else.

But to say there are no other players of need besides DL is also insane, and one of the reasons we have zero pass rush is why? Perhaps last season addressing of this very need in Carter? Obviously that hasen't worked out has it? I don't want the same problem next draft a revolving door of DL who don't pan out. we have to many holes and 1 legit draft pick, address 1 need? Or address 2 to 3 needs, tough call, I think we roll the dice trade down and get at least Moss and either Blalock or Grubbs, we are not winning the SB next season, so we allow Moss to develope for a year, who knows we may be able to grab another potential starter later in the draft there are some sleepers in this draft, especailly in the defensive backfield.
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 07:25 PM   #53
Special Teams
 
TenandSix:Unacceptable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 324
Re: Interesting mock draft

Greg Williams is on his way back from the Landry workout and is going to put an end to all this Tom Foolery. We'll be taking my man LL with #6. Just get used to the idea cuz that's how this thing is going down. LL and ST laying the smack-down on opposing teams game plans for the next decade or so.
TenandSix:Unacceptable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 08:18 PM   #54
You did WHAT?!?
 
EARTHQUAKE2689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In The Kitchen With Dyna.
Age: 25
Posts: 12,236
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigm29 View Post
Fantasy Football - Fanball.com

thats probably the best scenario i can see happening for the skins

i think it sucks
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpp3ycMvQd0

This is why you need Mentos. To justify your questionable problem solving skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7geP5ev0VI

Awesome isn't it.
EARTHQUAKE2689 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2007, 09:00 PM   #55
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
Of coarse, unless you use 1 of those players in a trade for need with someone else.

But to say there are no other players of need besides DL is also insane, and one of the reasons we have zero pass rush is why? Perhaps last season addressing of this very need in Carter? Obviously that hasen't worked out has it? I don't want the same problem next draft a revolving door of DL who don't pan out. we have to many holes and 1 legit draft pick, address 1 need? Or address 2 to 3 needs, tough call, I think we roll the dice trade down and get at least Moss and either Blalock or Grubbs, we are not winning the SB next season, so we allow Moss to develope for a year, who knows we may be able to grab another potential starter later in the draft there are some sleepers in this draft, especailly in the defensive backfield.
OK, but why trade one of those players to fill a need when you could have drafted to address the need in the first place?

I'm with you on trading down -- and it's maddening that since we pissed this year's draft away, we now have to scramble to patch together a selection of draft picks which is the way we should have been building this team to begin with.

We have needs just about everywhere, no one denies that. And I don't think anyone's under the delusion that we can fix all of our problems with just 4 picks in one draft. For this season, I think we're set at quarterback, running back, and wide receiver.

But when your defense is in complete shambles across the board (with the possible exception of linebacker) you have to start somewhere. As it is said everywhere by anyone who understands the game of football: it all starts up front. If you have a pass rush, that makes up for deficiencies in the secondary. When you have run stuffing defensive tackles, that makes average linebackers look like solid Pro Bowlers.

The reason we have no pass rush is not because they went after Andre Carter. I think Carter gave us about what was expected given his track record -- in other words, he was never a sack-master in San Fran, so my expectations of him weren't as high as others, and I suspect, the coaches. All in all, he was a disappointment. But to say that the way to improve the pass rush is to ignore it and draft elsewhere is completely nonsensical. Carter hasn't worked out because he was the wrong player -- not because he's a defensive end.

You will have the same problem with the D-line next year if last year's old, washed up, rickety D-line comes back and gives us the same results. We still have to find their replacements.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you believe the way to build up a football team is to ignore the weaknesses and draft players that don't have anything to do with strengthening those weaknesses.

Because you were wrong once with a player doesn't mean you never address that player's position again.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 05:47 AM   #56
Registered User
 
offiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 50
Posts: 3,097
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
OK, but why trade one of those players to fill a need when you could have drafted to address the need in the first place?

I'm with you on trading down -- and it's maddening that since we pissed this year's draft away, we now have to scramble to patch together a selection of draft picks which is the way we should have been building this team to begin with.

We have needs just about everywhere, no one denies that. And I don't think anyone's under the delusion that we can fix all of our problems with just 4 picks in one draft. For this season, I think we're set at quarterback, running back, and wide receiver.

But when your defense is in complete shambles across the board (with the possible exception of linebacker) you have to start somewhere. As it is said everywhere by anyone who understands the game of football: it all starts up front. If you have a pass rush, that makes up for deficiencies in the secondary. When you have run stuffing defensive tackles, that makes average linebackers look like solid Pro Bowlers.

The reason we have no pass rush is not because they went after Andre Carter. I think Carter gave us about what was expected given his track record -- in other words, he was never a sack-master in San Fran, so my expectations of him weren't as high as others, and I suspect, the coaches. All in all, he was a disappointment. But to say that the way to improve the pass rush is to ignore it and draft elsewhere is completely nonsensical. Carter hasn't worked out because he was the wrong player -- not because he's a defensive end.

You will have the same problem with the D-line next year if last year's old, washed up, rickety D-line comes back and gives us the same results. We still have to find their replacements.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like you believe the way to build up a football team is to ignore the weaknesses and draft players that don't have anything to do with strengthening those weaknesses.

Because you were wrong once with a player doesn't mean you never address that player's position again.

You are reading this wrong, I have alway's said that the key to a team starts with the offensive line, a QB, then 2 man to man CB's, After that the D-line, but if you also have a need lets just say safety as we do, and that safety is a much better safety than any of the linemen are at thier perspective positions, then I think you have to go safety. The Landry comparisons are that of an elite safety, I haven't heard that about any of the D-linemen, do we see a Julius Peppers with this bunch? No. There may very well be a lot of quality amoungst the lineman, but are anyone of them tagged for superstardom? So trading down and drafting a Moss shouldn't be much of a drop off if any compared to taking a G.Adams, Moss just plays with that killer instinct, and if we can add a guard with him beautiful.

Part of our line problem last year looked like tackle trouble, but the fact is Carter was being man handled by TE's, rather than commanding a double team, this freed up the offensive line to double up on our tackles on when ever they ran to his side, which in turn put our LB's in a tough situation, I am sorry to have to say it but Carter is a very week link in our D-line, there is a reason the 9er's tried to move him to LB, he couldn't hold the point of attack, we all saw him just get pushed all over the place our last game by the Giants backup TE, that is just flat out unacceptable, a DE being dominated by a backup TE.

As for drafting Landry? I am all for it, he should be a big help allowing Taylor to be the best safety in the game once he gets comfortable, part of Taylors lack of production last year was due to the fact that he had to try and be all over the place, AA wasen't going to cover anyone, and teams were not going to throw at Taylor so long as we had a safety who couldn't cover on the field.

My feeling is this, I see a lot of D-lineman in this draft as well as DE's, if we trade down we can still get what I believe will be a good one in Moss, who may have the most upside of any DE, this should allow us to draft what I believe may be our biggest need [although overlooked] and that's a bonified stud at guard.

Next draft depending how we go with this one, will hopefully provide the rest of what we need on defense, at least we will have all our picks to try.

The Carter deal is a real problem for us in all aspects, a lot of money for a guy who may be the equal to AA as a DE?
offiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 10:55 AM   #57
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
My feeling is this, I see a lot of D-lineman in this draft as well as DE's, if we trade down we can still get what I believe will be a good one in Moss, who may have the most upside of any DE, this should allow us to draft what I believe may be our biggest need [although overlooked] and that's a bonified stud at guard.
Did you know that for the price of Andre Carter we could have signed Drew Brees? Sickening.

Anyway, as for LaRon Landry -- how could we take him at #6 and still have access to another D-lineman later on in the first or second round? The way people talk about Landry, if we try and trade down even just a few spots, he won't be there. Teams are reportedly trying to trade UP to get him.

I've never believed O-guard was a big need even with the loss of Dockery. I feel like a veteran journeyman could fill in adequately this year; maybe look for a guard in next year's draft class.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 11:05 AM   #58
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,644
Re: Interesting mock draft

Hindsight is always 20/20 though. With all I'm reading about Okoye, I'm more than fine with sitting and taking him at six. We'll worry about using all those draft picks next year.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 11:38 AM   #59
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 83,576
Re: Interesting mock draft

Quote:
Originally Posted by offiss View Post
The Carter deal is a real problem for us in all aspects, a lot of money for a guy who may be the equal to AA as a DE?
I think that's taking it a bit too far. Carter at least finished the season on the field and his play really picked up down the stretch. Look at his stats from the 5 December games... 33 total tackles, 4 sacks. Granted that doesn't excuse the first 11 games but at least he showed us something to look forward to for this year.

Arch on the other hand was a complete disaster.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 12:41 PM   #60
Camp Scrub
 
redskins159's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rockton Il.
Posts: 36
Re: Interesting mock draft

I would love to have two first rounders, but the Patriots will unlikely trade up with multiple first round picks. New England is one of the best drafting teams in the nfl and could probobly get more out of two 1st round picks than just one high 1st round picks. The skins should try to trade down to Mia. or Atl and still get the D line help they need.
redskins159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.35553 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25