Redskins Draft Analysis Thread

[Mattyk]

I'd like to have a young QB on the depth chart too, but it doesn't make sense to draft one just for the sake of taking one either. Obviously they didn't feel anyone out there was worth their time.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

All in all I loved the draft philosophy this year. Never thought I could enjoy trading down so much. The draft strategy gets an A in my books.

However I hate drafting skill positions when we have holes in the trenches and all over the team. I can live with Hankerson in the 3rd... fine. But I don't love that 5 of our next 6 picks after round 2 were WRs or RBs.

Who exactly is gonna throw to these receivers? Rexy from his back? And who will open holes for our RBs? I can look past the RBs since Shanny has had success in this area in the past and I don't mind getting him the guys he needs to work his system. But so many WRs?

And of course the elephant in the room is still our QB situation. I now suspect we will target a QB in free agency. I find it hard to believe we'll go thru all of 2011 with just Beck and Rexy. And if we're waiting to draft our QB next year that's fine, but the whole world will know it. There will be no hiding our intentions whatsoever.

Anyways all being said I give them a B on the 2011 draft.

When you're in the 5th or lower rounds, you're just looking for that "1986 Microsoft stock" OR quality depth. Rather than just being satisfied with our inadequate players at both RB and WR from last season, we have given ourselves MORE OPTIONS to see who really is worth keeping and who isn't. Except for Armstrong and Moss, NONE of the WRs we have are so immaculate that they are untouchable. The same applies to our RBs. Hell, Moss might not even be back if he wants to go to a contender to snatch that elusive ring.

No position is actually "addressed" until the coaches observe that the players can play the way the coaches want them to play in.

[Mattyk]

I know some think it was overkill taking 3 WRs and 2 RBs, but those are positions that lacked depth and playmakers, so I've got zero problem with going heavy on those positions.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I know some think it was overkill taking 3 WRs and 2 RBs, but those are positions that lacked depth and playmakers, so I've got zero problem with going heavy on those positions.

I agree. In fact, I hope the Skins bring in more RB's and WR's as UDFA's.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

Passing for 16 touchdowns in a pass happy spread offense....I'll pass.

Same, and I don't think the interest was ever quite legit. I got sucked into the hype last week and believed it was, should have stuck with my original reports and instincts

[CRedskinsRule]

One point where our aging cast may help us, is during this lockout, especially if it extends, We have some good mentors for most every rookie we drafted. Fletcher/Daniels - Kerrigan/Jenkins/Neild, Santana - the WR's, Portis maybe for the RB's. Lots of experience to hook up with the young guys, and all these guys sound like players who will listen to experienced vets.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Same, and I don't think the interest was ever quite legit. I got sucked into the hype last week and believed it was, should have stuck with my original reports and instincts

You did call Locker not being there at #10, every one on the draft day coverage appeared to be shocked. Nice intel.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One point where our aging cast may help us, is during this lockout, especially if it extends, We have some good mentors for most every rookie we drafted. Fletcher/Daniels - Kerrigan/Jenkins/Neild, Santana - the WR's, Portis maybe for the RB's. Lots of experience to hook up with the young guys, and all these guys sound like players who will listen to experienced vets.

Portis ain't coming back.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I know some think it was overkill taking 3 WRs and 2 RBs, but those are positions that lacked depth and playmakers, so I've got zero problem with going heavy on those positions.

You are correct that those positions lacked depth and playmakers. But so does QB as well as DL (well, young depth on the DL). I would not have minded one less WR and one more player in another position.

I have no problems with taking the two RB's we did. We have changed the complexion of our backfield and receivers and that is great.

[JoeRedskin]

I could have gone without the Gomes and with one less WR (although both late round WR's seem to be getting good reviews) in order to add a QB and OL ... BUT since it is a crapshoot, and since only time will tell, I am just basking in the "12 picks?!! Holy Sh**" moment.

[Redskin Warrior]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I know some think it was overkill taking 3 WRs and 2 RBs, but those are positions that lacked depth and playmakers, so I've got zero problem with going heavy on those positions.

I don't think it was overkill at all. Santana might not be back and Portis is gone. Torrain & Kelly have been hurt, Keiland Williams & James Davis the jury is still out on them. I think we did well in the draft.

[Jontrem]

I gave us a solid B. Liked the first 4 picks alot, the next two less (though I dislike Nebraska a little so this may have played into it) In case anyone didnt see what Parcells said about Kerrigan I will post it below (sorry if this is a repost)

On his Draft show tonight at the very end--

Tiricio: Who are some of the guys..... when they get selected in the draft, you would say, that's a pretty good pick?

Parcells: Ryan Kerrigan. If you look at Purdue's recent history, this guy plays the same position as Cliff Avril, Anthony Spencer, Ray Edwards, Shawn Phillips.....next in line: Ryan Kerrigan.....be a good player for somebody.

[Jontrem]

I like the change in philosophy that has occurred (IE we now actually value draft picks!) but some of the trade downs made it seem to me like the FO was trying a little too hard at it, almost like they were trying to send a message that they were serious about changing there MO....anyone thoughts on this?

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Jontrem

I like the change in philosophy that has occurred (IE we now actually value draft picks!) but some of the trade downs made it seem to me like the FO was trying a little too hard at it, almost like they were trying to send a message that they were serious about changing there MO....anyone thoughts on this?

They were simply trying to bring in a lot of players because they are rebuilding the team. I doubt that Mike Shanahan cares what we think.

[redsk1]

I liked our draft. We need a youth infusion into our team and this helps. I really liked the Kerrigan, Hankerson, Helu, Robinson picks. I would have liked to see another OL in there but hey we've got needs everywhere else too.

It's going to take a couple years of doing it this way too. I'm ok w/ that.