Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;1192642]Agree with the run defense piece. I'd happily take Vea at 13 but I'm not married to it.

But I'm not sure a good LG will solve the run game problem though. With Scherff and Trent on the line there has to be a way to run the ball better, even with Lauvao in the lineup. I can't reconcile in my mind why we're not already better on the ground.

I think it's a combination of:

- We don't play with a fullback, so tight ends need to block well, and Reed doesn't

- Kelley and Perine aren't a serious breakaway threat

- When DeSean Jackson left there was no threat whatsoever to keep the safeties from creeping forward. Richardson should help here.

- I think Jay's formations tend to broadcast whether we're running or passing. When we line up to throw, the tackles are quite often lined up a half step back from the center. When they line up on the ball with hand in the dirt, it's a run almost all the time. This is just my perception of it, I haven't chopped up tape and I haven't counted how often this is true. So there's my disclaimer. But I think there's some broadcasting of run vs pass.

- Little individual line issues. Trent and Scherff are big enough and athletic enough to run either zone (emphasizes mobility) or power (emphasizes brute force). But Spencer Long was a power guy and failed to reach on stretch zones. And Moses, as much as I love him, is more of a pass blocker than a run blocker, which makes matters real tough when he's got Reed lined up next to him. Lauvao was too inconsistent.

So there's a lot more at play here than drafting a LG will fix. You hope Roullier will be better than Long, I feel optimistic there. And I think Richardson reintroduces the speed aspect vs the safeties. And I think Alex Smith's athleticism and abilities with the RPO and read option will threaten defenses in different ways. But tight end is going to remain a problem, Moses needs to flat out improve as a run blocker, and we need a RB that scares defenses. There are a lot of reasons.[/quote]

Agree with most of what you said.
I'd say Vernon Davis could be a better blocker than Reed, but last year it often seemed he didn't even try...

Our lack of running game sure is the consequence of several things, but I'd still draft a G pretty high, I'd rather have a young promising guy than resign 30 years old disappointing Lauvao...

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=FrenchSkin;1192647]Agree with most of what you said.
I'd say Vernon Davis could be a better blocker than Reed, but last year it often seemed he didn't even try...

Our lack of running game sure is the consequence of several things, but I'd still draft a G pretty high, I'd rather have a young promising guy than resign 30 years old disappointing Lauvao...[/quote]

In a perfect world the best player available at our 2nd round spot will be a G/C like Price.

I do agree we have a need. And I'm OK with need being a tiebreaker when you're between two similarly rated players.

I just don't want a reach because of need. In my mind we have needs at LG, DL, RB, secondary, athletic LB, almost everywhere.

Not that you were espousing a reach. Like I said, hopefully BPA and needs align. Or maybe we're able to trade into positions such that the BPA and the needs do align - that'd be best of all worlds.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1192639]This is my argument of why we need LG over DT, when Allen and Foster were playing we were better and we were surprised at way the Defense played early in the yr. We cant run the ball for shit[/quote]
edit I hate tables:
Rushing yards per game last year
1--- 64 || ||9--- 81
2--- 229 || ||10--- 156
3--- 116 || ||11--- 122
4--- 111 || ||12--- 56
5--- 94 || ||13--- 65
6--- 75 || ||14--- 31
7--- 49 || ||15--- 87
8--- 51 || ||16--- 61

Rushing yards allowed per game last year
1--- 58 || || 9--- 102
2--- 97 || ||10--- 160
3--- 32 || ||11--- 84
4--- 168 || ||12--- 182
5--- 85 || ||13--- 174
6--- 127 || ||14--- 141
7--- 169 || ||15--- 159
8--- 148 || ||16--- 260

Neither of those are something to write home about, but I think the defensive yards allowed are far more glaring with fewer injuries

8 of our games (50%) we had 80 yards or more rushing, by comparison we held the opponents under 80 yards just 2 times.

Add to that the fact that we aren't a heavy run oriented team to begin with. But lots of teams LOVE to run against us.

Look, you take the best player available in the draft, or trade down, but it's ludicrous to say LG is more important then a run stuffing NT.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;1192648]In a perfect world the best player available at our 2nd round spot will be a G/C like Price.

I do agree we have a need. And I'm OK with need being a tiebreaker when you're between two similarly rated players.

I just don't want a reach because of need. In my mind we have needs at LG, DL, RB, secondary, athletic LB, almost everywhere.

Not that you were espousing a reach. Like I said, hopefully BPA and needs align. [B]Or maybe we're able to trade into positions such that the BPA and the needs do align [/B]- that'd be best of all worlds.[/quote]

This is exactly what I'm wishing for.

Also, I do think the lack of vision of our RBs is a real factor. Chris Thompson didn't have success only outside the tackles, physically he can't carry the load, but he found good holes inside too.
I'm going through the All 22 tape of the niners game (to remind me of what our team looked like when healthy), and CT clearly saw things better than Perine.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1192649]edit I hate tables:
Rushing yards per game last year
1 64 || ||9 81
2 229 || ||10 156
3 116 || ||11 122
4 111 || ||12 56
5 94 || ||13 65
6 75 || ||14 31
7 49 || ||15 87
8 51 || ||16 61

Rushing yards allowed per game last year
1 58 || || 9 102
2 97 || ||10 160
3 32 || ||11 84
4 168 || ||12 182
5 85 || ||13 174
6 127 || ||14 141
7 169 || ||15 159
8 148 || ||16 260

Neither of those are something to write home about, but I think the defensive yards allowed are far more glaring with fewer injuries

8 of our games (50%) we had 80 yards or more rushing, by comparison we held the opponents under 80 yards just 2 times.

Add to that the fact that we aren't a heavy run oriented team to begin with. But lots of teams LOVE to run against us.

Look, you take the best [B]player available in the draft[/B], or trade down, but it's ludicrous to say LG is more important then a run stuffing NT.[/quote]

No doubt and I'm not saying no to a DT but at 13? That is pretty high, he better be the next Suh or Donald. LG/DT however u spin it, those are our biggest needs

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1192651]No doubt and I'm not saying no to a DT but at 13? That is pretty high, he better be the next Suh or Donald. LG/DT however u spin it, those are our biggest needs[/quote]

Or the next Johnathan Allen?

WTF

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1192651]No doubt and I'm not saying no to a DT but at 13? That is pretty high, he better be the next Suh or Donald. LG/DT however u spin it, those are our biggest needs[/quote]

I would say DT/RB/LG.

I also think all 3 can be addressed effectively in the draft. My main disagreement with some here is that FA was the way to address the line. I would rather take 2-3 lineman in the draft, + 1 or 2 undrafted guys, and see what shakes out, rather than look for other teams castaways in FA

(although I'm still open to a Hankins or CJ Anderson signing at the right price)

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1192653]I would say DT/RB/LG.

I also think all 3 can be addressed effectively in the draft. My main disagreement with some here is that FA was the way to address the line. I would rather take 2-3 lineman in the draft, + 1 or 2 undrafted guys, and see what shakes out, rather than look for other teams castaways in FA

(although I'm still open to a Hankins or CJ Anderson signing at the right price)[/quote]

I dont know of any lineman really available still? I haven't looked in a while. Yes draft we need to address all 3 for sure, and probably a CB at some point as well. Norman isn't young anymore and scandrick is a 1 year guy.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

#Redskins schedule not set yet, but here's who they'll be playing this year. (Sorry I am late on this).

Home:
Dallas, Philly, Giants, Carolina, Green Bay, Atlanta (believe this is home opener), Colts, Houston.

Away:
Dallas, Philly, Giants, Jags, Bucs, Arizona, Saints, Titans

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1192655]#Redskins schedule not set yet, but here's who they'll be playing this year. (Sorry I am late on this).

Home:
Dallas, Philly, Giants, Carolina, Green Bay, Atlanta (believe this is home opener), Colts, Houston.

Away:
Dallas, Philly, Giants, Jags, Bucs, Arizona, Saints, Titans[/quote]

Sucks that we ended up paired against Green Bay from the North, but I'll take that we end up facing Arizona from the West. That's the only soft opponent from the West division. The 49ers should be a lot better, the Giants get that assignment.

Eagles get Minnesota and the Rams
Cowboys get Detroit and Seattle
Redskins get Green Bay and Arizona
Giants get Chicago and San Fran

The rest of course are all common opponents.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

top 10 guards from FA from Walter football
[url=http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018G.php]WalterFootball.com: 2018 NFL Free Agents - Guards[/url]
Norwell we weren't paying
Pugh again 45M, nope
Mewhart nope (injuries)
Sitton nope.

There are far more options, and less expensive, in the draft.

We weren't going to look at G in FA.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;1192656]Sucks that we ended up paired against Green Bay from the North, but I'll take that we end up facing Arizona from the West. That's the only soft opponent from the West division. The 49ers should be a lot better, the Giants get that assignment.

Eagles get Minnesota and the Rams
Cowboys get Detroit and Seattle
Redskins get Green Bay and Arizona
Giants get Chicago and San Fran

The rest of course are all common opponents.[/quote]

I think Detroit/Sea is the most favorable matchup pair, but I agree Arizona from the West is a good get.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

C'mon Bruce, if you're going to suck, at least be good at that! Only the 2nd worst. Always the bridesmaid.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927154/article/gm-power-rankings-howie-roseman-kevin-colbert-among-best]GM power rankings: Howie Roseman, Kevin Colbert among best - NFL.com[/url]

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1192659]C'mon Bruce, if you're going to suck, at least be good at that! Only the 2nd worst. Always the bridesmaid.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927154/article/gm-power-rankings-howie-roseman-kevin-colbert-among-best]GM power rankings: Howie Roseman, Kevin Colbert among best - NFL.com[/url][/quote]

What article doesn't knock the Skins, explain to me again how JJ is 12th?

There is nothing in that to give a shred of rational thought to why he ranks them. In fact in the one on Bruce he knocks him for maintaining a middle of the pack roster, well then I would think he's a middle of the pack GM. Which is where I would put him, certainly above JJ, not sure about Gettleman, seeing as how he was fired from his last job.

Re: Redskins Offseason Thread
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1192653]I would say DT/RB/LG.

I also think all 3 can be addressed effectively in the draft. My main disagreement with some here is that FA was the way to address the line. I would rather take 2-3 lineman in the draft, + 1 or 2 undrafted guys, and see what shakes out, rather than look for other teams castaways in FA

(although I'm still open to a Hankins or CJ Anderson signing at the right price)[/QUOTE]I would add fast twitch edge guy who scares tackles is another need.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk