Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=GTripp0012;443810]This draft wasn't a total disaster. Fred Davis was a nice choice as a 2nd TE, and Malcolm Kelly was good value at number 51.

[B]Devin Thomas is a draft pick thrown away[/B]...but being positive here, it's better to throw the 34th pick away than it is to throw the 21st pick away.

Also we moved up into the 4th, and that gives us another shot at a potential starter, so the front office deserves it's credit on making a great deal with Atlanta.

At the end of day one, the Redskins are no better off then when they entered it, and every other team in the NFC East is. That's the troubling part.[/quote]

lol...you can't be serious. Do you know something we don't know?

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;443815]I'm in love with all three of these picks.

First off, it shows that our coaches and GM aren't smoking crack and drinking the Anthony Mix Kool Aid. They recognize that we need serious weapons. They're right.

Santana Moss, as good as he is, doesn't score enough TDs. Same with ARE. Down in the red zone these guys disappear. Nevermind the fact that Moss is getting older and that without these WRs, James Thrash or Anthony Mix would be our #3 WR (horrible).

Fred Davis gives us a second TE weapon, another big body for making yards after the catch.

We got serious value out of our picks. You guys are crazy.[/quote]Alright, if I give you Davis and Kelly, can you come up with any sort of defense for the Thomas pick with every other receiver (except Avery) available?

Would we not have been better off with Jordy Nelson?

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

I understand the logic, don't necessarily agree at first pass, but depending on what happens tomorrow we could come out much improved if the two WRs pan out.

Zorn and Cerrato are definitely putting their stamp on the team very quickly.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;443796]Yeah, but you generally don't need your 3rd, 4th, and 5th wideouts to be "world beaters". I'm on record that this means more to Moss and Randle El than people think.

I think Zorn was completely dissatisfied with his current options at wide receiver.[/QUOTE]

But you must be happy about ARE most likely no longer being the 2/3 option right?

I wonder how reactive these moves were, after the Giants drafted Phillips, Cowboys drafted Jenkins and Eagles signed Samuel

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

if you want to play WR you will have to earn your spot, every practice counts from now on.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;443821]Alright, if I give you Davis and Kelly, can you come up with any sort of defense for the Thomas pick with every other receiver (except Avery) available?

Would we not have been better off with Jordy Nelson?[/QUOTE]

GTripp, wouldn't you have more of a lowdown on Thomas since you're in MI?

What about him don't you like? All I know is that he's a bit raw, but he's got the most upside out of the rest of the group. Didn't he lead the Big 10 in receiving?

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;443815]I'm in love with all three of these picks.

First off, it shows that our coaches and GM aren't smoking crack and drinking the Anthony Mix Kool Aid. They recognize that we need serious weapons. They're right.

Santana Moss, as good as he is, doesn't score enough TDs. Same with ARE. Down in the red zone these guys disappear. Nevermind the fact that Moss is getting older and that without these WRs, James Thrash or Anthony Mix would be our #3 WR (horrible).

Fred Davis gives us a second TE weapon, another big body for making yards after the catch.

We got serious value out of our picks. You guys are crazy.[/quote]Where or when do we play these guys? It's a hard sell in this league that "everyone on the active roster are starters". Guys know that that their contracts are based on opportunities to become a star. You can't be a star if you're sharing the ball with 6 other players. Good thing is we don't have any selfish ball hogs. You just wonder if the writing's on the wall. On the other hand, we only have two contributing WRs on the roster and one TE. Really the only guys who have to worry is Thrash (future positional coach), Mix, Yoder (seemed to score a TD every time he caught the ball), and any other WR/TE on injured reserve last year. We just revamped.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

Hey watch my video on the First Day of the NFL Draft for the Redskins
[YT]rHwhKVfMqFk [/YT]

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

I would have liked to have seen Campbell taken ahead of a second wide receiver. I know Blache was confident in the line. But they need help. And to take two wide receivers so close. They must see something we don't. Or maybe a move is in the works.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

as a die hard believer in drafting Olineman in the 2nd and 3rd im a lil disappointed but i guess the talent wasnt there and wr/te options were more attractive . . . this reminds me of the time gibbs drafted a bunch of fullbacks instead of looking to develop lineman.

go skins!

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=GTripp0012;443821]Alright, if I give you Davis and Kelly, can you come up with any sort of defense for the Thomas pick with every other receiver (except Avery) available?

Would we not have been better off with Jordy Nelson?[/quote]
I think Jordy was a huge reach at # 36. Time will tell on Thomas. The FO must not have had the DL or OL available rated better than the slots we picked. I think the theme is "value". Was Thomas a value at # 34, based on what most teams and analysts had, I believe so. Same thing with Davis and Kelly. Having Davis and Cooley could create some serious mismatch problems in a 3 WR set in the run game unless the opponent has very good coverage LBs.

Again, I'll reserve judgement until tomorrow. We still have serious needs at DL, CB, S depth, LB depth, and T depth & Guard. Hopefully we'll find value to fill those needs

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

This has Cerrato written all over it.

Thinking back to recent past drafts we have shown a penchant for simply taking best available late in the draft regardless of need. We loaded on LBs a couple years ago. Same with DTs. The end of the draft is where Vinny has lived the last few years. Taking value on day two is great but taking only value on day one is foolish I think. Each of these guys could be pro bowlers but if we can't block anyone or get to the other team's passer it wont matter. They don't help us win games if other areas of our team come up short due to injury or age.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

Devin Thomas played junior collage football before playing two season for the Spartans. What that tells me he is hungry and wants to play. Plus the kind of numbers he put up last year were not good but exceptional.

The draft is a crapshoot but Thomas is a good pick in the 2nd round.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=GTripp0012;443821]Alright, if I give you Davis and Kelly, can you come up with any sort of defense for the Thomas pick with every other receiver (except Avery) available?

Would we not have been better off with Jordy Nelson?[/quote]

GTripp, I understand you have a blog, and I understand that you know statistics, which apparently makes you really smart, but I gotta call you on this. You don't know what you're talking about on Thomas.

The guy is strong. He sheds tacklers when running with the ball, which is very important in a WCO when running slants and such. Seeing him on tape, he CONSISTENTLY makes plays week in and week out. He cuts with fluidity and doesn't lose speed coming in and out of breaks, which is something that makes or break a WR at the next level when they face much tighter coverage.

I'm not a measurables guy. But if you like that kind of thing, he's a 4.4 WR who stands 6 feet 2.

And the "short body of work" argument is just retarded. You can't put up 1260 yards over the course of 13 games, in a RUN ORIENTED OFFENSE, if you're not talented.

He was the best WR available in this draft.

Re: The official 2008 draft discussion thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;443815]I'm in love with all three of these picks.

First off, it shows that our coaches and GM aren't smoking crack and drinking the Anthony Mix Kool Aid. They recognize that we need serious weapons. They're right.

Santana Moss, as good as he is, doesn't score enough TDs. Same with ARE. Down in the red zone these guys disappear. Nevermind the fact that Moss is getting older and that without these WRs, James Thrash or Anthony Mix would be our #3 WR (horrible).

Fred Davis gives us a second TE weapon, another big body for making yards after the catch.

We got serious value out of our picks. You guys are crazy.[/quote]

Totes.

Good football teams have a LOT of good football players. Hopefully, we just got three of them. We still need a bunch more, and it's going to to take some time.

The good part is now we get these guys in immediately to start learning the system that Zorn is going to put together. I tend to think that we could really use an older vet at WR who is a high character type with lots of experience in the WCO. These guys are going to need a mentor who is a player to help their learning curve-ARE and Moss included.

Remember, Campbell is a mobile player and if our OL starts to collapse he's going to do some improvising with his feat. The passes come out quick too, which should nullify the pass rush somewhat. These are value picks who are not overpaid.

Our defense is looking extremely suspect, but when you have as many holes as we do, you can't fix everything with three players. We have passing game options now and that is clearly the priority for a Jim Zorn coached team. We are going to plug some other holes outside of the draft ala Pete Kendall I suspect as well. Let's just see how this plays out. I'm buying it so far, but then again I don't have high expectations for this year, so I'm taking this all with a grain of salt.