Glaring Need / Roster
 

I just went over the roster tonight and there was one glaring need that stuck out, OLB.

Now I know that there isn't much to talk about, except the random Colt VS Soup threads, but I think we could chew the fat about the roster. This will only get better after the draft and with camp.

RT is up in the air. If we don't go after a RT then we absolutely have to address the OLB. With Marcus gone there is no one of any caliber there to take his spot. We can argue about DE, but we do have Wynn, Buzbee, Carter, and Wilson there. Daniels might return but he and Wynn will only be there for a little while. We can argue about Daniels and Buzbee but let's not forget if it wasn't for them going down, well . . . . you know.

For OLB we only have three guys: Fincher, McIntosh, and Campbell. You can throw in Blades but that leaves open a spot at ILB, and Fletcher isn't a spring chicken.

I'm under the opinion that we'll wind up getting either a RT or an OLB with our first pick. All of the RTs look good to me and so do the OLBs at that spot. I think they'll get a RT with the first and an OLB with the third rounder. I also think that we might be able to bring back Marcus for depth.

It seems to me they should address the O-line before the D because Coach Blache is a better at getting what he wants from the D. The O-line needs more young Ts. I'm not against getting a OLB with the 13th though.

Oh yeah, it looks to me like we're getting younger, just not as fast as everyone would like.

Hopefully this is worthy of a new thread.

What sayeth the Mob?

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539947]OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.[/quote]

It would, but I think OL is more important if we are going to compete in the division against some serious DL's especially the Giants.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Our Glaring need is LDE. At 13 there is at least 1 guy that will fall to us (Maybin, Jackson, Orakpo) in which we will get value and need

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

This is driving me nuts. DE is not but our 4th or 5th need. We can rotate 3 guys there to hold it down. RT, C and OLB have no such luxury. Our options at RT are among the lowest in the league and there is no depth. Our C is average at best. OLB is somewhat hideable using scheme but is shallow and undertalented. I am tired of the DE arguments.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

That and Maybin is a Jason Taylor wannabe, so making the same mistake we just made with Taylor has all the wisdom of Blache written all over it. Luckily, we have Wynn and Daniels to buffer against that, because, we really need to get those guys on the field somehow.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

13 may be too high to take an LB unless we feel a very special player is available. Obviously Curry will be long gone by then; however, I feel Rey fits that bill. He is the only other LB worthy of the 13th overall pick IMO. Rey could well be on the board at 13, but it's likely either Oher or A. Smith will also be there... I mean seriously a WON'T complain about getting any one of those guys.

... I do think there's room for debate about the draft depth of LB talent vs. OT talent. Personally I believe there's way, way more OT talent in the draft. Beyond Curry, Rey, Cushing (who i don't want) I don't see any more impact starters, though Matthews, English and Laurinaitis may be close. Meanwhile I see 4 immediate impact OTs in the draft and probably 2 or 3 more guys who probably will be able to start on opening day. The implications of all this should be more OT talent available in the market post draft, as teams jettison overpaid vets for young talent. I'm not advocating Rey over Oher or Smith necessarily just telling it the way I see it.

One more thing... why do some people think a college DE will have luck as an OLB, in our system especially, when we require our guys to cover well and basically be very dynamic? I've heard a shit-ton of comments like "Rey can't cover" or "Rey is only suited to play the middle." First of all the scouting reports say Rey covers very well, and our FO has said it thinks he could play OLB. But tell me how a DE, who's probably had zero experience covering much of anything, will somehow be more capable than this stud who's been doing it for the last four years?

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Damn GOAT, I couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree with you, except I still don't like the Wynn signing too much. The only DE I would like to see us draft is Jaron Gilbert, but not at 13. Oher, Smith or Rey at 13 and im happy.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

I was working on this when this thread began. Pretty sure I said, awesome.

[url=http://redskinshogheaven.com/2009/03/available-free-agents-and-ten-over-specified-redskins-needs.html]Available Free Agents and Ten Over-Specified Redskins Needs - Hog Heaven[/url]

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539977]I was working on this when this thread began. Pretty sure I said, awesome.

[url=http://redskinshogheaven.com/2009/03/available-free-agents-and-ten-over-specified-redskins-needs.html]Available Free Agents and Ten Over-Specified Redskins Needs - Hog Heaven[/url][/quote]

There's no I in team...and no A in competent :)

Anyhow, this thread seems a lot like this one [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/29055-pimp-our-poll-pre-draft.html[/url]

Though I can easily see how people would miss it, that thread title tells you nothing really

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539977]I was working on this when this thread began. Pretty sure I said, awesome.

[url=http://redskinshogheaven.com/2009/03/available-free-agents-and-ten-over-specified-redskins-needs.html]Available Free Agents and Ten Over-Specified Redskins Needs - Hog Heaven[/url][/quote]

Good stuff... but probably outdated within a week or so of the draft as new talent hits the market. I think our FO is very smart to sit tight right now.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=SmootSmack;539979]There's no I in team...and no A in competent :)
[/quote]Ah, but there IS one in equiv'a'lent. I was just borrowing.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;539951]It would, but I think OL is more important if we are going to compete in the division against some serious DL's especially the Giants.[/quote]

While I agree that OL is important, also the current players need to step it up. Besides, if our offense improves, we should be able to compete with the Giants.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

I think (HOPE) both the OLB and OL positions will be addressed by the time camp begins. Marcus has been offered a contract, but just like Daniels is waiting to see what his options are. Mack, Oher, Maualuga would all be great addiions for us. We'll just have to see who's available come draft day. I would like to pick up a second rounder but I still believe there is talent to be had in the 3rd at the O-Line and OLB positions. Especially RT.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=The Goat;539962]more OT talent available in the market post draft, as teams jettison overpaid vets for young talent. [/quote]

hmm...this is an interesting point.
However, the argument will be....they will cut "older" OTs and that is what we are trying to get away from.

But I certainly see this as a good argument

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Let's look at our current starting roster...LT is Samuels (old and injury prone), Dockery and Thomas at G (Thomas is long in the tooth also), Heyer/Jansen at RT (one is inexperienced and the other old and injury prone, Rabach is our C (old also and will be tested and battered more often since teams are going to 3-4 schemes). We currently have no viable backup for the C position which is the main cog in the offensive production gears. Our defense was good last year without the current free-agent acquisitions for 2009. If we don't bolster the O-line, and any of our aged starting veterans go down, we will be stuck running the same quick pass routes that cause defenses to tee off in the box on us. Portis will be banged up from stacked boxes and we will be mediocre in our record once again. Yes, we are rebuilding somewhat right now, but O-line is the best place to start in the draft to even the keel with team production (points put on the board). We lost several games last year that were by a TD or less. Add those games into our win column from better offensive production and we are in the playoffs. It all starts with adequate protection in the run or pass games. A defensive pick at 13th doesn't make all that much sense when you consider that no matter what the defense does to get a team off the feild for our offense, if we can't move the ball effectively we will struggle to win. The defense will be on the field longer and more times and get fatigued resulting in tough losses. My vote is Offensive drafts first.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=redskingrove;540085]Let's look at our current starting roster...LT is Samuels ([B]old and injury prone[/B]), Dockery and Thomas at G (Thomas is long in the tooth also), Heyer/Jansen at RT (one is inexperienced and the other old and injury prone, Rabach is our C (old also and will be tested and battered more often since teams are going to 3-4 schemes). We currently have no viable backup for the C position which is the main cog in the offensive production gears. Our defense was good last year without the current free-agent acquisitions for 2009. If we don't bolster the O-line, and any of our aged starting veterans go down, we will be stuck running the same quick pass routes that cause defenses to tee off in the box on us. Portis will be banged up from stacked boxes and we will be mediocre in our record once again. Yes, we are rebuilding somewhat right now, but O-line is the best place to start in the draft to even the keel with team production (points put on the board). We lost several games last year that were by a TD or less. Add those games into our win column from better offensive production and we are in the playoffs. It all starts with adequate protection in the run or pass games. A defensive pick at 13th doesn't make all that much sense when you consider that no matter what the defense does to get a team off the feild for our offense, if we can't move the ball effectively we will struggle to win. The defense will be on the field longer and more times and get fatigued resulting in tough losses. My vote is Offensive drafts first.[/quote]

C. Samuels is injury prone? I find that hard to believe, as I believe last year was his first injury that forced him out from playing? Anyone who knows for sure, please correct me as I am sure I'm wrong but I'm absolutely sure that Samuels isn't injury prone..

Just like some said, I believe that DE is one of glaring needs but it is not imperative for us to address the position [B]this year[/B].. We managed well with Evans last season; we are going to manage it well with Wynn (and maybe Phillips?), and along with 3 others such as Chris Wilson, Buzbee and Jackson.. They are on roster list for a reason, and it is not to just to fill in #2 and #3 spot.. If something happens to #1, we are suppose to go to #2 and then to #3.. Therefore, we should use #13 pick to draft OT - whichever's the best left on the board (I'm really huge fan of Mack but I have to be realistic and OT is significant, compared to C for this season). I would understand completely if Redskins decide to trade up into 2nd rd to draft LB but I'm hoping that we would stand pat and keep all of our draft picks. Then we would be able to use other picks to pick capable back-ups and maybe starters in future (such as C and nickel CB)

The idea of moving Chris Wilson is really intriguing (SmootSmack brought up the idea, I believe?) - CW and Jason Taylor are virtually alike physically- Jason Taylor is 6-6 and weighs 244, while CW is 6-4 and weighs 247.. Obviously the question is, do CW possess the coverage skills? I'm really hoping that Redskins would try do this kind of experiment this year..

However, next off-season; we MUST address DE, preferably through draft, using #1 pick or #2 pick.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

cant wait for the draft we need a linebacker first round

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

OLB is our #1 glaring need because we don't have anyone on the roster that can start in that role. If we had to, we can start Heyer at RT without the line collapsing. We can start Wynn or (if resigned) Daniels for one more year until we address that in the '10 offseason. However, we simply cannot go into the '09 season with HB Blade, all 5'9, 240 lbs of him at our SLB spot. That's just madness.

I know 75% of our fanbase has a love of OL, OL, OL but we need playmakers and at 13 we need to get one.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Tough cal, I wanna go with OT since I just watched the sanfrancisco game again, and Jason got harrased all game, but I cant see spending a 1st Round #13 pick on a guy that wont start from day 1....so OLB, then OT,DE

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

My somewhat educated guess says if the draft were today we're hoping Oher is there at #13 because that's who they want (and I approve!)

But (and this will please many people here) they also like Alex Mack a lot. And if Oher isn't there they would be looking to trade down and pick up Mack and if possible probably Clay Matthews (Patriots want to trade up supposedly)

Personally, as much as I like Oher I think trading down is the better option.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=SmootSmack;540112]My somewhat educated guess says if the draft were today we're hoping Oher is there at #13 because that's who they want (and I approve!)

But (and this will please many people here) they also like Alex Mack a lot. [B]And if Oher isn't there they would be looking to trade down and pick up Mack and if possible probably Clay Matthews (Patriots want to trade up supposedly)[/B]

Personally, as much as I like Oher I think trading down is the better option.[/quote]

That sounds like a pretty good scenario to me. It would both improve our o-line and add youth. Matthews has been moving up quite a bit and he's looking more impressive all the time. Love his attitude. This would definitely address 2 of our biggest needs and improve our team. IMO

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=SmootSmack;540112]My somewhat educated guess says if the draft were today we're hoping Oher is there at #13 because that's who they want (and I approve!)

But (and this will please many people here) they also like Alex Mack a lot. And if Oher isn't there they would be looking to trade down and pick up Mack and if possible probably Clay Matthews (Patriots want to trade up supposedly)

Personally, as much as I like Oher I think trading down is the better option.[/quote]

Music to my ears. I'd love to have Mack and Mathews or Oher and Mathews. That would be fantastic IMO.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=Paintrain;540100]OLB is our #1 glaring need because we don't have anyone on the roster that can start in that role. If we had to, we can start Heyer at RT without the line collapsing. We can start Wynn or (if resigned) Daniels for one more year until we address that in the '10 offseason. However, we simply cannot go into the '09 season with HB Blade, all 5'9, 240 lbs of him at our SLB spot. That's just madness.

I know 75% of our fanbase has a love of OL, OL, OL but we need playmakers and at 13 we need to get one.[/quote]But, I think you'll agree with this, a defensive player we take at 13 has to not only fit in our scheme, but also fit in anyone elses scheme as his prime years are going to be played likely under a different defensive coaching staff.

In the first round, that's pretty much two players: Orakpo, and Tyson Jackson. Orakpo could help us at OLB next year in kind of a Matthias Kiwanuka type role, but Jackson wouldn't help our LB situation at all, and would likely spend a year as Carter's backup in the defense.

As much as I like to conceptualize everything I discuss, at the end of the day, we're still going to have to draft a player, not just a position. This, obviously, is a reason to not just draft "best available RT" as well in the first round.

BTW, Blades' skill set plays well at SLB. It's because 1) TEs are smaller now then they've ever been in the past and 2) our defense usually puts Chris Horton on the outside of him on most plays anyway.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=Paintrain;540100]OLB is our #1 glaring need because we don't have anyone on the roster that can start in that role. If we had to, we can start Heyer at RT without the line collapsing. We can start Wynn or (if resigned) Daniels for one more year until we address that in the '10 offseason. However, we simply cannot go into the '09 season with HB Blade, all 5'9, 240 lbs of him at our SLB spot. That's just madness.

I know 75% of our fanbase has a love of OL, OL, OL but we need playmakers and at 13 we need to get one.[/quote]

The NFL is filled with undrafted and late round linebackers that have become great players.

Find the linebackers later.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

our OL is not that bad,but right now we do not have a OLB on the strong side that,s our weekest spot right now.....

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;540132]But, I think you'll agree with this, a defensive player we take at 13 has to not only fit in our scheme, but also fit in anyone elses scheme as his prime years are going to be played likely under a different defensive coaching staff.

In the first round, that's pretty much two players: Orakpo, and Tyson Jackson. Orakpo could help us at OLB next year in kind of a Matthias Kiwanuka type role, but Jackson wouldn't help our LB situation at all, and would likely spend a year as Carter's backup in the defense.

As much as I like to conceptualize everything I discuss, at the end of the day, we're still going to have to draft a player, not just a position. This, obviously, is a reason to not just draft "best available RT" as well in the first round.

BTW, Blades' skill set plays well at SLB. It's because 1) TEs are smaller now then they've ever been in the past and 2) our defense usually puts Chris Horton on the outside of him on most plays anyway.[/quote]

You have a good argument, as I believe Heyer would be decent enough for us to play good offense. Although I had different thought, as Heyer is the reason why I want us to draft Mack; NFL are getting enriched with massive NTs.. Some people said Buges don't instill rookie into the line, that may be the case but he also could play guard.. Maybe he would come in when Thomas don't perform well, that is unless if Thomas goes back to his old self but it would be difficult with back problem and age, I believe..

But now I'm open to drafting LB w/ #13 pick..

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;540132]But, I think you'll agree with this, a defensive player we take at 13 has to not only fit in our scheme, but also fit in anyone elses scheme as his prime years are going to be played likely under a different defensive coaching staff.

In the first round, that's pretty much two players: Orakpo, and Tyson Jackson. Orakpo could help us at OLB next year in kind of a Matthias Kiwanuka type role, but Jackson wouldn't help our LB situation at all, and would likely spend a year as Carter's backup in the defense.

As much as I like to conceptualize everything I discuss, at the end of the day, we're still going to have to draft a player, not just a position. This, obviously, is a reason to not just draft "best available RT" as well in the first round.

BTW, Blades' skill set plays well at SLB. It's because 1) TEs are smaller now then they've ever been in the past and 2) our defense usually puts Chris Horton on the outside of him on most plays anyway.[/quote]

Yes, I agree with you. We'd have to draft a fit, not just a position at 13. I guess I am just not feeling Blades at SLB at all.

I kind of think a lot of folks are under the assumption that we can draft one of the top 4 and just slot him at RT and he'll be a stud until moving to LT post Samuels. It's not as simple as it seems.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GridIron26;540162]You have a good argument, as I believe Heyer would be decent enough for us to play good offense. Although I had different thought, as Heyer is the reason why I want us to draft Mack; NFL are getting enriched with massive NTs.. Some people said Buges don't instill rookie into the line, that may be the case but he also could play guard.. Maybe he would come in when Thomas don't perform well, that is unless if Thomas goes back to his old self but it would be difficult with back problem and age, I believe..

But now I'm open to drafting LB w/ #13 pick..[/quote]

Mack or Wood can help us with the nose tackle. If they pass on both of these guys something is wrong.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=wilsowilso;540143]The NFL is filled with undrafted and late round linebackers that have become great players.

Find the linebackers later.[/quote]

I'd venture that there are more undrafted/late round OL doing well in the league than LB. Most of the stud LB (Ware, Merriman, Urlacher, Lewis, Suggs) are 1st round picks. Yeah there's the occasional Antonio Pierce (thanks Joe and Gregg) but really, that's a position to draft proven talent for.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Yes football is a "team" sport, but every position has a certain value that when you look at it in a vacuum, can be prioritized. Obviously the Redskins have certain specific needs. That all being considered, i feel that investing in your future on the offensive line will far and away out perform an investment in the linebacking corp.

We made our investment in linebacking corp with Rocky and the with HB Blades(who is granted starting to look more like a mike to follow London). Stephon Heyer is not what i would call an appropriate investment in the single most important "unit" on the field. Honestly, I don't know how GM's get away with not spending a 1-3 rd pick every 2-3 years. The state of our depth at offensive line is a crime in a billion $ organization.

We are forced to re-act in this draft, just like last year with the wideouts. Dan develops a business model to successfully make money with the Redskins. But he takes a pass on making a football specific plan. I am tired of re-evaluating every offseason, and focusing on that year's problems. Big picture Vinnie! Look at the goddamn big picture. Start thinking ahead 5 years.

Sorry for the rant..

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

Defensive Line Coach and Wide Receiver Coach

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539961]That and [B]Maybin is a Jason Taylor wannabe[/B], so making the same mistake we just made with Taylor has all the wisdom of Blache written all over it. Luckily, we have Wynn and Daniels to buffer against that, because, we really need to get those guys on the field somehow.[/quote]

I hope he turns out to be that good if we select him at 13.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GridIron26;540094]The idea of moving Chris Wilson is really intriguing (SmootSmack brought up the idea, I believe?) - CW and Jason Taylor are virtually alike physically- Jason Taylor is 6-6 and weighs 244, while CW is 6-4 and weighs 247.. Obviously the question is, do CW possess the coverage skills? I'm really hoping that Redskins would try do this kind of experiment this year..
[/quote]

Wilson is not a linebacker...he is a pass rushing specialist...that is all.
You don't want him in coverage if you can help it.
He has always played the line.

It is one thing to have an OLB play on the line...it is quite another to take a DE and put him in coverage full time. They can experiment, but this aint a college kid, hes been playing pro ball on the line for a few years now.
If he could cover, he'd be great because he can certainly rush the passer.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=GTripp0012;539947]OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.[/quote]

I think that if a "name" is still there, we'll take him. I don't know much about the lesser known guys though.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

This could have been mentioned already on the site but Scouts Inc has us taking Ayers @ 13 (if Jason Smith goes #1 overall) which means we pass on Oher, who falls to 21, and Rey, who falls to 26.

[url=http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=4020260]2009 mock draft scenario: What happens if Matthew Stafford is not No. 1 draft pick? - ESPN[/url]

I think these guys must be retarded. Seriously, why bring back Wynn/Daniels if we plan to use the 13 overall on a DE? Second, our FO is high on Oher and Rey so why do we pass on them for a guy not really known/needed. Last, who hell really believes Rey falls that far? I think he falls to SD @ 16 worst case scenario.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=The Goat;540369]This could have been mentioned already on the site but Scouts Inc has us taking Ayers @ 13 (if Jason Smith goes #1 overall) which means we pass on Oher, who falls to 21, and Rey, who falls to 26.

[URL="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft09/insider/columns/story?columnist=mcshay_todd&id=4020260"]2009 mock draft scenario: What happens if Matthew Stafford is not No. 1 draft pick? - ESPN[/URL]

I think these guys must be retarded. Seriously, why bring back Wynn/Daniels if we plan to use the 13 overall on a DE? Second, our FO is high on Oher and Rey so why do we pass on them for a guy not really known/needed. Last, who hell really believes Rey falls that far? I think he falls to SD @ 16 worst case scenario.[/quote]
The thing is this, our Front Office is notorious for doing something out of the ordinary come draft day. All of this speculation will drive us all crazy. And of course the Front Office will do something that will not make the fan base happy at all. My thinking is that the organization will move down in the draft to pick-up a few more picks. And whom ever they pick, they will not start this year, or really contribute at all for this team for that matter.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=4mrusmc;540399]The thing is this, our Front Office is notorious for doing something out of the ordinary come draft day. All of this speculation will drive us all crazy. And of course the Front Office will do something that will not make the fan base happy at all. [B]My thinking is that the organization will move down in the draft to pick-up a few more picks. And whom ever they pick, they will not start this year, or really contribute at all for this team for that matter.[/B][/quote]

If it turns out that way all of Skins fandom should call for Vinny's head... you can't miss out on 1st round impact players year after year and expect to build a successful team. Honestly i am worried about us trading out of the 1st completely and not getting a single starter this year, but i definitely want to believe Vinny is getting smarter at his job.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

I honestly think we'll do better than some may think in the draft. We have limited picks but we do have a 1rst and a 3rd. If we do a little wheeling and dealing we may come out with some more and there will be some good prospects in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Where does this optimism come from? I haven't a clue.

Re: Glaring Need / Roster
 

[quote=Paintrain;540164]Yes, I agree with you. We'd have to draft a fit, not just a position at 13. I guess I am just not feeling Blades at SLB at all.

[B]I kind of think a lot of folks are under the assumption that we can draft one of the top 4 and just slot him at RT and he'll be a stud until moving to LT post Samuels. It's not as simple as it seems.[/B][/quote]

Sort of discredits our coaches on offense don't you think? Over the last few drafts OTs taken in the top 15 have been able to start on day 1 and some have even had remarkable success. I mean the Rinehart situation makes me uneasy... a guy they draft in the 3rd can't even dress as a rookie. But 1st round OT talent, especially early 1st round OT talent, should make it harder to "miss" right?

More generally I think players drafted early in the 1st ought to make an immediate impact, w/ the exception of most rookie QBs. If a player drafted that high can't start right away something has gone very wrong IMO, whether it's at the player or coaching level.