Taylor or Winslow...
 

[url]http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2274910[/url]

I will be the first to admit that I really dont get in to college football. With that being said I never seen Taylor or Winslow play, all I know about them is what is said on here and what I read. After reading this article I made up my mind as to who I believe we should take in this months draft. TAYLOR!!!!

I base this on the idea that defense wins championships. From the way this article talked about Winslow he sounds to more of a TE/WR rather than the TE/blocker that Gibbs likes. Make no doubt about it he still would be a great pick, but we are set at WR so to me it would make no sence to draft him if he is known more for his recieving skills and not his blocking skills.

As for drafting Taylor, I think that his presence will help not only with the pass rush but also with turn-overs.

Although if there is a possiblity that we somehow could attain both in the draft than I say do it!!!

Matty ... or any other moderator.... can we get a poll up on this one?

Taylor or Winslow at #5 straight up... no other options... :thumb:

Hail, the poll is up

I like Winslow! He can be as good as Shockey is for N.Y!

Maybe but it sounds as if Winslow fits the TE mold of KC'S Tony G. rather than NY'S Shockey.

If Winslow were drafted by the Redskins, he would be used more in the H-back role than the blocking TE role in Gibbs' offense.

The assessment that Winslow would be a poor fit as a TE in Washington would be pretty accurate, in that the TE is used more as a pure blocker, like an extra offensive tackle. However, Winslow would be a perfect fit in the H-back spot, as the H-back is a more versatile position that requires the player to be a pass receiver, lead blocker, or second tight end, moving in motion to optimize the effectiveness of each play, depending on how the defense lines up. The H-back is critical to Gibbs' gameplan, as it keeps the defense off-balance, forcing them to account for that player as a receiver and a blocker, while never knowing where that player may wind up by the time the ball is snapped.

Winslow could be the ultimate weapon as an H-back. He may not be the greatest blocker, but he's more than adequate, and you can't deny the impact an athlete like Winslow would have as a receiver.

I voted for Winslow, but I sure as heck wouldn't be disappointed if the Skins took Taylor instead. It's a no-lose situation if you ask me.

You say "if he can block", if you think Shockey does anything resembling blocking then Winslow mine as well be an All-Pro tackle in your book. Winslow can block and tries hard to block. And don't worry, TE Walter Rasby whom the Front Office signed this offseason is the blocking TE and the whole reason Winslow would be brought in is for the H-Back. Especially since we traded Brian Johnson. I think Ohalate can play and keep improving and the only real position with no sure-fire starter on offense is H-Back. Defense has a few more holes so if I'm the Redskins, I try to sign D. Gardener when he is released by making room with the absence of Trotter and fill out the Offense by getting Winslow.

[QUOTE=JoeGibbsIsBack]You say "if he can block", if you think Shockey does anything resembling blocking then Winslow mine as well be an All-Pro tackle in your book. Winslow can block and tries hard to block. And don't worry, TE Walter Rasby whom the Front Office signed this offseason is the blocking TE and the whole reason Winslow would be brought in is for the H-Back. Especially since we traded Brian Johnson. I think Ohalate can play and keep improving and the only real position with no sure-fire starter on offense is H-Back. Defense has a few more holes so if I'm the Redskins, I try to sign D. Gardener when he is released by making room with the absence of Trotter and fill out the Offense by getting Winslow.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure who this is directed to, but I am not comparing Shockey to Winslow, as a matter of fact IMO I think that they have totaly different playing styles. Shockey seems to try to run over his tacklers where as Winslow tries to avoid the tacklers and use his speed and smarts to elude them.

No doubt about it he would solidify our offense, but [B]if our opponents can't score they can't win!!!![/B]

True about defense but you could look at it two ways. Its also been said the best defense is a great offense.

I also don't really watch much college ball like Redskins8588, so I'm mainly going on what I've read here and on other sites. I would be very happy with either of them, but I chose Taylor, mainly because at this point we need more help on defense...but Winslow would really make the offense sick too...
:headbange

wow this poll isn't even close, I'm kinda surprised

I vote for Taylor. With TO and Keyshawn in the division, we are going to need to shore up our secondary and all reports I'm hearing about Taylor are that he's the real deal. I admit having Winslow on offense would be a scary sight, if they get any kind of improvement in their line play then a Portis-Coles-Winslow skill position package is immediately among the top in the league. And I'd love to see it, but I still say go with defense. With all the pressure that Williams is going to bring, we're going to need a better safety than Bowen back there. I like Bowen at times, but he's more prone to misfire than Jason Williams's shotgun. Either way, it seems like a can't miss thing, but I'm guessing that if Winslow picks the Poston brothers as agents then the Skins will go with Taylor and Rosenhaus. Signability, it must be Clark Kellogg rubbing off on me.

i say trade our first round pick next year for a chance to get both of them.

Sean Taylor is a difference maker on defense something we no longer have in our secondary.. We have Portis and Coles on offense so I say it has to be Taylor,

I voted for Taylor as well, but like a lot of other people on this board, I really don;t care which one we get as long as we get one...both will have an immediate impact on one side of the ball. It is a nice feeling knowing we are in the drivers seat on this one...I would personally like to thank the Ol' Ball Coach for the poor coaching. Without him, we would not be in this position.

Winslow is supposed to be a lock, but Troupe and Watson and some of the other guys look pretty good too. Nothing's for sure...

Plus, we've got some excellent slot guys in Trash, Jacobs, and McCants - which lessen the importance of Winslow (even though he'd be an upgrade).

If Chamberlain gets his act together - he could return to "stud" form. What ever happened to him anyway?? I know he got fat and out of shape, but I mean, how can you go from stud to dud w/o trying to make a comeback?? We haven't released him yet, so that's a sign that there's still some potential.

If we got Winslow, I'd be thrilled. But I think Taylor is the way to go. No wrong answer here!!

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]wow this poll isn't even close, I'm kinda surprised[/QUOTE]

This should not come as a suprise. The reason is very obvious :) ... we need to upgrade our defense more than our offense. We have not drafted a defensive player w/our top pick in the draft in four years. Arrington in 2000 was the last one. It is the Defense's turn to get a top player.
Recent top picks:

2003......Taylor Jacobs and Derrick Dockery
2002......Patrick Ramsey and Ledell Betts
2001......Rod Gardner
2000......Lavar Arrington

I think it is time for Snyder/Cerrato to realize, a high powered Offense sells tickets but Strong defense wins championships. The problem is drafting Defensive players does not get the headlines Snyder craves.

[QUOTE=Defensewins]I think it is time for Snyder/Cerrato to realize, high a powered Offense sells tickets but Strong defense wins championships. The problem is drafting Defensive players does not get the headlines Snyder craves.[/QUOTE]


Good point. I think that Portis & Brunnel should check the "high-powered offense" block. Time to look to the D.

[QUOTE=JoeGibbsIsBack]True about defense but you could look at it two ways. Its also been said the best defense is a great offense.[/QUOTE]

Do you think that is what the Colts thought when they played NE in the AFC title game??

[QUOTE=JoeGibbsIsBack]True about defense but you could look at it two ways. Its also been said the best defense is a great offense.[/QUOTE]

I think KC will disagree with you as well, they got crushed in the playoffs.
It was said all year by the so-called "experts" that KC had the best offense in the NFL during the regular season 2003. The Colts came in a close second. They both were beat soundly in the playoffs. Payton Manning had something like 4 interceptions?
Every team that has won the Superbowl since 2000 has won with strong defense.

2003.... New England
2002.....Tampa Bay
2001.....New England
2000.....Baltimore

None of these teams has a scary offense. They won with defense.

Still, the thought of a dynamic TE like Winslow in this offense is a pleasant thought.

Seriously, how many sleepless nights would opposing d-coordinators have with having to prepare for an offense that would feature Brunell, Coles, Gardner, Portis, Winslow and with Gibbs calling the shots!? Scary.

I would rather let the opposing d- coordinators sleep at night and win a Superbowl,
rather than having a team like Colts and KC, that constantly lose in the playoffs....because their defense (as is ours) is inadequate.
Mr. Snyder, the goal is to win superbowls, not to create a fantasy league team offense.

Isn't the actual saying the opposite: [I]The best offense is a great defense.[/I]
A great defense that keeps the opposing offense of the field is a great tool for the offense to have.

One reason that Im not sure ive seen anyone mention about Winslow is he speed. Not his speed as a receiver, but the speed he offers as a blocker. If Johnson would have been Portis blocker he would have outran him. Now I know you are supposed to follow your blocker and wait for holes, but Portis is known for making the big play, and if you have a blocker that can run faster the big play will be bigger. Winslow is no where near as fast as portis, but he can block and run faster then a blocking fullback. Gibbs runs a lot of counters and end a rounds that this would prove useful.

With that I said, and with everyone knowing that ive made a lot of posts on those two, I havent voted yet and am still undecided. Im waiting for them to draft them both so I dont have to say what if

Well, I decided to vote for Taylor just becuase hes worth more to more teams. The Patriots can have their super bowls and Taylor to...

Gibbs' offense is built on the H-back. Winslow looks like the perfect H-back prospect. Give the man the tools he needs on O. Fix the D next year. Rome wasn't built in a day!

KW II

I voted for Taylor because of our needs on D but I keep flip-flopping ... it would be nice to get them both but that's just a dream, ain't gonna happen. Kellen Winslow as H-back would make the offense dominant, Taylor would quarterback the D from day one and make up for the loss of Champ. I'm happy either way but it's Taylor by a nose hair because defense wins championships, yada yada, as others said before. But remember when the Rams won it all with no D to speak of? Hmmm. And you almost get the sense that Gregg Williams could take 11 Warpath posters and make a top flight D. Man I just don't know.

Gibbs offense alread has everything it needs to be succesfull. Talented O-line where it all starts. A rising star as runningback. A rising star at qp (Ramsey not brunnel), and very talented recievers. The defense however is far from the super bowl calliber. It needs another playmaker, Tayler. A major help on the d-line. To me there's no question that our pick has to address the defense.

The more I read the Taylor-supporters' posts, the more I start flip-flopping. I voted for Winslow, but you guys make a pretty good argument for focusing on the defense in this draft. It's definitely true that the defense has been neglected in recent drafts, and they need a true playmaker in the secondary to complement Smoot.

I'd be ecstatic if the FO could figure out a way to get both Taylor and Winslow. I doubt it would happen. What about the possibility of getting both Taylor and Udeze? Talk about helping out the defense! Can you imagine a Gregg Williams defense featuring Udeze, Arrington, Washington, Smoot AND Taylor?! Now that would be freakin' scary!

Taylor and Udeze! What a devastating combination that would be. I'm all for it ... someone call Vinny and make it happen.

taylor, if only to see him nail shockey and owens :D

Id rather see Taylor keep picking the ball from the air when shockey and owens try to get it and have Bowen smack them to the groud while they are searching for teh ball.

[QUOTE=Ghost]....But remember when the Rams won it all with no D to speak of? Hmmm. [/QUOTE]


Hhhhmmmm I think you are mistaken.
According to: [url]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram1999.htm[/url]
the Rams defense allowed the 4th lowest points scored on them in the NFL in the year they won the 1999-2000 super bowl. So they had the 4th best defense in the NFL that year in points allowed (which is the best measure of defense).

That era Rams are the perfect example to explain my rants about the importance of defense.
The 1999-2000 Rams had the #1 scoring offense and #4 least scored on defense in the NFL and won the Superbowl.
The 2000-2001 Rams again had the #1 scoring offense, but the #31 out of 31 teams, most scored on defense. Needless to say they did not win the superbowl in 2000-2001.
Which proves you can have the #1 scoring offense in the NFL, but you need a good Defense to win it all!

Defense is based on yards allowed, not points. The Skins has what, the number 4,5? d with Lewis but gave up almost the most points. If you have a good O you keep your D off the field more. The rams had a good secondary those years, id be interested to know how many pics they had.

[QUOTE=SKINSnCANES]Defense is based on yards allowed, not points. The Skins has what, the number 4,5? d with Lewis but gave up almost the most points. If you have a good O you keep your D off the field more. The rams had a good secondary those years, id be interested to know how many pics they had.[/QUOTE]

We have to agree to disagree about what defense is based on. To me, you win or lose a game by the final score of the game....not on the stats of yards given up or gained.
If my defense holds it's opponents scoreless, but gives up a few extra yards in the process, I can live with that. The main goal of a defense should be to :
1) prevent the other team from scoring
2) get the ball back to the offense
Then we can later worry about yards given up and individual stats, because we won the game.
Al Davis put it best "just win baby".
I don't care if we win 3-0, just win.

Your example of the Redskins defense under Lewis that finished 4th or 5th in yards statistics perfectly explains my point. What good is finishing 4th or 5th in yards if you give up the most points. There are many games you can point to where the team that overwhelmingly out gained the other in yards, but lost the game.

I agree with you, I was just saying what the league ranks them by. The Skins under Lewis didnt give up many yards becuase our Offense was horrible, not to mention the special teams

If it's between those two I'd go with Taylor. I'm not sure how Winslow would be used in Gibbs' offense, as he appears to be more of a receiver than blocker.

He can block, he can pancake a LB, I promise.

I still prefer "The Next Ronnie Lott"