Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2010, 07:08 PM   #46
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Why not draft a QB? It doesn't make much sense to just say let's just wait a year see what happens with Campbell and then get a QB in 2011. If we're in position to get one now, why not? He'll have a year in our system going into 2011.

I know we need linemen, but I think too many of us are thinking well let's just draft anyone that plays the position so we can pile up players in that position and hope a few stick. That doesn't make much sense to me. Plus, all the linemen in the world won't matter if there's no QB.
Don't forget, it's not just the passer that needs protection -- the running game has been lacking too.

Our offensive line is in serious need of attention. If Okung or Williams or any other O-tackle slated in the top five, even top ten is there, I just don't see how you can pass him up for a QB.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-14-2010, 07:26 PM   #47
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerohero View Post
Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.
Good point. Robert Gallery comes to mind. Bust as a left tackle but apparently has turned out to be a decent guard.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 07:32 PM   #48
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Don't forget, it's not just the passer that needs protection -- the running game has been lacking too.

Our offensive line is in serious need of attention. If Okung or Williams or any other O-tackle slated in the top five, even top ten is there, I just don't see how you can pass him up for a QB.
I could not agree more. Not only do we need protection for the QB, we also need something to run behind. When was the last time we could chew up the clock by running the ball? This line doesn't need a check-up, it needs major surgery.
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 09:11 PM   #49
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

I know this gets repeated often, but when everybody says "trade down" remember ... you have to have a partner willing to trade up. That doesn't always happen.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 10:17 PM   #50
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,627
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Don't forget, it's not just the passer that needs protection -- the running game has been lacking too.

Our offensive line is in serious need of attention. If Okung or Williams or any other O-tackle slated in the top five, even top ten is there, I just don't see how you can pass him up for a QB.
Well we also need running backs who can block, but that's another story. And I don't think Trent Williams will be a top 10 pick. He's more of a RT so I think his stock will drop to alter in the 1st along with Bulaga. Davis is probably 10, but he's a bit of a head case. Maybe not worth it.

But anyway, I'm not saying don't address the line. I'm just saying that I think Okung is the only OT worth taking at #4 (though I actually think Charles Brown might be the better LT for us in the long term). And if he's not there we shouldn't just reach for an OT to get an OT. Because it's not like all we need is one anyway.

Good offensive lines don't have to be all top 10 picks. Look at the Ravens, a couple of mid to late first round picks and a few mid to late round picks. The Jets have several first round picks but a couple of them are so late in the first they're all almost second rounders.

Ravens:

LT: Gaither-5th round supplemental
LG: Grubbs-1st round (29th overall)
C: Birk-6th round (free agent via Vikings)
RG: Yanda-3rd round
RT: Oher-1st round (23rd overall)

Jets:

LT: Ferguson-1st round (4th overall)
LG: Faneca-1st round (26th overall)
C: Mangold-1st round (29th overall)
RG: Moore-undrafted
RT: Woody-1st round (17th overall)
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 10:56 PM   #51
Playmaker
 
WaldSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Age: 31
Posts: 2,726
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Well we also need running backs who can block, but that's another story. And I don't think Trent Williams will be a top 10 pick. He's more of a RT so I think his stock will drop to alter in the 1st along with Bulaga. Davis is probably 10, but he's a bit of a head case. Maybe not worth it.

But anyway, I'm not saying don't address the line. I'm just saying that I think Okung is the only OT worth taking at #4 (though I actually think Charles Brown might be the better LT for us in the long term). And if he's not there we shouldn't just reach for an OT to get an OT. Because it's not like all we need is one anyway.

Good offensive lines don't have to be all top 10 picks. Look at the Ravens, a couple of mid to late first round picks and a few mid to late round picks. The Jets have several first round picks but a couple of them are so late in the first they're all almost second rounders.

Ravens:

LT: Gaither-5th round supplemental
LG: Grubbs-1st round (29th overall)
C: Birk-6th round (free agent via Vikings)
RG: Yanda-3rd round
RT: Oher-1st round (23rd overall)

Jets:

LT: Ferguson-1st round (4th overall)
LG: Faneca-1st round (26th overall)
C: Mangold-1st round (29th overall)
RG: Moore-undrafted
RT: Woody-1st round (17th overall)
I feel like i've seen you type this about 238 times already
__________________
"I would change that around, Jesus isn't Cutler. I guarantee you Jesus couldnt thread the ball like Jay does."-Monksdown
WaldSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 11:14 PM   #52
Special Teams
 
Larry Michael is Satan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 123
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

I actually think we will be able to find a trade back partner with Eric Berry or Gerald McCoy or maybe McClain there at no 4.
I dont like the QBs this year, but really like Locker next year, even if we had to trade up to get him. I've said it before, but Id love to aquire the Pat's 2011 1st rounder that they got from the raiders. That could be the #1 overall pick next year.
Larry Michael is Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 11:41 PM   #53
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,507
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
Well Okung could be a franchise tackle too. I honestly feel that it will all depend on who's available at #4.

If Okung is there, let's take him.

If Clausen or Bradford are there...we could take them but either one of them being there could also lead to a trade (i.e. Seattle).
We've had a franchise tackle for the last 10 years, it's only done us so much good. If we want to get to a level where we're going to compete on an annual basis then we need a franchise QB. As has been said before we don't need to use our first pick on an offensive lineman. We can use the rest of the draft to add guys along the O-Line which will be very different from not taking any lineman and saying that they just weren't the best players available.
__________________
6.6710−11 m3 kg−1 s−2

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 12:15 AM   #54
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
But anyway, I'm not saying don't address the line. I'm just saying that I think Okung is the only OT worth taking at #4 (though I actually think Charles Brown might be the better LT for us in the long term). And if he's not there we shouldn't just reach for an OT to get an OT. Because it's not like all we need is one anyway.
Inevitably, though, the same sort of argument can be applied to this quarterback class. The Rams pick first. They can take Suh, Clausen, or Bradford. Without making the misguided assumption that the Rams front office knows more than the collective, they might opt to go with the dominant defensive prospect at that position over the available quarterbacks.

If there's a situation where both Clausen and Bradford are available at No. 4, it's a great sign that the collective assumption is that both are going to be pretty reliant on teammates and coaches to help make their careers. While, in my opinion, that's part of the equation for a future successful team, it's also the kind of player that can be found later on in the draft.

IMO, that's the difference between the "first overall" type quarterback, and you're run of the mill first rounder. We already have a standard level first rounder who hardly needs to be shipped out of town on a rail.

Without question, if you can get a first overall type at No. 4, you take him, but I do not believe that you can have that surefire first overall guy who falls to No. 4.

Matt Ryan fell to No. 3 because he had a Parcells' type picking at number one, and the Rams had Bulger at QB at the time (which didn't make it the right move, simply defensable). The only first overall type who has ever fallen to No. 4, I think, is Philip Rivers, and he wasn't even the first quarterback selected.

I guess, if the Redskins come to the conclusion that (for example) Sam Bradford is a way better player than Jimmy Clausen, and Clausen goes No. 1 overall, they could be defended for taking Bradford at No. 4. But that's it. That's the only way.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 12:25 AM   #55
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Jets:

LT: Ferguson-1st round (4th overall)
LG: Faneca-1st round (26th overall)
C: Mangold-1st round (29th overall)
RG: Moore-undrafted
RT: Woody-1st round (17th overall)
But when you think of how the Jets built this line (and even how the Ravens built theirs), it's mostly because of the value they put on the position. I mean, Mangold has developed into the league's best Center, which means he was way more valuable than the 29th overall pick, but no team besides the Jets was really considering him in the first round. They have him because they put a premium on a position that a team that continually trots out Casey Rabach clearly could care less about. It's a team that spent the 4th overall pick on a left tackle because they felt like if they could fill the position, it would free them up to do other things with the offense. And both Faneca and Woody were big money acquisitions.

The Ravens took Oher knowing that they probably could have convinced Anderson to give them one more season at the RT spot and got a high level of play out of him, but even with a young, elite LT, the Ravens took a guy that a bunch of other teams had undervalued. It's not like the Ravens didn't have needs elsewhere (such as WR or CB) that could have helped them just as much. They just prioritized the line. Flacco is just a standard-level first round talent, much like Jason Campbell, Josh Freeman, Jay Cutler, etc. But you keep feeding his offense talent, and he'll keep winning.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 12:46 AM   #56
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Inevitably, though, the same sort of argument can be applied to this quarterback class. The Rams pick first. They can take Suh, Clausen, or Bradford. Without making the misguided assumption that the Rams front office knows more than the collective, they might opt to go with the dominant defensive prospect at that position over the available quarterbacks.

If there's a situation where both Clausen and Bradford are available at No. 4, it's a great sign that the collective assumption is that both are going to be pretty reliant on teammates and coaches to help make their careers. While, in my opinion, that's part of the equation for a future successful team, it's also the kind of player that can be found later on in the draft.

IMO, that's the difference between the "first overall" type quarterback, and you're run of the mill first rounder. We already have a standard level first rounder who hardly needs to be shipped out of town on a rail.

Without question, if you can get a first overall type at No. 4, you take him, but I do not believe that you can have that surefire first overall guy who falls to No. 4.

Matt Ryan fell to No. 3 because he had a Parcells' type picking at number one, and the Rams had Bulger at QB at the time (which didn't make it the right move, simply defensable). The only first overall type who has ever fallen to No. 4, I think, is Philip Rivers, and he wasn't even the first quarterback selected.

I guess, if the Redskins come to the conclusion that (for example) Sam Bradford is a way better player than Jimmy Clausen, and Clausen goes No. 1 overall, they could be defended for taking Bradford at No. 4. But that's it. That's the only way.
Nice GTripp. Although I like Bradford, he's not without some legitimate questions and neither is Clausen. And as stated, we might not get first pick of the two. If we pick one and they end up not starting material at QB, what do we do? 2nd or 3rd string 'em? Maybe PS? If we take LT and he's not up to what we expect at least there's a good chance he can play RT or guard. We need those too and it wouldn't be a complete waste. As much as I like Bradford he's only had 2 full years and although he may be able to fully recover from his injury I think taking him at #4 is a big risk. I don't think it would hurt Clausen to stay in school another year either. He's had 1 good year that I know of. There may be some question about JC but there is no question about our o-line. We could use help at every position there. I understand 100% what SS is saying about reaching and I agree, but I think taking one of these 2 QB's is as much of a reach as taking someone like Davis or a couple of the other linemen at #4.
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 02:20 AM   #57
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07 View Post
ok food for thought. If we are going to go into the draft with the mindset that OL is the need, and then use that thinking to draft a t with the fourth pick and with the 36 pick to draft a c/g (ie a player who can do both ). Why use a late round pick on a QB? Most of the good QBs in the NFL are first round guys. We have JC for next year. I am not sold on any of the QBs in the draft at all as being top notch NFL starting QB material. My point is keep JC this year see how he performs for Shanny. Draft OL and Defense. If we are going to be using more of a 3-4 scheme we need defensive players who would fit that system. Use this draft to rebuild alot of the team and worry about drafting a QB next year. Why rush the QB position, AND why draft a qb late in the draft (much higher fail rate with later round guys and we already have a late rounder on the team)? I just would not waste a pick on a QB this year and I believe that is what we would be doing if we don't use the first pick on one. EVEN then drafting a qb at 4 would be stupid as well because that is not the IMMEDIATE need of this football team.
I get what you're saying but nobody ever likes any quarterback ANY year in our fanbase it seems. It's like a relationship, sometimes you just have to let it go and allow it to happen, maybe not this year, but later. You can draft a QB and still not start him game 1.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 02:21 AM   #58
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Why not draft a QB? It doesn't make much sense to just say let's just wait a year see what happens with Campbell and then get a QB in 2011. If we're in position to get one now, why not? He'll have a year in our system going into 2011.

I know we need linemen, but I think too many of us are thinking well let's just draft anyone that plays the position so we can pile up players in that position and hope a few stick. That doesn't make much sense to me. Plus, all the linemen in the world won't matter if there's no QB.
Exactly.. do people think with our 5 picks that's going to be our starting 5 linemen? You can find linemen by other means much easier than you can a QB.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 02:23 AM   #59
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
I think sometimes people think saying you need strong line play makes you a more intelligent fan, as if saying QB play is important is something only casual, even ignorant fans who don't know any better would say.

Line play is important but too many of us are really underestimating the importance of good QB play. A good QB can make an average line look much better than it really is.
warner, big ben, rodgers, etc
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 02:33 AM   #60
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldSkins View Post
I feel like i've seen you type this about 238 times already
well the alternative has been posted 238 times by about 45 different people
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.33680 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25