Warpath - View Single Post

calia · 04-15-2019, 09:38 PM

Interesting, by my count, the number of visits per position breaks down as follows:

WR: 14

OT: 9.5 (one identified as OT/G)

QB: 9

DT: 3.5 (one identified as DT/DE)

OLB: 2.5 (one identified as OLB/DE)

G: 2.5 (one identified as OT/G)

ILB: 2

TE: 2

RB, C, FB, CB, and DE: all 1 (the DE "1" are two guys identified as DE/DT or DE/OLB)

Maybe it's hard to take too much from this (because raw numbers won't reflect interest in individuals per se and some of this may be smokescreens), but given our G situation, they must think that some of these OTs would convert to G. But I have to say, I am surprised we're not seeing more at G, ILB, OLB, C, and CB. And no safeties at all?

04-15-2019, 09:38 PM	#390
calia Playmaker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Woodside, CA Age: 55 Posts: 3,360	Redskins Mock Draft Interesting, by my count, the number of visits per position breaks down as follows: WR: 14 OT: 9.5 (one identified as OT/G) QB: 9 DT: 3.5 (one identified as DT/DE) OLB: 2.5 (one identified as OLB/DE) G: 2.5 (one identified as OT/G) ILB: 2 TE: 2 RB, C, FB, CB, and DE: all 1 (the DE "1" are two guys identified as DE/DT or DE/OLB) Maybe it's hard to take too much from this (because raw numbers won't reflect interest in individuals per se and some of this may be smokescreens), but given our G situation, they must think that some of these OTs would convert to G. But I have to say, I am surprised we're not seeing more at G, ILB, OLB, C, and CB. And no safeties at all? __________________ "Coach, what do you think of your team's execution?" "I'm all for it." -- Coach McKay Last edited by calia; 04-16-2019 at 02:02 AM.