Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 after reading all these "what do we need on defense" threads, tons of you dont think Golston is starter caliber. i totally disagree. the guy is a playmaker and can be a "true redskin", homegrown 6th round draft pick who made his presense known from the bottom up. hes fast and hes young plus hes pretty big (obviously hes not alan branch size, but hes around 300 LB). all of this and the fact that he was a rookie and got the starting job most of the season and did well doing it he can only get better and bigger. why people seem down on him is beyond me. we dont need anymore 30+ DTs getting pwned every play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 He's ok, I guess. A nice surprise. You can really only judge defensive lineman by team stats, I think. And during his time as a starter, we gave up 250 on the ground to Falcons, 150 to Stephen Jackson, and 230 to Tiki. So, he's not exactly a road-block. But he has potential to be a rotational guy. Unfortunately, he is only person and most good 4-3 teams have four decent tackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I think people are down on him as much as they're just being honest. He's flashed good things, but he's also gotten blown off the line quiet a bit. And he doesn't really demand double teams. He could become a nice 1-gap starting DT, but right he's no more then a rotation guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxpck Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I love the fact we found this diamond in the rough I hate the fact we depended on this diamond in the rough, means we arent deep Its a love-hate type of thing for me. I agree with Lombardi...he is great in a 3 or 4 man rotation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackOps Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Playmakers score touchdowns.. To some people, Golston is a great backup and a "filler", if you will. The only reason he won the job is because of injuries. He's not probably the answer but I can live with him being in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't think people are down on him as much as they're just being honest. He's flashed good things, but he's also gotten blown off the line quiet a bit. And he doesn't really demand double teams. He could become a nice 1-gap starting DT, but right he's no more then a rotation guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I am not down on him at all. I am very pleased with his development. However, you can never have enough talent on the defensive line. We need an infusion of youth on that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da#1skinsfan Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Im thrilled with the guy. Starting caliber. This offseason will be very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 He's ok' date=' I guess. A nice surprise.You can really only judge defensive lineman by team stats, I think. And during his time as a starter, we gave up 250 on the ground to Falcons, 150 to Stephen Jackson, and 230 to Tiki. So, he's not exactly a road-block. But he has potential to be a rotational guy. Unfortunately, he is only person and most good 4-3 teams have four decent tackles.[/quote'] disagree with this totally. the last two games we were without marcus washington and our LB play is worthless from holdman and marshall. go look at golstons game stats. he played in games where we held guys to very low rushing yards, and the other game tiki lit us up, golston did not play. the last two games were the worst in terms of giving up rushing yards to single guys, and look who was missing....our only linebacker worth a paycheck. the falcons game is the only one ill give you, but they run all over most teams, and norwood had a 70 yard dash that inflated those numbers big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Golsten has some talent, but I don't think he is quite ready yet. He excels in passing situations, but he isn't quite bulky enough to stuff the run. Not saying I don't want him, just saying that he needs some work and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Golsten has some talent, but I don't think he is quite ready yet. He excels in passing situations, but he isn't quite bulky enough to stuff the run. Not saying I don't want him, just saying that he needs some work and experience. I think Golston is a great find -- the kind of roleplayer the Skins have been missing for years. The Skins either give away or waste their late round picks. If they'd just found a couple of other Golstons -- cheap guys who can contribute -- they'd be in much better shape today. Golston is not starting caliber from what I've seen so far. But he is a great contributor in the rotation. What this team is missing is not another superstar. It's missing about 10 Golstons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Golston is a great player. However, you need more than 2 "good tackles" to play well. As people have mentioned, it is all about the depth. I really would not mind Golston starting alongside a road-block DT, someone in the Grady Jackson/Sam Adams/Ted Washington/possibly Alan Branch mode. The so-called 'large and athletic' tackles. In Griffin, we have a great run-stopper, which is surprising as his size is similar to Golston's. Also, look at what any team with a great d-line does, they don't start the same 4 all the time. The Eagles rotate their guys constantly. We have to put in our starters in more often. Even though the Eagles lost Jevon Kearse, which hurt, some guy named Trent Cole had already stepped up in rotational duty. The Eagles could lose one of their two tackles, and still have a couple more guys step in before their man-beast Bunkley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 all im saying is that golston looked good this season, and he was a rookie who wasnt even supposed to start. imagine how good he can be if he gains 15 lbs and gets a whole off season workout program. he'd be a beast. plus if we had branch and griffin rotating with him, that would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Boss Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 He is being over shadowed by our poor LB and tackling.... As i said before i dont care who you have clogging the holes if your LB's suck and your SS cant tackle then your Run d will suck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidwayMonster31 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 You have to have a complete line to be effective. Look at what the Vikings did this year with their run defense. If Erasmus James stayed healthy, they would have been much tougher. Drafting Alan Branch should solve the problem because there would be another run-stuffer, plus a potential play-maker. However, there are still holes in this team that drafting and low-cost players would be more effective, like O-Line depth and special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 You have to have a complete line to be effective. Look at what the Vikings did this year with their run defense. If Erasmus James stayed healthy, they would have been much tougher. Drafting Alan Branch should solve the problem because there would be another run-stuffer, plus a potential play-maker. However, there are still holes in this team that drafting and low-cost players would be more effective, like O-Line depth and special teams. we had one of the best special teams units in football and our o-line was one of the best as well. our depth guys came in a few times and played well. why would you want to touch either of these units when our defense was ranked 31st??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 all im saying is that golston looked good this season, and he was a rookie who wasnt even supposed to start. imagine how good he can be if he gains 15 lbs and gets a whole off season workout program. he'd be a beast. plus if we had branch and griffin rotating with him, that would be awesome. Are you his agent? He had a nice rookie season. He's first late-round contributor we've had since Rock Cartwright. But let's not turn him into Warren Sapp. If Golston was the third or fourth guy in a four-man rotation, we would be fine at DT, I think. I'm not thrilled with having him start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I love the fact we found this diamond in the roughI hate the fact we depended on this diamond in the rough, means we arent deep He was the depth at the beginning of the season. I don't know if Big Joe has much left in the tank alongside Griff anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Are you his agent?He had a nice rookie season. He's first late-round contributor we've had since Rock Cartwright. But let's not turn him into Warren Sapp. If Golston was the third or fourth guy in a four-man rotation' date=' we would be fine at DT, I think. I'm not thrilled with having him start.[/quote'] im just going by what i see, and ive seen him make some great plays this season. him and branch in there would be great, i wouldnt care if we got rid of griffin, just one more aging vet that were gonna be fed up with in a year or two. imagine having 2 kids under the age of 24 shoring up our Dline. think of the future that we could create with that. golston can be a starter easily with a summer of work. you think williams would have even started him had he not seen a lot of potential? hell mcintosh didnt even get a start until week 16. we need youth on this D. id love if we dumped griffin and salevea (salevea sucked huge this year). if we could get a 3rd or even second round pick for griffin, we'd be in awesome shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 all im saying is that golston looked good this season, and he was a rookie who wasnt even supposed to start. imagine how good he can be if he gains 15 lbs and gets a whole off season workout program. he'd be a beast. plus if we had branch and griffin rotating with him, that would be awesome. Don't forget about that Titan's game where Travis Henry almost had 200 yards rushing - Golston and Montgomery were the starting DT's. Sure, the woeful play of our LB's needs to be factored in also. And I suppose there is no perfect formula for such things. Maybe it's too simplistic to think it starts up front. I happen to believe that though. The front four is the catalyst. I like the guy but I am not comfortable heading into next season without acquiring another DT at all. Branch and Golston - absolutely. But without someone like Branch along side of him, I have serious reservations. I'm not down on Golston - just do not think he is quite up to the task at hand for our needs presently. The middle of the line is entirely too porous and a definite weak spot I think. Golston right now is not 'blowing up' the line with any consistency nor is he stopping the run any better than Salavea with any consistency. We need a DT that can stand up and occupy two offensive lineman. I think he has a very bright future, but if we are going to win in the next two seasons with Gibbs at the helm ; we need to get a run stuffer in the middle and a DE as well - IMO of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Are you his agent?He had a nice rookie season. He's first late-round contributor we've had since Rock Cartwright. But let's not turn him into Warren Sapp. If Golston was the third or fourth guy in a four-man rotation' date=' we would be fine at DT, I think. I'm not thrilled with having him start.[/quote']Golston may not be Warren Sapp, but as our starting DT he is light years ahead of Kenny Wright as a starter at DB or Warrick Holdman as a starter at LB ... probably better than Lemar Marshall as a starter, Vernon Fox as a starter, and maybe even Philip Daniels and Andre Carter as starters. We can't have Pro Bowlers at every position. At this point, I think we would be better off with Golston starting at DT and trying to find players to shore up other parts of this defense. Golston had a very good year, and he got better as the year went on, which is definitely a great sign for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Made Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The defense was ranked 31st in the league. I'm down on everyone on our defense to be honest with you. Golston had some very good games, but for every good game there was a game where he made little to no impact. He is very inconsistent. He definately has a bright future with this team, but he is a very similiar player to Cornelius. I would love to bring in Alan Branch still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 im just going by what i see, and ive seen him make some great plays this season. him and branch in there would be great, i wouldnt care if we got rid of griffin, just one more aging vet that were gonna be fed up with in a year or two. imagine having 2 kids under the age of 24 shoring up our Dline. think of the future that we could create with that. golston can be a starter easily with a summer of work. you think williams would have even started him had he not seen a lot of potential? hell mcintosh didnt even get a start until week 16. we need youth on this D. id love if we dumped griffin and salevea (salevea sucked huge this year). if we could get a 3rd or even second round pick for griffin, we'd be in awesome shape. I'm all for getting younger, but as Griffin goes, so goes our defense. You can draw up a graph that shows a direct correlation between his health and our defensive stats. I would be very careful in casting him aside at this point. Anyway, this is more of the same Redskins mentality of finding "that one player" who will make everything ok. I don't like the idea of Golston and some rookie at DT, because both would be unproven and we still wouldn't have any depth. Along the lines of what someone else said, we need 1 Griffin-type player (a dominant d-tackle) and 3 or 4 Golston-type players (depth and rotational guys). That's how you win in the NFL. A few stars and a ton of depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Golston may not be Warren Sapp, but as our starting DT he is light years ahead of Kenny Wright as a starter at DB or Warrick Holdman as a starter at LB ... probably better than Lemar Marshall as a starter, Vernon Fox as a starter, and maybe even Philip Daniels and Andre Carter as starters.We can't have Pro Bowlers at every position. At this point, I think we would be better off with Golston starting at DT and trying to find players to shore up other parts of this defense. Golston had a very good year, and he got better as the year went on, which is definitely a great sign for the future. exactly. and im not saying golston is the best DT in the universe, i just think him coupled with a huge guy like branch would be a deadly combo, and since were projected to be taking branch, why not dump griffin for a draft pick and get even more youth on the D? like i said, young DTs > old DTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 exactly. and im not saying golston is the best DT in the universe, i just think him coupled with a huge guy like branch would be a deadly combo, and since were projected to be taking branch, why not dump griffin for a draft pick and get even more youth on the D? like i said, young DTs > old DTs. 3 DTs > 2 DTs I also don't think you could get more than a 4th next year for Griffin. Have't we been down this path already? The only team that trades high draft picks for players with big question marks is the Skins. Unless we can trade with ourselves, a Griffin deal ain't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.