Redskins are not suitable for the 6th pick

[InTikiITrust]

:applause: :notworthy :applause:

Way to go. I really wouldn't have believed that anybody could have missed the point of my post THAT COMPLETELY without actually trying to do so. You've upheld my absolute lack of confidence in the cognitive ability of the generation that's younger than I am.

I never said anything about perfection. I did reference players whose talent was inadequate to play in the league, but I never mentioned perfection. There's a level of skill between those two concepts that's generally refered to as Adequate or Competent.

Let me see if I can be more direct and use smaller words so you might actually understand what I'm saying this time.....

Most of the schemes that teams use in the NFL these days are in place because the teams are not able or willing to procure enough truly COMPETENT starting caliber players, never mind Stars, to do anything else. That's partially a matter of the salary cap. In some places it's a matter of the amount of money beneath the cap that the ownership wants to set as their own personal spending limit. It may be a matter of players not wanting to play for a specific franchise, or other reasons. Whatever the reason, these teams do not have the talent to go out and play an aggressive style of play, so they fall back into these schemes, designed to get the most out of the marginal talent they have available to them.

The New England Patriots are a good example of this. They constantly plug new players into roles in their offensive and defensive schemes because neither of those schemes requires playmakers or even truly competent players. That's because both schemes are designed to capitalize on the other team's mistakes rather than forcing those mistakes or simply overwhelming the opponent though superior talent and skill. You only need to look at the two playoff games the Patriots played this year to see exactly what I'm talking about.

In contrast to that, what I would prefer to see is an aggressive, attacking offensive and defensive system that utilizes COMPETENT players and STARS to force the opponent to react to what we're doing. A system that is active, rather than passive or reactive. Supposedly Greg Williams was bringing that sort of Defensive system when he was hired a couple years ago. I've yet to see it.

You said you wanted players in which the scheme wouldn't hid their flaws. A system that allowed them to be aggressive and not passive. So which players are flawless? Which players, in your mind, could you throw out there and they'd be immediate, impact, play making players?

Again, give me a QB, RB, WR, 5 OL, and a TE that fit that. Then give me 2 DTs, 2 DEs, 3 LBs, 2 Ss and 2 corners that fit that description of being without flaw so that don't need a system to fit their weaknesses.

Isn't that what you're looking for?

I guess you just ignore coaching as well. I suppose this All Star team you plan on assembling wouldn't have a coach because what would they need to learn? Why even bring in an OC or DC?

[SnyderMustGo]

You are correct that I want to go back to a cap-less system. That's for both political/philosophical reason along with football related reasons. The Yankees and Red Sox (who I am not a fan of) are contenders every year in MLB's American League and are often favorites to go to the World Series. Can you really tell me you'd be unhappy if the Redskins were prohibitive favorites to get to the NFC Championship Game and Super Bowl every year?

Not this nonsense again.

If you are such a big capitalist, then you should be careful what you wish for.

Your whole theory rests on the faulty assumption that if there were no cap, the Redskins would be the Yankees and buy all the good players.

But as I have shown on multiple occasions here, that argument is plain ignorant. Danny Snyder isn't anywhere close to be in the top 10 wealthiest Owners. Paul Allen for the Seahawks is worth something like 30x what Snyder is worth. If he wanted to buy all the players, he would. What's more, Jerry Jones is a lot richer than Danny Snyder, and you can be certain that he would be able and willing to outspend Danny Snyder.

Just because Snyder is currently the most stupid with the cap numbers, you make a grave mistake if you think he has the ability to give the Skins the biggest payroll.

[boysetsfire]

Not this nonsense again.

If you are such a big capitalist, then you should be careful what you wish for.

Your whole theory rests on the faulty assumption that if there were no cap, the Redskins would be the Yankees and buy all the good players.

But as I have shown on multiple occasions here, that argument is plain ignorant. Danny Snyder isn't anywhere close to be in the top 10 wealthiest Owners. Paul Allen for the Seahawks is worth something like 30x what Snyder is worth. If he wanted to buy all the players, he would. What's more, Jerry Jones is a lot richer than Danny Snyder, and you can be certain that he would be able and willing to outspend Danny Snyder.

Just because Snyder is currently the most stupid with the cap numbers, you make a grave mistake if you think he has the ability to give the Skins the biggest payroll.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Problem: Say what you want about Adam Archuleta, but he had successfully performed in the NFL up to the moment we picked him up. Per you, that's the basis we had to evaluate him and that's the basis we used. It was the wrong basis.

The system isn't perfect, but I prefer having picked up Archuleta over spending a draft pick on some safety who has never played a single down in the league. Personally, my preference would have been to hold onto Ryan Clark, a proven player rather than signing Arch; but the front office forgot to get my opinion before doing the deal.

2nd, you're making a far greater distinction than I think is warranted. Free Agents have proven themselves at the NFL level, but College Players don't just randomly appear in the Draft and learn to play this crazy game we call "Football". The vast majority have been proving themselves for 2-4 years at the Collegiate Level against many athletes who will also compete at the NFL level.

They've been proving themselves in college against other players who may or may not be able to play at the NFL level. They're also only playing a 10-12 game season that is far shorter than the NFL schedule, and often playing against some puff teams during that schedule. In my mind the difference is quite extreme.

Many College Players have proven themselves better capable of NFL play than many NFL Free Agents, which is why many of the latter find themselves on practice squads or cut throughout the season. Troy Vincent, as an example, has proven less over the course of his career than Jamaal Anderson has (apparently). Even according to you I would wager.

I have to disagree. The NFL and NCAA are very different levels of football. I'm not a big fan of Troy Vincent, but at least he has a track record in the NFL. Anderson hasn't played a single snap of NFL football, so there is no track record for him at all at this level. He's played pretty well at the NCAA level, or so his stats indicate; but nobody knows what he'll be in the NFL.

I just find the distinction you are stuck on ridiculous. Player evaluation begins at the Collegiate Level. You are trying to say that the only way to accurately measure a player's ability is to watch them play in the NFL, but I can name plenty of counterexamples where successful NFL players fail in their new homes, or get worse over time, etc. etc.

The only way to judge an NFL player's ability is to see them against NFL talent. Again, it's not a perfect system, but I think you get a lot better understanding of what a player can and can't do in the league when you've seen them against NFL talent than against NCAA talent.

First, from above players are capable of proving they are worth money without ever playing a single down in the NFL.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Second you're simply mistaken about the cap ramifications. Draft Picks are far more expendable than Free Agents, which is why draft picks are annually booted from every team in the NFL.

Strange that you complain about Draft Picks being unable to cut when it is our FREE AGENTS Brandon Lloyd and Adam Archuleta that are on the team precisely because of their cap ramifications. Rocky McIntosh was the highest Redskins draft pick last year and would've cost us around 1.8M had we cut him the day after we drafted him. Ladell Betts would have cost us over 4.5M the day after we resigned him. Despite Adam Archuleta turning out to be a "bust" (yet to be proven, perhaps) he will cost us nearly 10M to cut. Your understanding of the cap ramifications of Draft Picks vs. that of Free Agents doesn't mesh with reality.

Lower round draft picks, yes. The upper round, especially first rounders that are the only draft picks I have an interest in are really not that much easier to cut. The other thing is that if you're doing your homework you're a lot less likely to NEED to cut a free agent as compared to, say.... Carlos Rogers.

Why are you so certain that Free Agents will offer "certain" results immediately? Because they did so in the past? That's an honest question, because it seems as if you think Free Agents always play to their prior ability, which is demonstrably false and necessarily untrue given the impact of ageing.

I don't think there's a certainty. I do, however, believe that it's easier to scout current NFL players and to get a better idea of exactly what they can do at the NFL level. How much use is watching tape of some DE from Virginia Tech barrel over a LT from UCONN who should never have been playing NCAA Div. I football to begin with? Is that really the way you want to scout players? It isn't with me.

Second, if you don't want players with "potential" why are you so insistent on Jamaal Anderson over Gaines Adams? Are YOU certain that Anderson is better than Adams is better than Carriker is better than Crowder?

Anderson and Adams aren't anywhere on my radar. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Hell, I don't even want a D-End at #6. I want Branch, the D-TACKLE from Michigan at #6.

Every single starter in the NFL played College Football. What incredible Football Talents are currently sitting on benches that you think would make great starters, if only the salary cap would let them? How could the NFL produce more than 10-15 starting quality players more accurately than they do already? Where are these mystical additional players coming from, exactly? Who is being prevented from playing by the current system that would improve the quality of the game? Nate Clements cannot play for more than 1 team, remember?

I get the feeling you're a little confused about my position on things, from this paragraph. Especially since the paragraph confuses the hell out of me.

The players that I'm talking about are the second string and younger starters who are at the end of their initial rookie contracts with whatever team had drafted them. They're the players who have now been in the league for about 4 years and proven they can play the game, but may be stuck behind a proven veteran and getting only limited playing time, or not being used effectively in the system their current team utilizes.

Depends how you look at it. I think investing 100% in free agency is playing Russian Roulette with our money. Scratch that, it's guaranteeing failure as it is clearly an economically inefficient means of filling a roster with quality players.

That's largely because the league hamstrings the teams via the Salary Cap. Get rid of the cap and it becomes a very viable option for teams like the Redskins.

What a strange philosophy from a person who proclaims to be so interested in WINNING. So is it WINNING that matters or doing things "right"? For the rest of the NFL watching public, you've made a distinction with no difference: The "right" behavior is the one that produces "Wins".

True WINNING only occurs by doing things in the Right way. I've been over this a ton of times around here. What the Patriots have been doing the last half dozen years ISN'T Winning in my mind. It's Not Losing. There is a distinction in my mind.

Also, earlier in this same thread you promised there was no hyperbole. And now our souls are on the line? Seriously?

What great wrong are you martyring yourself to? Better to fail miserably in protest of the Salary Cap, says you? Is that about right?

Yes, but I don't want this to devolve into a religious or political debate, so if you REALLY want an answer to that, PM me.

You seem to think there is an unlimited source of "Free Agents" who have "proven themselves at the NFL level". This isn't the case. Regardless if there were a salary cap or else none, every single "Free Agent" who has proven themselves at the NFL level will find a team. Teams must field 53 players, and every single team in the NFL fields Collegiate players... not because they are playing russian roulette but because of necessity. If the Redskins simply refuse to draft (to save money) then they'll still be forced to sign EITHER undrafted Rookies (who haven't proven anything according to you) or else cut Free Agents (who most likely have proven that they are failures).

Every player's contract eventually runs out, Skin. Whether we're talking about the second string long-snapper or the Pro Bowl, QB, eventually they have the option of becoming Free Agents. That's where we need to be looking for players; not in the draft. There or through trading our draft picks for proven Veterans. Obviously the first would mean quietly mentioning our interest to their agents prior to the actual beginning of Free Agency, but hey if you aren't cheating you aren't trying to win, are you?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Isn't that what you're looking for?

You're still not getting it. I've now tried twice to explain it. Obviously I'm not going to be able to explain it in a way you'll comprehend so I'm not going to bother trying again.

I guess you just ignore coaching as well. I suppose this All Star team you plan on assembling wouldn't have a coach because what would they need to learn? Why even bring in an OC or DC?

No, not at all. The coaches would have their contracts written in such a way that it was quite obvious that failure of the players would lead to their very quick dismissal. The coach's job is to get the best out of the players, not to have to teach them how to play the game. If they have to be taught how to play the game (different from learning the system), they shouldn't be on the roster to begin with.

[boysetsfire]

True WINNING only occurs by doing things in the Right way. I've been over this a ton of times around here. What the Patriots have been doing the last half dozen years ISN'T Winning in my mind. It's Not Losing. There is a distinction in my mind.

[=QUOTE]

How the hell can you not consider that winning? Winning 3 superbowls in the last six years isn't winning? What do you consider winning then? Getting "proven" free agents during the offseason, ignoring the draft? Looks like it's worked out just fine for the Redskins.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

But as I have shown on multiple occasions here, that argument is plain ignorant. Danny Snyder isn't anywhere close to be in the top 10 wealthiest Owners. Paul Allen for the Seahawks is worth something like 30x what Snyder is worth. If he wanted to buy all the players, he would. What's more, Jerry Jones is a lot richer than Danny Snyder, and you can be certain that he would be able and willing to outspend Danny Snyder.

It's not a matter of who HAS the most money. It's a matter of who is willing to SPEND the most money. Do you really think Paul Allen would spend one dime more than necessary on that team? Do you think he'd spend more than he brought in? I don't think so. Jerry Jones might. On the other hand, something tells me that Dan Snyder would sell his mother into servitude for another $20 to get that player he thinks will get this team to the Super Bowl.

THAT'S the difference.

[SnyderMustGo]

It's not a matter of who HAS the most money. It's a matter of who is willing to SPEND the most money. Do you really think Paul Allen would spend one dime more than necessary on that team? Do you think he'd spend more than he brought in? I don't think so. Jerry Jones might. On the other hand, something tells me that Dan Snyder would sell his mother into servitude for another $20 to get that player he thinks will get this team to the Super Bowl.

Ahh... so now the spin and obfuscation begins. Now it's about who has the most will to win--which is, conveniently, an unmeasurable metric.

Well again, Jerry Jones has at least, if not more of a will to win than Danny Boy and has more money. So you are asking for the Cowboys to be the dominant team?

As for Paul Allen, your understanding of economics is very limited (for someone who is always talking about capitalism). The marginal amount of will necessary for Paul Allen to spend money is 1/30 the amount of will necessary for Danny Snyder to spend money, since Paul Allen has 30x as much money. So every time Danny boy spends $1, it's like spending 3.3 cents for Paul Allen.

But then you are going to argue that he is a businessman, and he won't go into the red to build a winner, as if he doesn't care at all about the team and is running it like it is a McDonalds franchise. Whereas Danny Snyder would spend every penny he had to do so. Well, this is a silly for two reasons:

1. Danny Snyder isn't going to go broke to win; he would have to sell the team first; and

2. Paul Allen is a smart enough businessman to know that he could spend more money to guarantee a dominant team, and that will translate into future profits as the dynastic team has all the stars and championships which will draw all the fans, licensing deals, etc. And in his mind, it would be good business sense to buy the better players, so he would do it.

Basically, your viewpoint is misguided. Danny Snyder is not this amazingly dedicated and rich person who could out-do any owner in the league. That assumption is baseless. So be careful what you wish for.

[Skin Patrol]

The system isn't perfect, but I prefer having picked up Archuleta over spending a draft pick on some safety who has never played a single down in the league. Personally, my preference would have been to hold onto Ryan Clark, a proven player rather than signing Arch; but the front office forgot to get my opinion before doing the deal.

So you admit that what you prefer doesn't necessarily have an observable relationship with results? In that case, what possible value does your preferred system have that should compel the rest of us?

If Ryan Clark is a "proven talent" then why is he now getting benched on the team that picked him up? He might lose his job to Rookie Anthony Smith who ended up with more interceptions than the proven talent anyways.

They've been proving themselves in college against other players who may or may not be able to play at the NFL level. They're also only playing a 10-12 game season that is far shorter than the NFL schedule, and often playing against some puff teams during that schedule. In my mind the difference is quite extreme.

Again, every single player that has proven themselves in the NFL first did so against College athletes.

I have to disagree. The NFL and NCAA are very different levels of football. I'm not a big fan of Troy Vincent, but at least he has a track record in the NFL. Anderson hasn't played a single snap of NFL football, so there is no track record for him at all at this level. He's played pretty well at the NCAA level, or so his stats indicate; but nobody knows what he'll be in the NFL.

We agree that the NFL and NCAA are very different levels of Football.

Would you rather have Troy Vincent or Jamaal Anderson? That's a fairly straight up question. Would you rather have Troy Vincent or Laron Landry? Would you rather have Troy Vincent or Sean Taylor when he was a rookie?

Will you grant the fairly uncontroversial point that sometimes Collegiate players are more sought out than some Free Agent players, and for good reason?

The only way to judge an NFL player's ability is to see them against NFL talent. Again, it's not a perfect system, but I think you get a lot better understanding of what a player can and can't do in the league when you've seen them against NFL talent than against NCAA talent.

This is simply mistaken and ill-informed. Player evaluation begins at the Collegiate level. You want to absolutely deny that the College game is at all an indicator of future success. This is wrong. I can name countless examples of successful Collegiate athletes proving themselves later in the NFL.

Lower round draft picks, yes. The upper round, especially first rounders that are the only draft picks I have an interest in are really not that much easier to cut. The other thing is that if you're doing your homework you're a lot less likely to NEED to cut a free agent as compared to, say.... Carlos Rogers.

Even 1st round draft picks have lower signing bonuses than many veterans. Nate Clements, as an example, will command 20M in signing bonuses alone in 2007. Last year's first pick, Mario Williams, had a 12M signing bonus.

The reason 1st round picks aren't cut isn't because of their cap hit (which isn't really substantial) but rather because they remain potential greats long after you or I deem them "busts". The team is better off taking their early licks and sitting it out for the hopes that the players develop the skills to accompany their physical talents. In many cases they do. Now, because there is a LIMIT to what a 1st draft pick can ask for in signing bonuses but virtually none in what a Free Agent will receive, when we talk about players being kept on teams solely because of contracts we are almost ALWAYS talking about free agents. I invite you to produce any counterexample.

Interesting example with Carlos Rogers. That 1st round draft pick (9th overall) could be cut right now and it would cost the team less than it would cost to cut FREE AGENT Shawn Springs. By the way, the latter will be cut and the former will not, so you were also mistaken as regards "Needs".

I don't think there's a certainty. I do, however, believe that it's easier to scout current NFL players and to get a better idea of exactly what they can do at the NFL level. How much use is watching tape of some DE from Virginia Tech barrel over a LT from UCONN who should never have been playing NCAA Div. I football to begin with? Is that really the way you want to scout players? It isn't with me.

If that isn't how you would scout players then why are you stuck on Branch? Trading down would cost the team little-if-nothing. From everything you've indicated, you should be a supporter of trading down as it saves the team money and CFB isn't a reliable way to evaluate talent anyways. The players you draft in late rounds might not count against the salary cap at all.

Anderson and Adams aren't anywhere on my radar. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Hell, I don't even want a D-End at #6. I want Branch, the D-TACKLE from Michigan at #6.

But why? Is College Football a reliable scouting method or isn't it?

The players that I'm talking about are the second string and younger starters who are at the end of their initial rookie contracts with whatever team had drafted them. They're the players who have now been in the league for about 4 years and proven they can play the game, but may be stuck behind a proven veteran and getting only limited playing time, or not being used effectively in the system their current team utilizes.

So name names, guy. Which players specifically? Which players that have "proven they can play the game" aren't getting a chance to play the game? And why is the Salary Cap preventing these young men from getting the chance you think they deserve?

That's largely because the league hamstrings the teams via the Salary Cap. Get rid of the cap and it becomes a very viable option for teams like the Redskins.

Which Free Agent did you want last year that we didn't get? What was our record this year?

True WINNING only occurs by doing things in the Right way. I've been over this a ton of times around here. What the Patriots have been doing the last half dozen years ISN'T Winning in my mind. It's Not Losing. There is a distinction in my mind.

A distinction with no difference. Your idea of "winning" is ridiculous if it doesn't include 3 Superbowls in 4 years but includes the Yankees who haven't won a World Series since 2000. Were the Redskins "winning" in the late 80s and early 90s? The Patriots are 75-37 (.669) while "not losing". Gibbs non-salary cap Redskins were 124-60 (.674) while "winning". Any definition of winning and losing that attempts to make a severe distinction between these two winning teams is desparately illogical.

What is becoming more clear is that your definitions are manufactured in your head. You haven't even attempted to defend it outside of some vague "the Patriots use a scheme to win and that's unfair, they should only be using superstars". Is Tom Brady a superstar or isn't he? Was he a top 15 draft pick?

Yes, but I don't want this to devolve into a religious or political debate, so if you REALLY want an answer to that, PM me.

No, it isn't a political or religious debate nor would it "devolve" into that if you excercised the basest restraint in rhetoric. We're talking about the flipping Salary Cap. You expect us to believe that you haven't engaged in unnecessary hyperbole while simultaneously making the National Football League's Salary Rules a "Religious" or "Political" issue. No one is that stupid, and I can't imagine you honestly expect me to be.

Every player's contract eventually runs out, Skin. Whether we're talking about the second string long-snapper or the Pro Bowl, QB, eventually they have the option of becoming Free Agents. That's where we need to be looking for players; not in the draft. There or through trading our draft picks for proven Veterans. Obviously the first would mean quietly mentioning our interest to their agents prior to the actual beginning of Free Agency, but hey if you aren't cheating you aren't trying to win, are you?

Problem with your strategy is that it never would have had the chance to pick up a Jerry Rice or Joe Montana. Emmitt Smith. Art Monk or Darrell Green. Etc. These are not top 15 draft picks who ended up with teams and remained with them throughout either their entire careers (Green) or the productive portions of their careers (the rest). When you stumble upon a superior talent like one of these guys, you simply don't allow them to leave until they cease to be productive. They never hit Free Agency because you make sure they are constantly under contract. If the 49ers had walked away from Rice or Montana in the draft, as you suggest we should walk away here, they would've been forever blocked from getting their two greatest players. Likewise with the Cowgirls. And your Redskins.

There are a number of methods we use to evaluate the impact players can have on a team, from College Football to their prior NFL success to their personalities to interviews to familiarity with coaching schemes so on and so on. You want us all to believe that there is exactly one valuable metric and I simply can't do that. It isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree so much as it is you simply being dogmatically and demonstrably wrong.

If you wanted to make a legitimate and thoughtful point, you should have just said you favored Free Agency to drafting players and hoping they pan out. And while the empirical and economic data would still make you wrong, your point would at least be appreciable as that moderate position is (at a minimum) intuitive. Instead you've suggested we "walk away" from a draft. You've attempted to make College Football a meaningless metric of future success, when volumes of evidence suggest to the contrary. Over the course of this discussion you've also demonstrated a clear lack of understanding as regards player contracts (specifically failed comparisons between free agents and draft picks). You insist, without even attempting to qualify why, the salary cap is robbing startin caliber players of PT. We're now many thousands of words into this and you have not yet offered a single example of this happening.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Basically, your viewpoint is misguided. Danny Snyder is not this amazingly dedicated and rich person who could out-do any owner in the league. That assumption is baseless. So be careful what you wish for.

If we had that system in place and we still couldn't win, fine. I'd be gone in a heartbeat. There wouldn't be any reason for me to follow the NFL anymore. Personally, I think that in an unlimited financial system the Redskins would do much better than we've been doing the last decade and a half. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I'd know there wasn't any sense in watching the team anymore.

[Skin Patrol]

If we had that system in place and we still couldn't win, fine. I'd be gone in a heartbeat. There wouldn't be any reason for me to follow the NFL anymore. Personally, I think that in an unlimited financial system the Redskins would do much better than we've been doing the last decade and a half. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least I'd know there wasn't any sense in watching the team anymore.

Are you a fair weather fan? The above suggests so, I just want to see you explicitly say it.

[boysetsfire]

I just want to point out that, Skin patrol, you are my hero right now. Outstanding arguement man. :applause: :applause:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Are you a fair weather fan? The above suggests so, I just want to see you explicitly say it.

I am the sort of person who sees fandom as a two-way street, Skin. When I invest my time, interest and energy into a team, I expect a return on those results. For the last fifteen years there's been basically no return on the investment of being a Redskins fan. So far I've seen enough to make me think we might be able to turn things around, and there was enough return built up on previous seasons to keep me a fan of the team. That backlog of return on investment is quickly wearing out. At some point soon, unless things turn around, I will be walking away from the Redskins and therefore the NFL in its entirety, since I don't and won't follow any teams other than the Redskins. What I was commenting on in the post you quoted was the fact that if the NFL ran the way I would like it to and we still couldn't win there would be no reason for me to follow the team anymore. If that meets your definition of a fairweather fan, then I guess in your eyes I am one. That's really for you to decide, not me.

On a related note.... You and I have gone back and forth like two bulls with locked horns all day. We've gotten exactly nowhere. It's pretty obvious that neither of us is going to change the other's mind one iota on any of these related topics. I can guarantee my view will not be changed by anything you say; and I get the feeling you're the same way. So, in the interest of both of us not wasting any more time, why don't we just agree that we're never going to see eye to eye on any of this, accept that the other person has a right to their opinions and point of view, and move on to other things. If you REALLY want, we can continue the discussion, but I just don't see it going anywhere useful.

[Skin Patrol]

Works for me.

Cheers and have a good week.

[cmorina69]

some don't think so:

Said NFL Network analyst Mike Mayock: "Some people think Anderson is a top five or top 10 pick. I see some inconsistencies in his game. His motor isn't there all the time."

Thats not good, i was never sold on this guy, i say we trade down, but branch or okye( spelling) are both mabye worth a 6th pick, more branch.

[JoeKnowsBest]

I think we should steer clear of a DE with the 6th pick because they all seem way too risky. Anderson's flaws have just been pointed out, and Adams is a liability against the run. That would make it even more troublesome for our defense as if they didn't already have enough trouble against the run. Sure he's a great pass rusher and good for zone blitz schemes, but way too much of a problem in the run game.

And the DTs are no sure thing either. Kiper has Branch dropped all the way down to number 20 on his board. And his sloppy combine didn't help him either. And that kid Okoyi is kind of small for what we need.

I think LaRon Landry and Patrick Willis are the safest defensive picks in the draft.

Calvin Johnson is a freak of nature. Character, talent and all, he's a potential perenial pro-bowler/hall of famer. We have not seen a player like that since... well never.

[Gregpeck99]

JoeKonwsBest ... you are indeed a breath of fresh air ... great post! I agree ... with the lone exception that Adam Carriker will be safe and effective "defensive" pick for the Skins ... he will have no trouble stuffing the run.

[Gregpeck99]

Definition of "fairweather fan" = perjorative term used argumentively to imply that another's views are not as worthy as the opponent's previously stated position.

[No_Pressure]

Definition of "fairweather fan" = perjorative term used argumentively to imply that another's views are not as worthy as the opponent's previously stated position.

I thought the definition was a fan who is only a fan during the good times or "fair weather", and ceases to be a fan, support the team, and may even root against or bad mouth the team in bad times or "bad weather".