Just wondering. Anyone else think a rookie DL won't even hit the field for us?

[dfbovey]

Geez, you'd think you'd have watched us enough to know what Salave'a was for us when healthy. You know the anchor of a top defense was what he was, right? You know he was the guy who took all the doubles and dominated the center of the line in the role of body eater so Griffin could be the player he was?

Since when does injury and age not play a part in what you consider a need? Yeah, two years ago, Salavea was fine. A nice role player to couple with Griffin. What is he now?

Indeed, I suspect no one in this draft at defensive tackle will be as good as Salave'a was for us until his injury for at least a couple of years. You'd think you'd appreciate the good work of the players we've had instead of wanting to see us shed them because they got hurt.

I didn't say shed him. I said that we should bring in youth on the defensive line. If that happens to be Branch, I would expect him to beat out a 32 year old injury prone Salavea.

I thought you were among those asking the team to learn from mistakes, yet, you wish us to make another by not honoring leaders and vets who were hurt, so you can have a shiny rookie you've never seen play in there. How insulting of you.

Make him a quilt.

The second he leaves our roster because he can't play is a sad day. It's too bad you don't respect our character guys and fan friendly players more. Why don't you? Or, is it you'd need Branch to be a bust in the league so in three years you could write, "We had Salave'a and knew what he could do. Then we draft Branch and we saw how that went. Why don't we learn from these mistakes."

That, increasingly, seems your way.

Role playing and trying to play the part of people you think you know on the internet seems to be your way.

To me, it's hilarious that you would make drafting Branch out to be "disrespectful" to Salavea. He's a decent player, nice locker room guy and the fans like him. Doesn't mean that another player can't come in and do a much better job. Doesn't mean that you can't bring in a guy to compete for the spot. Doesn't mean that you don't try to improve the team where it needs to be improved the most.

[Siven]

And, more, Salave'a is THE most fan friendly player on the roster.

The second he leaves our roster because he can't play is a sad day. It's too bad you don't respect our character guys and fan friendly players more. Why don't you? Or, is it you'd need Branch to be a bust in the league so in three years you could write, "We had Salave'a and knew what he could do. Then we draft Branch and we saw how that went. Why don't we learn from these mistakes."

That, increasingly, seems your way.

The draft is a crap shoot, but we need youth on on the defensive line. We have good Lber's, good corners, a good safety, we just need servicable safety, guard, and an impact player on the dline. And who cares if he is fan friendly, if he's making money he should produce and live up to his contract.

[Art]

dfb,

I don't think drafting Branch would be disrespectful to Salave'a. I suggest for you to believe as you've written in various threads that YOU must believe it. You, understand, are they guy who can't understand why we'd cut a cheap, proven vet for an expensive guy like we did with Clark for Arch.

Obviously, you have thought your position through and you understand you can not support an expensive rookie over a cheap veteran if you actually believe what you're saying. As I've clearly stated in this thread, I am in the defensive line camp. I believe you draft rookies hoping they will be ready to help your team in a couple of years and in a couple of years you can see the real need at defensive line.

Of course, where you state we've "addressed" linebacker and corner with free agent players, you don't seem to allow that we've long done that at defensive line, so, again, you seem to contradict yourself. Why is it we've addressed some positions with free agents, but signing a Top 10 pick who is still young to play defensive line is not really doing the same thing? How come signing proven, long-term starters along the line, as we've done time and time again, isn't doing the same thing?

Who's to say we wouldn't do the same thing next year, adding free agents to continue filling in for the weakness of aging players being asked to move on, or retiring on their own? The problem with your position is it lacks consistency across the board.

You are a guy who's own views wildly contradict themselves, though, in fairness to you, they only seem to in hindsight. I'm sure you'll allow the things you think we should do now become critical failings if they don't work out later. Or, am I reading your posts in these topics the wrong way and you can explain it better?

[Art]

The draft is a crap shoot, but we need youth on on the defensive line. We have good Lber's, good corners, a good safety, we just need servicable safety, guard, and an impact player on the dline. And who cares if he is fan friendly, if he's making money he should produce and live up to his contract.

Aren't all three of our projected starting linebackers 30 or older during this season? Don't we need youth there? We have a good safety. We have TWO good defensive linemen in Carter and Griffin, and another couple guys who have played well for a long time in the league in Daniels and Wynn.

Not to mention a great leader in Salave'a and a couple of young bodies.

[ImmortalDragon]

If Golston can get on the field, the 6th overall pick can get on the field.

[dfbovey]

The defense didn't decline to No. 11. The defense played a huge number of very good offenses in year two and naturally decreased slightly where in Year 1 we played a lot more bad offenses. There's more to a defensive performance than ranking. And in many ways the second year was BETTER than the first because we played far better offenses on average.

Teams we played absolutely had an effect, but so does loss of talent, aging and injury.

The secure jobs should be the players who did their jobs well. Washington, Taylor to some degree, Daniels, Griffin, Carter. Those were our best defensive players last year.

Washington, Taylor and Griffin I would agree with. I don't think you can put your trust into injury prone players such as Daniels. I put him in the same category as Shawn Springs. Great when they are healthy, but they are unreliable because of their age and injury history. I'm just not comfortable with that. Not only do we need depth to step in, so that we don't finish with the worst defense in the league when these guys get injured.... but we also need youth to come in and challenge these guys for their jobs. That's what happens when players reach a certain age.

Interesting. These guys haven't even played a down for this team and you have them as playing spots we've addressed? Nice of you, but, how much do you want to wager if one of them fails you'll wonder why on earth we didn't see the gaping hole at the position one of them failed in? Archuleta was an "upgrade" too you know?

I'm assuming they would be upgrades. Fletcher played at a high level for Williams and it would be logical to assume that he would be better than Marshall for us at MLB. Smoot at the very least should be a much better nickel option compared to Wright, and should also push Rogers for a starting position. Marshall HAS played OLB for us, and would wager that he would outperform Holdman. McIntosh is a wildcard. I realize that nothing is guaranteed, but my point is that the team has at least attempted to address issues with the back 7. While they've done nothing to upgrade the defensive line.

More healthy players, a year of experience and conditioning for Golston and Montgomery and the improving play of Carter would suggest we improve simply by keeping what we had and going forward. Again, the defensive line only really played poorly when both Griffin and Salave'a were too hurt to be effective.

You can never could on health when it comes to aging players. Especially aging players that have a proven history when it comes to injuries. Montgomery has proven less than McIntosh.

Indeed we've waited on the defensive line because we were so much worse in the other spots we had to improve them. I suspect we're not done yet improving them.

There are plenty of needs. I hope they put their priorities in the right place. IMO, that's youth on the defensive line.

[21Knock_U_Out]

Probably 6 or 7 games in. Just like Taylor and Rogers.

I think with Taylor back there it gives you the opportunity to start Landry even sooner, as opposed to a rookie Taylor starting with so-so vets.

[dfbovey]

dfb,

I don't think drafting Branch would be disrespectful to Salave'a. I suggest for you to believe as you've written in various threads that YOU must believe it. You, understand, are they guy who can't understand why we'd cut a cheap, proven vet for an expensive guy like we did with Clark for Arch.

The difference here is pretty obvious. The secondary wasn't broken when Clark was here. He was young, wasn't really injury prone, worked hard and the other players loved him. We tossed him aside for a high priced free agent.

Adding a player in the draft is a different scenario. Yeah, a top ten pick would be high priced. But that would be true no matter what position we draft. It just happens to be my opinion that we need young players to push these older guys on the defensive line, and prepare for when these guys are gone. At 31,32 and 35... that's sooner rather than later.

Obviously, you have thought your position through and you understand you can not support an expensive rookie over a cheap veteran if you actually believe what you're saying. As I've clearly stated in this thread, I am in the defensive line camp. I believe you draft rookies hoping they will be ready to help your team in a couple of years and in a couple of years you can see the real need at defensive line.

I agree with you partially, but with the fundamental difference that I expect an impact from a top ten pick sometime within their first season. Maybe not day one, but like Sean Taylor and Carlos Rogers... they should see significant playing time and be weened into their starting role. I think the only position that needs significant grooming would be QB for obvious reasons.

Of course, where you state we've "addressed" linebacker and corner with free agent players, you don't seem to allow that we've long done that at defensive line, so, again, you seem to contradict yourself. Why is it we've addressed some positions with free agents, but signing a Top 10 pick who is still young to play defensive line is not really doing the same thing? How come signing proven, long-term starters along the line, as we've done time and time again, isn't doing the same thing?

We've addressed defensive line in free agency over the past few years. But like I've said, it's an aging line. We've spent two top 10 picks on players for the secondary with Rogers and Taylor. We have Smoot and Springs... to me spending another top ten choice on another safety wouldn't be logical. We spent alot of draft picks to get McIntosh, Washington is a mainstay and Fletcher was just brought in. Our defensive line is old and had a rash of injuries, is old and we haven't done anything to address that problem so far this offseason. IMO... it's by far the biggest priority heading into the draft. In fact, I wouldn't stop with just this draft. If we take a DT this year, we need to either sign a decent LE next year or use another high pick to add additional youth to that position as well. It's just my philosophy that you should build a solid defense from the line backwards.

Who's to say we wouldn't do the same thing next year, adding free agents to continue filling in for the weakness of aging players being asked to move on, or retiring on their own? The problem with your position is it lacks consistency across the board.

This team's philosophy lacks consistancy across the board. But I've addressed that in other threads. If it were me, I'd revamp the scouting staff, get a GM in here that has a proven track record and build with youth through the draft. When draft picks thrive, reward them with long term contracts. THAT would promote consistancy. That would stop the revolving door free agent bull**** that we've had to endure for far too long now. Free agency should be a suppliment. Not the main way you build a team.

You are a guy who's own views wildly contradict themselves, though, in fairness to you, they only seem to in hindsight. I'm sure you'll allow the things you think we should do now become critical failings if they don't work out later. Or, am I reading your posts in these topics the wrong way and you can explain it better?

Maybe you could be more clear on where you think I've been contradicting myself so I can address those points directly? If it's the points I've already addressed in this thread then I think I've already explained where I'm coming from.

[Art]

dfb, put yourself on record.

If we draft a defensive lineman who fails, but we pass on a guard or a safety who are wildly successful you will not be here in four years suggesting we were the dumbest team in creation for missing on great players at positions of need. I just don't get the impression you allow your views now to hold steady as the future unfolds.

Understand, I'm a big proponent of a move being smart or dumb the moment it takes place. Dockery was not worth the money he got. Not signing him for that money was smart -- just as it was dumb not to sign him for LESS a year or two earlier . If Dockery makes the next 10 Pro Bowls and becomes the best guard in the game, it won't make our decision not to sign him worse. The decision was right when made.

If we draft a player in an obvious position of need it's going to be a good move. Hell, if we sign a player generally considered to be the BPA for us and most teams at the same time, it'll be a good move. How they play in the future may make the pick a failed one, or a successful one, but, does not reflect at all on the move being a good one or bad one.

I happened to HATE the Archuleta move when we made it because I didn't get what we needed him for. Had he been great, I'd have been able to suggest I didn't know what smarter people running our team knew and moved on. In the case of Lloyd, I adored that move. It was a fanastic move for us at the right spot and the right type of guy. Now that he's played so badly and alienated so many, I can't go back and say the move was stupid in the first place. It was right in the first place, and the player failed to do what you'd evaluated he could do.

I have a hard time reading people who suggest we should LEARN something from Ryan Clark and Adam Archuleta while at the same time not displaying the knowledge they suggest we should have learned.

[Oldskool]

Aren't all three of our projected starting linebackers 30 or older during this season? Don't we need youth there? We have a good safety. We have TWO good defensive linemen in Carter and Griffin, and another couple guys who have played well for a long time in the league in Daniels and Wynn.

Not to mention a great leader in Salave'a and a couple of young bodies.

Art, everything on defense starts at the LOS. Joe Salave'a might be a hell of a leader but he has never played 16 games in one season and is not getting any younger.

Griffin is still a force but the older he gets, the less that he will get double teams.

If the FO is smart, they will start rebuilding both sides of the ball, starting with the D-line this year. Sure we have talent and a bit of depth with Golston and Montgomery, but just as last years run defense proves, these two are depth not starters.

[dfbovey]

dfb, put yourself on record.

If we draft a defensive lineman who fails, but we pass on a guard or a safety who are wildly successful you will not be here in four years suggesting we were the dumbest team in creation for missing on great players at positions of need. I just don't get the impression you allow your views now to hold steady as the future unfolds.

I think I've already put myself on record. I've stated my opinion pretty clearly. Our defensive line is old, injury prone and needs to be addressed with youth in the draft. I think it should be our #1 priority. I don't know what else I could say to make it more clear.

I have a hard time reading people who suggest we should LEARN something from Ryan Clark and Adam Archuleta while at the same time not displaying the knowledge they suggest we should have learned.

I think the lesson is obvious. And I've stated what that lesson is. The secondary wasn't broken, we could have kept it in tact by giving a solid player a reasonable contract.

What your confusion seems to stem from, is you want to compare Ryan Clark/ Archuleta to what I propose we should do in this draft. And there is no comparison in my mind. I've already stated my position as to why.

[Art]

I think I've already put myself on record. I've stated my opinion pretty clearly. Our defensive line is old, injury prone and needs to be addressed with youth in the draft. I think it should be our #1 priority. I don't know what else I could say to make it more clear.

I think the lesson is obvious. And I've stated what that lesson is. The secondary wasn't broken, we could have kept it in tact by giving a solid player a reasonable contract.

What your confusion seems to stem from, is you want to compare Ryan Clark/ Archuleta to what I propose we should do in this draft. And there is no comparison in my mind. I've already stated my position as to why.

You've said you want a defensive lineman, but you haven't put yourself on record, so, again, I ask you. If we pick a defensive lineman who is an utter failure -- say like Haynes in Chicago three years ago and he's out of the league already despite being a Top 10 pick -- but, Landry is the game's best safety. In three years when that happens and Taylor leaves in free agency, will you suggest we were foolish to pass on Landry this year?

Chances are you won't ever see any of this happen. I just want to make sure of it. You want a defensive lineman. If we pass on a player at an obvious position of need who does more in the league, you won't later blame the front office. That's all I want to hear you say.

[dfbovey]

Chances are you won't ever see any of this happen. I just want to make sure of it. You want a defensive lineman. If we pass on a player at an obvious position of need who does more in the league, you won't later blame the front office. That's all I want to hear you say.

Sure, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Since you want to make absolutes out of this...

What's your end of it? If we draft Landry and our pass defense still sucks because we can't pressure the QB... or our defense gets run over because Salavea and Griffin have injury issues again this year, will you admit that you were wrong?

[TheLongshot]

You've said you want a defensive lineman, but you haven't put yourself on record, so, again, I ask you. If we pick a defensive lineman who is an utter failure -- say like Haynes in Chicago three years ago and he's out of the league already despite being a Top 10 pick -- but, Landry is the game's best safety. In three years when that happens and Taylor leaves in free agency, will you suggest we were foolish to pass on Landry this year?

There is a lot of "ifs" in there. If the DL is a failure, if Landry is a stud. If Taylor leaves in FA. Course, there are a lot of "ifs" in the draft anyways. You never quite know what you got for a few years.

Let me put this to you: what happens when Taylor, and soon after that Landry hits FA? If they are worth their draft position, do you pay them? That's a lot to shell out for the Safety position, which is usually a lower priced position. Considering that you probably aren't going to get a discount elsewhere, it could cash strap you.

Anyways, with the draft being for the future rather than next year, wouldn't you want to address the position that will be an issue in the next couple of years, rather than one right now with a rookie that may need a couple of years to be fully effective? I mean, Taylor is still a work in progress after three years. Landry may be capable, but is he going to be as capable as the guys who actually know the defense that we have now?

Jason

[chaught76]

I believe Landry can be a good player. The problem of pressuring the QB is what remains. You could have Darrell Green, Ronnie Lott, Rod Woodson, and Champ Bailey in the back field and they will ultimately fail if the QB has all day to the throw the ball.

But, what about our run defense and the effect has on forcing pass-situation?

I really think we were beaten up for most of last year is why our run defense stunk. Not to mention, it took over half the season for Carter to get his game on and Holdman was like water running through a dam. I think Carter still has a lot in the tank and I think keeping him lined up on the same side as Washington will help him a lot, since Marcus is so good at the point of attack. This puts a solid run stopping end on the weak-side to free Rocky to attack. Plus, with a true MLB in Fletcher right now that can take on the power leads, we are more solid in the middle. As long as Griffin can stay relatively healthy and Salavea stays healthy and has something left in the tank. We should be back to form.

In summary, if we can stop the run the next year our secondary will improve because the front seven are helping dictate when the offense will have to pass. Therefore, by finding a DL that can put more pressure on the QB and stuff the run, we exponentially improve our secondary.

Just my :2cents:.

HTTR!!!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

One mistake I think our Front Office makes (and I think Art is reflecting that philosophy here) is that it seems to only look at the depth chart and tries to use free agency or the draft to fill specific holes. And I don't think you can always look just six months down the road.

To me, one of the best drafts in recent memory was the Eagles' 2002 draft. That was a good team that had a very good secondary. And what did they do? They spent one first and two seconds on defensive backs. And what happened? Two years later, all three of those guys played a key role in an NFC championship.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned about 2007. I think if everything goes well and Campbell plays above his head, the team could go 9-7 and compete for a playoff spot. I think 7-9 is more likely. Regardless, I don't think a Super Bowl is in the cards for next year. So, maybe, we should think ahead a bit to 2008. Surely, our D-line that year can't include Griffin, Big Joe, and Daniels.

It's the difference between checkers and chess.

(By the way, if I could trade down this year, I would still take defensive lineman with my first two picks. And I may be inclined to take a defensive lineman next year. Defensive line is one of those positions were you simply can never have enough fresh bodies).

[Art]

One mistake I think our Front Office makes (and I think Art is reflecting that philosophy here) is that it seems to only look at the depth chart and tries to use free agency or the draft to fill specific holes. And I don't think you can always look just six months down the road.

To me' date=' one of the best drafts in recent memory was the Eagles' 2002 draft. That was a good team that had a very good secondary. And what did they do? They spent one first and two seconds on defensive backs. And what happened? Two years later, all three of those guys played a key role in an NFC championship.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned about 2007. I think if everything goes well and Campbell plays above his head, the team could go 9-7 and compete for a playoff spot. I think 7-9 is more likely. Regardless, I don't think a Super Bowl is in the cards for next year. So, maybe, we should think ahead a bit to 2008. Surely, our D-line that year can't include Griffin, Big Joe, and Daniels.

It's the difference between checkers and chess.

(By the way, if I could trade down this year, I would still take defensive lineman with my first two picks. And I may be inclined to take a defensive lineman next year. Defensive line is one of those positions were you simply can never have enough fresh bodies).[/quote']

Certainly Art isn't reflecting that "mistake" because I've said in this thread I prefer to use the draft to fill holes you expect a couple of years down the line than to fill holes today. I do happen to prefer the acquisition of proven NFL players in free agency to fill most holes than I like draft picks as I would hope everyone here would as it's a far safer bet. You often lack the top end reward of a rookie who becomes Merriman, but you also typically limit the downside risk of the rookie who becomes Michael Haynes when you take guys with a proven track record.

Andre Carter, for example, I get the feeling would have been a far more exciting player for fans here had we taken him in the draft a few years ago int he Top 10 rather than in free agency AFTER he'd proven he could play a couple of positions in the actual NFL and do them well, if not at a Pro Bowl level.

That is something I struggle to understand here.

As for next year, I don't know what you mean by Campbell playing over his head. If Campbell completes 57 percent of his passes or better, throws for around 220 yards a game and has an 85 QB rating or so, we'll be better than 9-7 because the offense has a lot of talent that will simply be hard to deal with if the QB play is that efficient. Is that above his head? I don't know.

[onnie007]

Branch will start and compete with Golston cause......mark my words..... either Griffin or Salave'a will get hurt! Neither has proven that they can stay healthy from week to week. Branch's stock is falling in the mock drafts and I feel if we trade down then we can still get him AND pick up a DE in the second round. Amobi's stock is rising and we could pick him at 6 but that is too high for his value but I still think he will be gone soon after though. So I think Branch is the guy and plus he will have a chip on his soldier and if they're is still no pass rush by week 3 then expect Branch to get the nod over Salave'a and Golston and prove that he should have been drafted higher. I think Greg Blache can turn him into a beast! :dallasuck

[#21Taylor4Ever]

With us having so many DTs in the fold right now, we would be wasting a pick on any DT we choose to draft. DE may be another story, but I still think we should take one later after trading down, or even give this CFL kid a shot.

Worst case scenario, we draft Calvin Johnson and have the #1 offense and #32 defense.....

[Gilligan28]

I dont think we need a DT, the Skins drafted 2 DT in the past drafts, Golston and Montgomery. I was impressed with Golston last year and hopefully both of them improve. I really think landry would be the pick we need. It may be tough to draft back now the Falcons have moved up a few and they have been rumored to want landry too at the 8th pick now.

However there is a DT tackle that may be around in the 5th round from utah and scout.com describes him as "massive" with adequate closing speed and can actually get a rush up the middle at times. they also describe him as a good tackler and that he doesnt miss many tackles. they also say his technique is good. the only down side is his conditioning, but we can improve that plus he probably wouldnt play every down.

He is 6'4 344 Paul Soliai

[jrockster21]

He is 6'4 315 sorry i forget his name

Here is a pretty comprehensive list of DTs available (that will be drafted):

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/dt.html

[skinsman4u]

We do have some smoke out there and very top heavy at every skill position. We have folks on our second team or in the rotation that could start at other teams, now we have a TE that can compliment the OL and give that extra punch to our run blocking schemes. But yeah if we can get our QB and OL play working at a 95% efficiency. I mean we have people coming off the bench or a better term I would use is rotation. We folks in the rotation in the likes of Betts and Cartwright...Sellers, and when we go to a two receiver set we have people in waiting like El or Lloyd or whatever the package. We cut down on our penalties, get better in the red zone and we'll be in serious contention. Yes, I know what about the "D"?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Andre Carter, for example, I get the feeling would have been a far more exciting player for fans here had we taken him in the draft a few years ago int he Top 10 rather than in free agency AFTER he'd proven he could play a couple of positions in the actual NFL and do them well, if not at a Pro Bowl level.

You are really banking a lot on Andre Carter actually becoming decent against the run and getting more than 6 or 7 sacks.

If Andre Carter had been a top ten pick for the Skins originally, he probably would have been let go at the end of the 2005 season...and deservedly so. He has done nothing in his career to justify his status as a Top Ten pick.

The guy is entering his seventh year. How long can the word "potential" be attached to him?

[Art]

You are really banking a lot on Andre Carter actually becoming decent against the run and getting more than 6 or 7 sacks.

If Andre Carter had been a top ten pick for the Skins originally' date=' he probably would have been let go at the end of the 2005 season...and deservedly so. He has done nothing in his career to justify his status as a Top Ten pick.

The guy is entering his seventh year. How long can the word "potential" be attached to him?[/quote']

Carter did a nice job against the run and really came on as the year wore on. As I've said, he's not a Pro Bowl player, but, he is a proven, capable player at his position. Indeed, I would expect him to get another 50-plus tackles and 8-12 sacks this year as his body continues to adjust back to the end position.

He had 4 sacks and three stuffs in the last five games against some pretty good offenses. His game started to fit back with the end role after a couple years at backer. Not sure why you don't recognize that or understand he doesn't have to be a Pro Bowl player to be a valuable one.

[mistertim]

Jamaal Anderson, IMO, would be able to start relatively soon. Blache would see to that. The kid is a freak athlete and despite not having much time at DE became the best DE in the toughest conference in college football by his junior year. Good lord I hope we pick him up.