My team analysis and draft suggestion

[BKSkinsFan]

Everyone has their opinion of what to do with our #6 pick. Many on this site are begging and pleading their case for the Redskins to move up in order to draft CJ. Some want Laron Landry. Most others want d-line, but are split on which to take and how to get it, stand pat or trade down. As much as I have to agree that CJ looks to be a future great playmaker in the NFL, I have to look at our team’s performance last season and ask, is offense that much of a concern?

There are many factors to take into consideration when analyzing the numbers put up by our offense, and the numbers allowed by the defense. On offense it was the first year with a new offensive coordinator, our starting running back was injured, Mark Brunell seemed to not allow the offense to be opened up, and JC was getting his first bout of playing time as a pro. On defense we had starters unable to play or playing through more injuries than usual, the coaching staff had issues that were leaked, and perhaps people were finding a weakness in G William’s schemes.

The offensive totals from the 2006/2007 season average out to 327.7 yards/game. Our defensive totals average out to allowing 355.5 yards/game. We had the 13th ranked offense in the league with the 31st ranked defense. What this equates to is our offense performing as the 13th best in the league, while our defense allowed the opposing offense to perform as the 8th best in the league. Plain and simple, that is not going to translate into a winning record.

As we all know many blamed Brunell for the team’s performance, and to a degree there was probably some truth to that. Mark being benched however, did not make our defense perform any better, as evidenced in the St. Louis game where they allowed an astounding 579 yards.

Under Brunell we had 2 games of our offense gaining close to 500 yards, 495 against 24th ranked d of Houston, and 481 against the 2nd ranked d of Jacksonville. Unfortunately those are the only 2 times that we actually outproduced the opponents offense under Mark with a total yardage difference of +234 and +174 in those games. The offense under Brunell for 9 games averaged 317.7 yards/game which would have projected to the 17th ranked offense if that rate of production continued. Meanwhile our defense didn’t give Brunell much help allowing 358.8 yards/game, the equivalent of playing the 7th ranked offense for those 9 games.

The switch to Campbell hopefully allowed us to see a glimpse of the future for the offense, and is where we got back to smash mouth Redskins football. The highest yardage total under Jason was 415 yards, in what I’d call a gift of a victory for the Eagles. Missed oppurtunites and mistakes cost us that game, which is another topic in itself. The positive side to these numbers is that under JC our offense jumped up to an average of 340.6 yards/game which would project to the 10th ranked offense. Our defense however, even though they improved slightly, allowed 351.3 yards/game, the equivalent of playing the 8th ranked offense for those 7 games.

This makes it pretty clear that even if we do improve offensively, our defense is still statistically letting the opponent’s offense play at a high level. Looking at these numbers, it’s highly conceivable that with Portis back healthy, Campbell learning from his mistakes and playing consistently, and another year under Saunders, we could end up with our offense easily ranking in the top 10 in the NFL.

I just don’t see how people can look at these numbers and still want an offensive player to be taken with our 1st round pick. Not when it’s so apparent that our defense is playing so horribly.

Our defense had an overall ranking of 31st in the NFL. Against the pass they were 23rd, against the run they were 27th. During the first 9 games when Brunell was starting, our defense was actually only allowing 114.8 yards/game, equivalent of 15th ranked rush d. However the pass defense during that time was allowing 244 yards/game, which would easily project them at 32nd in the league with the 31st ranked team allowing 238.6 yards/game.

The last 7 games, with Campbell starting, our run d fell apart giving up 166.6 yards/game, which would equal the 31st ranked run d in the NFL. The pass defense during that time allowed 184.7 yards/game, which projects to the 4th ranked pass d.

This is not at all trying to link the QB starter to our defense stats, it’s more to show that teams threw on us with ease during the 1st half of the season, and ran on us with ease during the 2nd half of the season.

The D played like a dam about to bust, they’d plug a gaping hole in 1 area, and that only allowed the water to flow through the other gaping hole. I believe the acquisitions of Fletch and Smoot are improvements for this D. Fletch is a great MLB, which is the QB of the defense. He can put our guys in the right position, and keep people on the same page, along with being a sure tackler, which was not a luxury we had last season. Smoot can challenge for a starting role, which can only improve our pass coverage.

The thing I don’t see being addressed so far is the play of the d-line. The Skins D was ranked dead last by a long shot in sacks with 19. The #1 ranked Chargers had 61 sacks. We were also dead last in INTs with 6. The #1 ranked Ravens had 28. I know the d-line aren’t the guys getting the interceptions, but IMO they contribute greatly in causing them by creating pressure on the QB forcing bad passes.

The big question is who do we draft, a tackle or defensive end? Our tackles are getting older, and have injury issues, we even had to start 2 rookie tackles for 1 game. While Carter seemed to come on strong in December and ended up with 6 of our 19 sacks. Daniels played in all 16 games, and came out with only 3 sacks for the year.

While I’m sure we are trying to trade down and get a 2nd round pick, who do we choose if there are no teams interested in trading up? My answer would be to pick up a player that can create pressure that Daniels couldn’t provide, and someone who can take up blockers and stop the run. Try to help both weaknesses with this 1 high value pick. Is this Jamaal Anderson, or possibly Adam Carriker? I’m not a talent evaluator, so that’s not for me to decide. I do believe that either of these 2 would be the best pick for us given our situation. The best case scenario would be to trade down if a top talent falls to us. I believe this would allow us to pick up Carriker, who I think with his size and speed would be great for our D, and to get a 2nd round tackle who hopefully can take up some blockers. Creating pressure without blitzing makes our D more of a legitimate threat, and would actually make our blitzes more effective as they would be harder to pick up when the o-line has to give more respect and attention to the front four.

So what do you think? Still not convinced that we need help on D and want to get CJ don’t you? Not sure why I even bother lol.

[Vi]

Wow, very well said. It's nice to see a well-thought out opinion like this these days.

I do agree with you, really. I thought it was a no-brainer that the D was to be the one that was shored up this offseason, given their performance last season. Sometimes it's easy to forget how awful it was and say "Well, I guess they could be okay now..." with a prospect like CJ staring you in the face. This was a nice way of putting it back in perspective.

Good job.

[Fred Jones]

I have had this debate before. I am still on the best player available bandwagon. With the general exception of QB if the best player in the draft falls to your draft position you select that player. If the scouts and coaches determine that CJ is the best player player in the draft, future playmaker and dominate WR you take him with the sixth pick. I would not trade the future to move up to get him, but you cannot pass on playmakers.

Now, if you had a defensive player with equal skills and the choice was between the two than you pick need. That is not the case this year.

Basically, you pick for the long term future of the club not the near future. Find other ways to upgrade the Dline. Perhaps the FO should stop giving away 2nd and 3rd round picks. They would have come in handy this year.

[ThePreciating]

If someone shows me a possession WR on our depth chart, I'll stop pulling for CJ. Until then, this CJ bandwagon will grow.

Do you all not remember how ugly we were on 3rd downs? Our defense wasn't THAT bad. You seem to forget our offense almost never put up 21 points.

[DrunkenMaster]

I agree that a player for the D-line needs to be picked at 6 if we can't trade down. The problem is there is no standout D-lineman at the spot. More like 5 players that are almost equal as prospects.

[DrunkenMaster]

If someone shows me a possession WR on our depth chart, I'll stop pulling for CJ. Until then, this CJ bandwagon will grow.

Do you all not remember how ugly we were on 3rd downs? Our defense wasn't THAT bad. You seem to forget our offense almost never put up 21 points.

We did have trouble converting on 3rd but I think if our D had caused some turnovers creating shorter fields the O would of scored more points.

[Rex Tomb]

The way I see it, the defensive line needs to get a big body at the DT position. A big body (a gap 2 guy) would suck up the offensive linemen, almost demanding a double team. This would free up the ends to get one on one (Andre Carter anyone?) and help collapse the pocket for the quarterback. On running plays, the linebackers would be able to roam freely and make plays.

Alan Branch would be this prototypical "big boned" DT. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, Branch's stock seems to have taken a tumble over the past month or so. Therefore, I could see us moving down 3 or 4 spots if a QB (Brady Quinn, Jamarcus Russell) or a RB (Adrian Peterson) are still on the board. We would pick up at least a second rounder and probably a third in the process. If we did slip down that far, we would still have a shot a Branch or Amobi Okoye, two great prospects at DT.

My 2 cents

[ouvan59]

Wow, very well said. It's nice to see a well-thought out opinion like this these days.

I do agree with you, really. I thought it was a no-brainer that the D was to be the one that was shored up this offseason, given their performance last season. Sometimes it's easy to forget how awful it was and say "Well, I guess they could be okay now..." with a prospect like CJ staring you in the face. This was a nice way of putting it back in perspective.

Good job.

The problem is it is not a cut and dried no-brainer. How much of the problems with our defense last year had to do with injuries? Will Griffin and Salave'a be back to full health? How much have Montgomery and Golston progressed? How much will McIntosh progress? Will Fletcher solve any of the problems? Is Carter going to play the way he played at the end of the year the whole year this year? Will Smoot give us more flexibility this year?

Everybody loves the draft but it is almost never a solution to that year's problems even with 1st rounders. There were three DTs taken in the first round of last year's draft and Kedric Golston had more tackles than all three and fell only two tackles (46-44) short of all of them combined.

So color me into the best player available unless it's a QB. Getting a rookie to contribute is great. Counting on it is foolhardy.

[Skinsinparadise]

So what do you think? Still not convinced that we need help on D and want to get CJ don’t you? Not sure why I even bother lol.

IMO that isn't the operative point. Most of the CJ fans would be off that bandwagon if a COMPARABLE stud DL player was available in this draft. This isn't an abstract conversation between do we need a DL more badly than WR.

It's what can Calvin Johnson or perhaps Laron Landry add to the team versus an Okoye, Adams, Anderson, Branch, etc. It's a very specific debate IMO not an abstract one about need.

Didn't we draft Carlos Rogers for need purposes a couple of years ago with Ware on Merriman on the board? How do you feel about that move?

Should we draft the player the fits our most glaring need or draft a big time play maker who can really bolster their position in a big way.

[Fred Jones]

Someone mentioned CJ as a possession receiver. If CJ was just a possession receiver it would be an easy call to say pass. I am saying that if he is the best player in the draft you take him at 6. I am not a CJ fan. I am a best player possible fan. If the FO determines that CJ is not that good than don't select him.

[Peregrine]

Good stuff. Interestingly enough, while Campbell didnt have the biggest yardage totals between him and Brunell, he was far more consistent. Week in and week out he produced. JC running a top 10 offense(expected to improve this year) would really allow us to focus on improving defense.

[Vi]

The problem is it is not a cut and dried no-brainer. How much of the problems with our defense last year had to do with injuries? Will Griffin and Salave'a be back to full health? How much have Montgomery and Golston progressed? How much will McIntosh progress? Will Fletcher solve any of the problems? Is Carter going to play the way he played at the end of the year the whole year this year? Will Smoot give us more flexibility this year?

Everybody loves the draft but it is almost never a solution to that year's problems even with 1st rounders. There were three DTs taken in the first round of last year's draft and Kedric Golston had more tackles than all three and fell only two tackles (46-44) short of all of them combined.

So color me into the best player available unless it's a QB. Getting a rookie to contribute is great. Counting on it is foolhardy.

Well said, and I definately do see your point. "No-brainer" wasn't really the correct word word it, I suppose. Nothing about the draft is a no-brainer, really. I guess the more accurate way to say it would be that I assumed the D was to be the main focus in the draft.

Now, while I see your point my problem with CJ is this... he won't be there when we pick. If we could have him without moving up I'd be all over the idea. I'm just not crazy about the idea of packaging further picks or moving Springs (though I see the argument here also, I feel like taking an important piece of our D out, even though he is injury prone, is a little too much to sacrifice on D at this point) even for a possibly great player at a position that isn't a key need.

Now if some one wants to argue the same point about taking BPA at the 6th, even if they aren't a key need, I kinda get it. I just don't see many players at 6 more worth it then the D-linemen.

That said, I do like CJ and wouldn't be heartbroken if we got him at all. He is an exciting player, to be sure. I just don't know if it is the most logical move for the Skins right now.

[leo2k2ndc]

I think we should get landry and then trade future later round picks to get a 2nd rounder, i think charles johnson will still be around and he is huge..no homo

[[[ghost]]]

If someone shows me a possession WR on our depth chart, I'll stop pulling for CJ. Until then, this CJ bandwagon will grow.

Do you all not remember how ugly we were on 3rd downs? Our defense wasn't THAT bad. You seem to forget our offense almost never put up 21 points.

Our defense wasn't that bad? It was ranked 31st. We had 19 Sacks last year. 19! Thats not even funny. How do you only get to the QB 19 times?

We only had 6 interceptions. Do you realize some of the best teams in the league have more than that in a game? Hell, Asante Samuel doubled that himself last year.

And you say our defense wasn't that bad. The onyl sane thing in your post is the notion that we have enough people on this board who want to see us throw to a WR, but don't realize they'll just end up seeing opposing QBs throw to their wide open WRs because we can't even touch him.

[ouvan59]

Now, while I see your point my problem with CJ is this... he won't be there when we pick. If we could have him without moving up I'd be all over the idea. I'm just not crazy about the idea of packaging further picks or moving Springs (though I see the argument here also, I feel like taking an important piece of our D out, even though he is injury prone, is a little too much to sacrifice on D at this point) even for a possibly great player at a position that isn't a key need.

Now if some one wants to argue the same point about taking BPA at the 6th, even if they aren't a key need, I kinda get it. I just don't see many players at 6 more worth it then the D-linemen.

That said, I do like CJ and wouldn't be heartbroken if we got him at all. He is an exciting player, to be sure. I just don't know if it is the most logical move for the Skins right now.

I wholeheartedly agree. I wasn't advocating taking him just that it isn't necessarily the best idea to limit yourself to one position or one side of the ball and fill a need since the guy you pick isn't likely to be a huge help this year anyway. And while I do like CJ I am totally against trading up to get him. If he is there at 6, by all means, pick him. I wouldn't mind a trade down either.

[Vi]

I wholeheartedly agree. I wasn't advocating taking him just that it isn't necessarily the best idea to limit yourself to one position or one side of the ball and fill a need since the guy you pick isn't likely to be a huge help this year anyway. And while I do like CJ I am totally against trading up to get him. If he is there at 6, by all means, pick him. I wouldn't mind a trade down either.

So were pretty much same page here, just a matter of a glitch in semantics on my part. I didn't mean to limit myself to only picking D but to comment that it seemed the most logical course of action given our needs, our defense last year and BPA at #6.

So, yeah. We're of the same mind on the issue, I'd say.

[Santana Clause]

I agree with you on many levels. To play devil's advocate however, when you have so many holes the prevailing philosophy is to take the best player available--CJ. However, that argument is debunked by the fact that we would have to trade up to get CJ. Therefore, you have to take DL. I think you should go DE. Turnovers decide games and even with a strong push up the middle, opposite end of Carter will not get many sacks. Carter could, but I still think you go with the kids, big joe and griff and get someone that can attack the edge and call it a day. Pick up a big DT with another 5th round pick and hope you get lucky.

[SkinsManNJ]

Our late round picks will only be succesful if our coaching is good enough to get these guys game ready. Same goes with if we end up picking a DL at #6. It just seems to me that to the coaching staff that the DL in this draft aren't worth a number 6 pick. So I just think they will go with Landry or the next top safety unless we trade down. That all comes down to if we cant get CJ. How many of you DL fans would be mad if we went with CJ or Landry? Cause like I said the DL along with any other position needs to have proper coaching in order to succeed. But a WR would have an easier transition.

[BKSkinsFan]

My whole point with CJ is in order to get him, we'll have to move up. Granted, if he falls, I completely agree and have said before that he'd be extremely hard to pass up. However, given the projections, and the performance of our defense last year, drafting Anderson or Carriker would be the most logical move. Honestly, I wouldn't even be that heart broken if we did pick Landry, I just think the DE pick makes more sense.

The point is our d could stop the run, but then gave up big plays against the pass. They could stop the pass, but gave up big runs all day. They could never stop both, and IMO that all starts with the underperforming d-line.

We get a better pass rush, and someone who can make some big stops against the run, we've made a great pick. I'm not proclaiming either rookie will come in and get 10 sacks. I would think with Griffin, Big Joe, and Carter all healthy and playing well, a 1st round DE could be a great addition to a d-line in need of help by being able to hold his gap and fight off blockers, to slide laterally to make some tackles, and becoming at the very least a threat to hurry the QB.

[Wyvern]

Two comments:

(1) Drafting CJ versus a Defensive player: A lot depends on who is really driving the draft strategy. CJ would a marketeer's dream -- the razzle-dazzle offense of Campbell to Johnson or Moss -- long bombs that would make Al Davis' heart flutter. Air-Coryell would be back and the Redskins would be exciting to watch. (Of course the flip-side is that our defense wouldn't be able to stop teams from playing ball-control on us.)

Shoring up either the defensive line or stabilizing the defensive backfield would go a long way to getting the Redskins back to the playoffs, but it's not as "sexy" from a marketing perspective. So while an option of trading down to snag a DE and DT or FS and DT makes a lot of football sense, it wouldn't have that same marketing draw of a "future hall-of-fame" WR.

(2) Brunell performance vs. Campbell: I take issue with the case being made that Campbell was making the offense more productive than Brunell. Whie the yardage might have looked a little better for Campbell, this is like comparing apples and oranges.

There were a lot of factors not related to how Brunell QB'd versus Campbell.

• Campbell benefited by Saunders having to dial down his offensive schemes to something more like "Redskin" football. When Brunell played -- everyone was still struggling wiht the very different concepts.
  
• Betts seemed to grow into his role as the RB as the season went on, and the offensive line got to play more "Redskins ground-game football."
  
• Campbell's yardage totals benefited from his occasional completion of long passes -- but long bombs were not called as often for Brunell because Saunders system is designed around the QB making the quick short/medium pass designed to gain big yards after the catch. When Campbell came in, they simplified the offense but did use his stronger arm on long passes more often -- even though it often meant more three-and-outs.