KevinthePRF Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 .....at least for now. I'm high on Gardner and think he will be a fine addition to this football team, but there is one person prior to draft day I had my hopes set upon....come on Marty, prove me wrong. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/seahawks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 Ugggggggggg you had to remind me Man I really wanted Hutchinson ... and we could friggin use him. Gardner and Smoot are nice but I would have much rather seen us take Hutchinson then Chambers ------------------ The Redskins HQ Forum RedskinsHQ.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 This has been brought up several times recently. I was somewhat of a Hutch guy, too (really wanted Koren Robinson first). Wouldn't necessarily have been wrong to take him, but the needs at WR were far greater than at O-line at the time of the draft. Think for a moment where we would have been had we taken Hutch in the first. Westbrook's return to form from injury was not a guarantee. We might have had a WR corp worse than last year ... which is pretty bad. Team would have stacked the box against Davis and our offense might very well have been shut down on a regular basis. This is hypothetical but very plausible. Our poor play at OG makes it easy to look back at the draft and wonder what might have been, but all things given we made the right choices ... at least in the first two rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 ahhh, my favorite topic. it is beyond me the faith so many put into a wr. with the exception of a Randy Moss and Jerry Rice, the wr's are not the critical cogs to an offense. a good o-line can make an average wr better - not the other way around. wr's are not full time contributors, o-line are in on every play at the point of attack run or pass. this was just a huge, huge mistake by the braintrust. one driven, in my opinion, by an over-reaction to last year's problems. last draft was deep in receivers we could have drafted 2 quality guys at 2 & 4. or still taken smoot at 2 and found one guy + an fa. good receivers are nice to have, they can help carry the strecher your qb is on cuz the line can't pass protect/run block worth a XXXX! ultimately, the decision meant we wanted excellence at a skill position for maybe 40% of the gae and mediocrity at another position for 100% of a game. so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 not to let a dead horse die.....who will go to the pro bowl most? kinda of a silly question, but i'm willing to wager it won't even be close. hutch will go multiple times, gardner will be a strong "contributor" to his team. now.....how's that for slinging hash?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Clone Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 No way! Gardner was the perfect draft choice. Hutch is awesome but we desperately needed a receiver. Guard is the easiest poition to fill on a football team. Sure we may struggle there for one year without a guy like Hutch but he can be replaced next year whereas a guy like Gardner will contribute for years and years and there aren't many receivers like him. We will get a guard next year. Gardner and Smoot where the correct picks to make. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_East/medium/wash1-med.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_East/medium/noboys-med.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMP Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 I believed then as I belive now that WR needed to be addressed with a first round pick prior to selecting an offensive lineman. The jury has yet to render a verdict on Gardner but I believe he will be a valuable addition for years to come. The offensive line is not up to snuff yet. It will need to be addressed with more urgency in the 2002 free agency period and draft. But for now WR won't be such a priority in 2002. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/joe_gibbs/joegibbs_images/driver_prof_joe.jpg" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/current_season/jgr_wc_18/jgr_wc_18_images/car/bobby_car_race.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/current_season/jgr_wc_20/jgr_wc_20_images/car/drive_pontiac_tony.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 Stop this. I had premature wood prior to the draft thinking about Hutch on our team and was ready to err anyway I was disappointed at the time when we bypassed Hutch. I'm 50-50 now but look at what we could have done 1 Hutch 2 Smoot 4 Paprika still 5 D Mac So our wideouts would have been Westy, lockett, D mac,Boz Skaggs and Derrius T The O line would ve been Samuels,Hutch,Raymer,Brandt and Jansen Well enough fantasies for now ------------------ Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 Loved Hutch, but Gardner was the right pick. He's a playmaker. Haven't seen it in preseason, but don't be surprised to see a steady dose of this: three step drop, wing it to Gardner on a slant or short crossing pattern, and watch him run. You don't need Hutch to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 It comes down to money. We can't afford to tie up too much cap space on the Oline. You have to get lucky and steal a serviceable ham and egger at a few positions. If we had taken Hutch that would have meant 2 number ones and a number 2 all within 3 years of each other. Leaving no cap money for a WR. What difference would time mean to JG if none of the WRs could get open? We got the draft right IMO for the first time in 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 3-5 yd slants is not going to cut it against the top flight defenses. they will eat us up alive knowing we have no long game - fleet receivers or not - because we cannot hold pass blocks for longer than the half-life of a democratic promise for tax relief! dominating line play is where it's at! gardner is only going to be involved in a max of 30-40% of offensive plays. hutch would be in on every play. as for money commitment - who cares in the age of free agency? no one can plan on a coherent/consistent starting team beyond 3-4 yrs anyway. if you have a chance for a dominating player with pro bowl potential - you go for it. i watched gardner in college. i thought he was good, but not an all-world kind of player. everyone seems to think that just because we're moving from cannon fodder to someone competent that we have made the steal of the century. i hope - like everyone on this board - that gardner is a stud. but we could have done better by building from the inside out. well, smoot point anyway.........sb in 2003! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 I'll go a step further than some and say that in the age of free agency you SHOULD tie up all your money in your offensive and defensive line. With an absolutely dominant offensive line you can plug the skill positions with free agents. Kevin Lockett as a number 2 is fine. the guy can catch. Time in the pocket lets things evolve. Same on defense except the opposite. You have a four man wrecking ball and all of a sudden no matter how good the opposing QB is nothing happens. The lines can excuse poor play at the skill positions AND it's important for the lines to stay together. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 Both the Ravens and the Giants had average, at best, O-lines. They went to the big dance. It's just not smart to overinvest in any one position, anymore. You need to spread the wealth. One of the problems with Marty's K.C. team that went 13-3 back in '98(?) is that it had very, very strong lines, but no playmakers on offense: Lot's of time to throw, but nobody open to throw it two. Lot's of holes in the running game, but no backs capable of exploding through them. There's always a balance. You have to have playmakers, not just big guys in the trenches. Look at the Ravens. They had one All-Pro at left tackle and the rest were basically scrubs. But they had a playmaker at running back and they had a tight end who could make plays all over the field. You think they would have won the Super Bowl without Jamal Lewis or Shannon Sharpe? No way! al, those short passes to receivers who can run open up all kinds of things. The corners start creeping up to jump those patterns, and the D-line starts gearing for the short drops. Next thing you know, the QB takes a deep drop, the receiver fakes a slant and runs to the corner, and -BOOM- you have a TD. Plus, the defensive linemen stop stunting as much when drops are short. That allows for better protection when you DO take a deep drop. In the running game, D-linemen can get overly agressive in response to short drops, making them susceptible to draw and trap plays. The short passes help keep the chains moving. But with receivers like Westbrook and Gardner, those passes become potential TDs, too. Defenses have to respect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 How I would have drafted .. 1) Steve Hutchinson 2) Chris Chambers 4) Edgerton Hartwell 5) Chad Ward Or Hakim Akbar .. take your pick 6) Ken-Yon Rambo OL - Samuels, Hutch, Raymer, Campbell, Jansen WR - Westbrook, Chambers, Lockett, Rambo I said that then and I still say it now. ------------------ The Redskins HQ Forum RedskinsHQ.com [ by RedskinsHQ on August 30, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoR Posted August 30, 2001 Share Posted August 30, 2001 Akbar was cut a month ago. Rambo was cut a couple of days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.