DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 ^ didnt we sign rick DeMulling last year?? haha i think he was dropped faster than we could have picked him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinoox Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 maybe so, but we are going to be running the WCO, which means we are capable of running with our WR's like they are.. IT would be nice to get a WR with size, but theres no point in reaching for one, or wasting a pick on one. WE aren't good at drafting WR at ALL. IM not for it. I say we stick to picking up our WR's from other teams. Just because you had some failure, doesn't mean to lay down and die. Detroit didn't and they have R. Williams and C. Johnson. 2 WR that will anchor that team for some time. EDIT: BTW we only had 18 receiving TD, ranking us 20th in the league. Our WR didn't get it done and most likely will produce the same numbers. We don't have the height to go over the middle or make TD in the redzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Just because you had some failure, doesn't mean to lay down and die. Detroit didn't and they have R. Williams and C. Johnson. 2 WR that will anchor that team for some time. those were also TOP 5 draft picks in the first round dude. We havent had that type of pick when we draft. When we have draft WR's they are busts. If we ever hold the first 3 picks in the draft then yes, i would say draft a WR> but they are just too big of a gamble and they take 2-3 years to develop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 ^ and we havent had 'SOME' failure in drafting WR's... WE have busted since like 1981 on WR's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Most want a WR, because that is where we are the weakest. We need a first day starter on WR with some size. It would help our redzone offense immediatly unlike an OL. WR is where we were the weakest due to no height. You pick 1st and 2nd rounders for an immediate starter. Our line is very solid and doesn't need an immediate starter. Yeah last year we were not our best, due to early injuries. But, in '06 we were dominant. I believe our OL is still very good, cabable of repeating a season like '06, and not our weakness. Picking up an OG, like Albert, would not be a bad pick in the first round but a reach. You can find a solid OG later in the rounds, which is the norm. 1st round is for a skill position; for OL it would be an OT. I'm not opposed to drafting a WR in round 1 but I am opposed to trading our 1st pick+ for a WR. I am actually leaning toward drafting a WR with our 1st round pick depending on who is left on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm not opposed to drafting a WR in round 1 but I am opposed to trading our 1st pick+ for a WR. I am actually leaning toward drafting a WR with our 1st round pick depending on who is left on the board. theres no need to draft a WR in the first round.. The later rounds are littered with talent in the WR and CB mold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Branden Albert is the only O-lineman worth taking in the 1st round of the draft at the 21 spot. I have NO PROBLEM with the Skins taking him IF players like WRs Limas Seed and Malcolm Kelly are gone, and if DEs like Derrick Harvey and Phillip Merling are also gone... I agree with the first part. Though I don't have a problem with drafting him over Sweed (though I am Pro-Sweed myself) and certainly have no problem drafting Albert over any DE available in Round 1. The only DE worth drafting in this 1st round, imo, is Vernon Gholston, and seeing as he's not dropping past 12 to the Broncos, he'll never ever make it to 21. theres no need to draft a WR in the first round.. The later rounds are littered with talent in the WR and CB mold. You can say that bout any position. Every draft can produce a late round gem provided he's in the right system. I'd rather draft a WR high and draft plenty of lineman late, in particular, DEs, who have have recently had a High Success Rate as compared to every other positin. those were also TOP 5 draft picks in the first round dude. We havent had that type of pick when we draft. When we have draft WR's they are busts. If we ever hold the first 3 picks in the draft then yes, i would say draft a WR> but they are just too big of a gamble and they take 2-3 years to develop Well that settles it. Lets not draft DEs either, since we can't draft them well (maybe thats why we havent' drafted one in the 1st round since Lang?). And since Chris Samuels, Taylor, Landry, and Rogers have all panned out high, lets only draft DBs and Tackles from here on out. Just because we had busts the years ago, doesn't mean we should ignore them. Sure, if every WR drafted last year stunk, or the Top Rated WRs in the league all had their draft position in common, then I'd agree. But that logic is terribly flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinoox Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 those were also TOP 5 draft picks in the first round dude. We havent had that type of pick when we draft. When we have draft WR's they are busts. If we ever hold the first 3 picks in the draft then yes, i would say draft a WR> but they are just too big of a gamble and they take 2-3 years to develop Here is some info to mull on about WR at first rounds: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3091122 When we compare the 10 best early first-rounders to the 10 best late first-rounders, there's very little difference in the production of the two groups. The early first-rounders tend to produce more per game, but the late first-rounders have proven to be more durable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Originally Posted by Equinoox Most want a WR, because that is where we are the weakest. We need a first day starter on WR with some size. It would help our redzone offense immediatly unlike an OL. WR is where we were the weakest due to no height. You pick 1st and 2nd rounders for an immediate starter. Our line is very solid and doesn't need an immediate starter. Yeah last year we were not our best, due to early injuries. But, in '06 we were dominant. I believe our OL is still very good, cabable of repeating a season like '06, and not our weakness. Picking up an OG, like Albert, would not be a bad pick in the first round but a reach. You can find a solid OG later in the rounds, which is the norm. 1st round is for a skill position; for OL it would be an OT. ^ I agree with you on that, we dont need immediate starters on our Oline. I think we will choose a Defensive lineman,CB, or LB (Keith Rivers) if he falls to us. Though, I will say I wouldnt mind if we took a shot at Hardy.. I was fpor Sweed until I realized he doesnt have what it takes to ne a great NFL receiver.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Here is some info to mull on about WR at first rounds:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3091122 that's great and all, but that hasnt helped us in the past?? and thats other teams. You dont see one redskins WR on there. Go pull up some redskins WR draft history. ( in ALL ROUNDS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Here is what most teams do when drafting a guard. At the same time, we know DeMulling and Whittaker aren't starting anywhere, since they both have been on our team. Kelly doesn't even appear on a roster right now, and it seems Setterstrom has injury problems. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 At the same time, we know DeMulling and Whittaker aren't starting anywhere, since they both have been on our team. Kelly doesn't even appear on a roster right now, and it seems Setterstrom has injury problems.Jason EXACTLY:applause: ! You dont have to be good to start.. you could be filling in for a injured player that year or whatever... those skewed stats dont mean anything.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel2 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I don't understand how everyone can be yelling to trade our high picks away for some loud mouth WR when we have some serious issues on the horizon. The entire offensive line is atleast 30 or older. Thats not good people. They are already showing signs that they can't stay healthy. The most important part of your football team is your offensive and defensive lines. Of course QB is very important too but come on. We are not one very good WR away from winning a SB. Its time to face reality before its too late. This team needs youth ready to step in on both lines. I dont care what WRs you have because if you have a bad offensive line they mean NOTHING. I think we have to go at least one more season with our present offensive line until we can draft replacements starting iwith the '09 draft. We might find one or two at the most in this year's draft out of the mold of Heyer to begin to address the offensive line. But I really think a consorted effort will be made in the '09 draft to began thinking of prime linemen replacements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddukes Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I think that we should use every single pick that we have on lineman (offense and defense). But, that doesn't mean that I don't like who we have now. Also, 30 is old for a RB, but it isn't old for an O-lineman. OL guys don't start to decline until the mid thirty and plenty play well into thier late thirties! Thats why Alan Faneca got such a huge paycheck. That's why Ray Brown was playing well for the skins in 2005. Yes, I think that we need depth and I think that we need to consider a new LG and a new RT. But, 30 isn't old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 theres no need to draft a WR in the first round.. The later rounds are littered with talent in the WR and CB mold. ]']You can say that bout any position. Every draft can produce a late round gem provided he's in the right system.I'd rather draft a WR high and draft plenty of lineman late' date=' in particular, DEs, who have have recently had a High Success Rate as compared to every other positin.[/quote'] ^^----What ghost said ________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I think that we should use every single pick that we have on lineman (offense and defense). But, that doesn't mean that I don't like who we have now. Also, 30 is old for a RB, but it isn't old for an O-lineman. OL guys don't start to decline until the mid thirty and plenty play well into thier late thirties! Thats why Alan Faneca got such a huge paycheck. That's why Ray Brown was playing well for the skins in 2005. Yes, I think that we need depth and I think that we need to consider a new LG and a new RT. But, 30 isn't old. thank you, I cant stand how ALOT of people dont realize O-lineman dont tackle and have to take punishing hits to their body like RB's and D-lineman have to. O-lineman are capable of producing at a high level until mid 30's. We are FINE with our O-line now (plus Heyer, and Alexander) and plus who we get this year and 09'. By the time our O-line starts to decline and cant produce, we will already have players drafted and playing by then. This is WAY too early for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 :2cents: Originally Posted by DirtySkin21theres no need to draft a WR in the first round.. The later rounds are littered with talent in the WR and CB mold. Quote: Originally Posted by [[ghost]] You can say that bout any position. Every draft can produce a late round gem provided he's in the right system. I'd rather draft a WR high and draft plenty of lineman late, in particular, DEs, who have have recently had a High Success Rate as compared to every other positin. ^^----What ghost said ^^----What ghost said ________________________ actually me, if a Branden Albert is there at 21, we take him. Then we draft accordingly until the 4th or 5th and we can pick up Monk in the 5th or someone like that. There is no need to draft a WR in the 1st, and im sorry to bust your bubble, but Limas Sweed isnt going to be anything special in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 WE need to darft the BPA at 21. Then Dline,then DB,then Oline,then WR.... and so on. And if we get Hackett, you can drop ALL bets that we will draft a WR in the 1st, and maybe at all. Its a nice suggestion, but it hasnt worked in the past for us. We should stick to what works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinoox Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 WE need to darft the BPA at 21. Then Dline,then DB,then Oline,then WR.... and so on.And if we get Hackett, you can drop ALL bets that we will draft a WR in the 1st, and maybe at all. Its a nice suggestion, but it hasnt worked in the past for us. We should stick to what works. On most mock drafts, Sweed is the BPA at 21 and Cialis Cambell. Sweed would have gone in the top 10 hadn't he injured his wrist. I think he would be a steal at 21. Cialis has dropped alot due to a crappy combine and pro day workout. I hope we don't pick up Cialis. I am scared of Hackett because of his injuries. I still will not agree with your whole "We are not good at drafting WR bit." Not a good enough reason to not draft a WR; weak argument. Drafting is not a science and most teams have first round busts. Not just us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUpartyCommish Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Right on...... O-LINE should be priority 1 for this team Games are won and lost in the trenches! On the d-side were fine with Wilson, Golston, Montgomery, and Carter (all under 30) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 On most mock drafts, Sweed is the BPA at 21 and Cialis Cambell. Sweed would have gone in the top 10 hadn't he injured his wrist. I think he would be a steal at 21. Cialis has dropped alot due to a crappy combine and pro day workout. I hope we don't pick up Cialis. I am scared of Hackett because of his injuries. I still will not agree with your whole "We are not good at drafting WR bit." Not a good enough reason to not draft a WR; weak argument. Drafting is not a science and most teams have first round busts. Not just us. I agree, that hacketts injuries are something to be scared of. He's no better than ARE, he's just bigger. We have a 6'5'' prospect in A.Mix, who our team is very high on. Plus we have a few other younger guys.. We havent drafted a successful WR since what.. 81? how is that a weak arguement? what makes you think this year will be any different? We need a proven stud WR, to help A. Mix develop right. He's raw right now, just as any receiver will be when we draft, even Sweed will be raw, and how does Hacketts injury past scare you but Sweeds doesnt? He re-injured his wrist at the senior bowl.. I think we have done fine at bringin in receivers from other teams, we just havent brought one in with size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Right on......O-LINE should be priority 1 for this team Games are won and lost in the trenches! On the d-side were fine with Wilson, Golston, Montgomery, and Carter (all under 30) wrong... The O-line is not old at 30. Olineman play at an elite level until they are in their mid 30's. They dont get tackled, or have to do any tackling, all they do is protect the QB and help the run game. On the other side of the ball, the defense ages quicker than the offense (other than RB) We need to address our D-line and DB and Oline DEPTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinoox Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 You, DirtySkin21, and I can argue till we are blue in the face. We won't agree. Yes, your argument of drafting WR in the first round is weak. That is a losers mantality, not saying you are a loser. But winners learn from thier mistakes not hide from them. On a side note: I have faith in our team and support them. This is what I would like to see as a fan. If we did know what we were talking about it would be you or I as the Executive Vice President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySkin21 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 You, DirtySkin21, and I can argue till we are blue in the face. We won't agree. Yes, your argument of drafting WR in the first round is weak. That is a losers mantality, not saying you are a loser. But winners learn from thier mistakes not hide from them. On a side note: I have faith in our team and support them. This is what I would like to see as a fan. If we did know what we were talking about it would be you or I as the Executive Vice President. LOL!!! you are a funny guy. Tell me one thing though.. why havent we drafted a WR in the 1st rounds recently? We needed a WR just as bad last year as we do this year?? Your arguement and comparisons are great in madden, but this isnt madden. There is a reason we havent been drafting WR's and its not because we havent needed one in the past. Your arguement is REDICULOUS that Hacketts injuries scare you, but you dont even mention sweeds injury problems.. and he hasnt even played 1 snap in the NFL yet. NEWS FLASH - SWEED IS INJURY PRONE AS WELL:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinoox Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 LOL!!! you are a funny guy. Tell me one thing though.. why havent we drafted a WR in the 1st rounds recently? We needed a WR just as bad last year as we do this year?? Your arguement and comparisons are great in madden, but this isnt madden. There is a reason we havent been drafting WR's and its not because we havent needed one in the past.Your arguement is REDICULOUS that Hacketts injuries scare you, but you dont even mention sweeds injury problems.. and he hasnt even played 1 snap in the NFL yet. NEWS FLASH - SWEED IS INJURY PRONE AS WELL:doh: So you know that is our reason we haven't drafted a WR was from our past results? Your guesses are a weak argument. My arguments are with facts that I pull off the NFL and ESPN sites. I support all my posts with links. Sweed had a wrist injury. Hackett's injuries are leg problems. Start researching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.