Cerrato says DL, OL were first consideration

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Of course we were. It's a definite need.

Looking back I probably would have taken Campbell over Davis but I understand the logic. Only time will tell if we made the right choices but at least we did it with conviction. Now it's time to work on it for the long term.

[gortiz]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

In this case, the thought doesn't count, and I know we went with BPA and everything but it would be nice if we could get SOME help on either line.

HOW? Tell me how they could have got help if the players available on both lines would have not been an upgrade?

[SkinsGuy]

When you're not getting it, it's something to focus on. And it's not just about sacks, it's pressure and everything it causes. INT's, 3 and outs, fumbles. Stuff we dont do well. Things that shorten the field for the Offense and gets the Defense off the field quickly.

The Redskins ranked 8th in defense last year, so we had to be doing something right.

You peanut gallery types speak as if the Redskins have had the worst defense in the last decade.

Sure there is definitely room for improvement in the pressure department (especially up the middle). However, I didn't see anyone short of Dorsey that would've helped them there.

BS. I'd bet if we spent no earlier than a 5th round pick on a WR, or brought some guy in from the freakin CFL, or a couple of old guys in we would be accused of not doing anything for the WR position. People here would be LIVID. Heck, in the past 3 years we got two young WRs that had good years on other teams and spend 2 2nd round draft choices to upgrade the WR position. Get it? There hasnt been a PRIOITY on the line in years. Priority meaning, we have to try to get a good player in here. Spending a 2nd or 3rd rounder maybe. Maybe even a 1st. We dont do that, and it shows.

How does it show?

Our 'D' was ranked 8th last year. We were one of the top rushing teams the last 2 years.

This is what I was talking about with the agenda driven types perpetuating lies and myths that aren't true. :doh:

I'm not saying our lines are perfect. Far from it.

I'm saying it is not the dire, hopeless situation some make it out to be.

And I'm also contending our lines have NOT been ignored.

Or you have an agenda, who knows. Late round draft choices and guys from the CFL isnt termed "addressing" by most clubs. It's finding some depth...maybe. Not looking for starters.

We have starters.

Griffin, Golston Monte, Daniels, Carter, and Wilson are all potential starters.

And most of them are young. What difference does it make where they were drafted? As long as they play good.

Who cares if they come from the CFL? I don't think anyone is complaining about Gary Clark's time here.

No one thought that Landry wasnt a good player, but the saftey position is well......the least important in the defence. And it was a luxury pick, untill Sean died. Yeah it looks good now, but having a stud on the line would help the team even more.

You miss the point.

People like you were ****ing and moaning that the Redskins didn't draft a d-linemen there. They went with a saftey.

In the end, it turned out that pick worked out great for them.

Why?

Because they drafted for value, they didn't reach for need.

When Taylor's life was tragically cut short, the Redskins had someone who could step in and take over.

Imagine where they would be now had they reached for someone they didn't want and didn't work out.

What would you be saying then?

I'll take their way over yours. Your way is grab someone....... ANYONE, as long as they fill a need. Doesn't matter if they are any good or not. Doesn't matter if they fit or not. Just grab anyone in a need position.

I don't care for that.

[DieselPwr44]

When you watch the games in September, and see us scoring in the redzone when we had major trouble with that last year, I don't want to see you pretending that you knew all along that these draft picks were the right ones.

Deal.

But of course, we'll have to wait a couple of years to find out if they do turn into anything.

Kind of like developing Defensive Ends.......which we might already have if we'd have drafted a couple over the past 11 years.

[SkinsGuy]

Of course we were. It's a definite need.

Looking back I probably would have taken Campbell over Davis but I understand the logic. Only time will tell if we made the right choices but at least we did it with conviction. Now it's time to work on it for the long term.

The word on Campbell is that if (and that is a big "IF") he succeeds in the NFL, it will be in a 3-4 system.

Not a 4-3 system, which the Redskins have.

That is why it is a bad idea to simply grab any player in the draft that simply (supposedy) fills a need.

He may be a bad fit.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

It's also paved with ignorance

Ignorance? Dude come on, there no excuse for ignoring the D-line for as long as we have. I KNOW we went BPA but you also have to address your depth in the later picks of the draft. We picked up one offensive lineman and a DE in the 7th. Thats not excusable. I think the FO should have at the very least grabbed a few project lineman later in the draft.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

HOW? Tell me how they could have got help if the players available on both lines would have not been an upgrade?

Depth.

We needed to address depth later in the draft.

I realize we missed on Merling and the other guys that were higher up on our board but later in the draft when you're picking guys that are projects at best, I would have liked to see the FO do a little more than grabbing a DE in the 7th round.

I don't have a big issue with the Thomas/Davis/Kelly picks because we needed more targets for JC, especially in the Red Zone.

[Ruggala]

]']Because if you would have read' date=' then you'd know that the OL and DL we felt were worth taking were gone right before we picked.[/quote']

But we felt the crappy pool of wide receivers was good enough this year to grab TWO????? :doh:

[SkinsGuy]

Deal.

But of course, we'll have to wait a couple of years to find out if they do turn into anything.

Kind of like developing Defensive Ends.......which we might already have if we'd have drafted a couple over the past 11 years.

DE has not been a problem.

Both Carter and Wilson got good pressure from around the ends.

So did Daniels, though he was slowed with injuries.

Our blitzes with players come around the ends like M. Washington worked well too.

The problem, as Cerrato pointed out a couple of months before the draft, was lack of pressure from the middle.

Our DEs got good pressure, but with no pocket-collapsing going on in the middle, QBs could just step up and throw.

The question is, who in the draft when the Redskins picked would fill that bill?

I don't see anyone that would've fit except maybe Trevor Laws.

However, even he is not known for pass-rushing ability.

Of course, Dorsey would've have been simply perfect for our need.

But we would've had to give up practically our whole draft (and maybe next year's first) to have got a shot at him.

I don't think anone would've liked that.

[meek]

You need to come to grips with the fact that this is the same for all teams. None of them show their hands. It's is as much about not letting other teams know their intentions as anything. It only stings because they've been so bad for so long. If this team was winning, and the FO was in the same spin mode, you wouldn't care a bit. Winning cures all.

It doesn't have anything to do with not wanting to show your hand. Most of these comments were made after the draft. There is nothing to hide at that point. If they want to say nothing about it and leave it at that then that's a better alternative in my opinion. Plenty of teams employ this approach...most notably the Patriots.

In short, I'd rather be kept in the dark about some of these issues than be given multiple statements that clearly do not coalesce with one another.

[cnhnyy]

The problem with "BPA" is how you do the ranking. I mean, how much difference between your #48 ranked player and #49 ranked player?

Mendendall and Thomas were definitely BPA at #21 and #34. However, picking Fred Davis/Kelly over Campbell/Groves could be a mistake. I mean, it is not like Fred Davis was a bone0fide first-rounder.

[Shotgunner]

We could have taken Cambell with our second pick in round 2, besides that we did ok.

[McD5]

We had 0 interest in taking DL or OL.

Are people really stupid enough to believe Vinny would draft a top lineman? He never has....he never will.

We offered our first rounder, and next year's 1st-3rd before the draft even began for Chad Johnson......a wide receiver.

DL and OL weren't even close to our top priority. WR was. And we were willing to give away the farm to get one.

We didn't offer those picks to move up and get a lineman. We offered them for only one thing--a wide receiver.

Anyone who can't see that is just amazing.

You could piss on a homer's leg, tell him it is raining, and he would believe it.

[moviedude25]

Cerrato was on the John Riggins show this afternoon--he basically told Riggins they were looking DL, then OL, but all the linemen they had rated high enough (the ones that would constitute an "upgrade" was the term he used I think) were gone by the Skins' spots in the draft.

Who cares, drafts over

[Morneblade]

The Redskins ranked 8th in defense last year, so we had to be doing something right.

You peanut gallery types speak as if the Redskins have had the worst defense in the last decade.

Sure there is definitely room for improvement in the pressure department (especially up the middle). However, I didn't see anyone short of Dorsey that would've helped them there.

We were very good against the run. Middle of the pack against the pass (16th) and allowed a 43% converstion % on 3rd and 5+. That stat has us at the bottom of the pack. -5 in turnover ratio and 25th in turnovers created Pressure is a key in the last 2 stats. And there were guys in the draft that could have helped us there. Other teams seemed to think so, since they took guys right before and right after we drafted WR's and TE's.

Also, we are one year away from being historically bad. And our DC who in my opinion had alot to do with making a averge defense good, is gone.

How does it show?

Our 'D' was ranked 8th last year. We were one of the top rushing teams the last 2 years.

This is what I was talking about with the agenda driven types perpetuating lies and myths that aren't true. :doh:

Overall defensive ranking hides the facts that I'm talking about. On to the offense. We averaged 3.8 ypc, 27th in the league. On short yardage situations we continually created 0 push from the line. We ran the ball ALOT, but we were not all that great a it. Big difference

I'm not saying our lines are perfect. Far from it.

I'm saying it is not the dire, hopeless situation some make it out to be.

And I'm also contending our lines have NOT been ignored.

We have starters.

Griffin, Golston Monte, Daniels, Carter, and Wilson are all potential starters.

The problem there is Daniels and Wilson. Neither are starters. And Griff isnt the player he was 4 years ago.

And most of them are young. What difference does it make where they were drafted? As long as they play good.

Who cares if they come from the CFL? I don't think anyone is complaining about Gary Clark's time here.

Daneils is 35 and Griff is 31, and injury prone. That isnt young. That's half of your starters over 30. Gary Clark played in the USFL btw, not the CFL. MIke Sellars played in the CFL. And yeah I love Mike, but I'd love a DE that didnt wiegh 240 pounds too.

You miss the point.

People like you were ****ing and moaning that the Redskins didn't draft a d-linemen there. They went with a saftey.

In the end, it turned out that pick worked out great for them.

Why?

Because they drafted for value, they didn't reach for need.

When Taylor's life was tragically cut short, the Redskins had someone who could step in and take over.

Imagine where they would be now had they reached for someone they didn't want and didn't work out.

What would you be saying then?

Imagine if something like that happened to Carter? What would happen then? I'll tell you. We'd be worse than the 06' team that set records for patheticness on defense. As I stated before Safety is a "luxury" position. It's nice to have 2 great ones, but any team would rather have 4 top 10 picks on the line instead of the secondary. Well, any team but the Redskins apparently.

I'll take their way over yours. Your way is grab someone....... ANYONE, as long as they fill a need. Doesn't matter if they are any good or not. Doesn't matter if they fit or not. Just grab anyone in a need position.

I don't care for that.

You dont know what my way would be, so you dont know what I would do. For one, I wouldnt have been trade picks for older players all the time. And I WOULD build from the lines out. I might REACH one or 2 spots to get a DE instead of a TE if I had a probowl TE and a 35 year old DE that has Grand Total of 14.5 sacks in 4 years (with 4 in one game). But then I would have an attacking defense as well, not a read and react defense and a bend but dont break defense.

[TheLongshot]

You dont know what my way would be, so you dont know what I would do. For one, I wouldnt have been trade picks for older players all the time. And I WOULD build from the lines out. I might REACH one or 2 spots to get a DE instead of a TE if I had a probowl TE and a 35 year old DE that has Grand Total of 14.5 sacks in 4 years (with 4 in one game). But then I have an attacking defense as well, not a read and react defense and a bend but dont break defense.

We don't trade picks for older player all the time. In the past 5 years, we have done it twice. Most of the trades we have done have been for younger players who have years to play.

Jason

[Morneblade]

We don't trade picks for older player all the time. In the past 5 years, we have done it twice. Most of the trades we have done have been for younger players who have years to play.

Jason

Wasnt so much of what the Redskins were not doing, but more about what I would be doing if I was a GM.

[SkinsGuy]

We were very good against the run. Middle of the pack against the pass (16th) and allowed a 43% converstion % on 3rd and 5+. That stat has us at the bottom of the pack. -5 in turnover ratio and 25th in turnovers created Pressure is a key in the last 2 stats. And there were guys in the draft that could have helped us there. Other teams seemed to think so, since they took guys right before and right after we drafted WR's and TE's.

Also, we are one year away from being historically bad. And our DC who in my opinion had alot to do with making a averge defense good, is gone.

Your stats aren't KEY stats.

They are just the ones you are focusing on.

I'd like to know what oher guys could've "helped" the Redskins instead of this JLC-like vague references.

I like Williams too. However, I don't see any serious drop-off with his departure.

Overall defensive ranking hides the facts that I'm talking about. On to the offense. We averaged 3.8 ypc, 27th in the league. On short yardage situations we continually created 0 push from the line. We ran the ball ALOT, but we were not all that great a it. Big difference.

So in other words, the Redskins had great rankings in primary stats due to our lines, but you go out and find a couple of little stats to zero in on and call them TRUE stats that prove our lines suck.

Gotcha. :laugh:

The problem there is Daniels and Wilson. Neither are starters. And Griff isnt the player he was 4 years ago.

Daneils is 35 and Griff is 31, and injury prone. That isnt young. That's half of your starters over 30. Gary Clark played in the USFL btw, not the CFL. MIke Sellars played in the CFL. And yeah I love Mike, but I'd love a DE that didnt wiegh 240 pounds too.

Daniels is a starter. It is just YOUR opinion that he isn't.

Griff being 31 is not old. Since when is 31 old? :doh:

Griff has had physical issues that needed surgery for a while, but put off. He finally had those surgeries this off-season.

We'll see if that helps him get back to form.

But that is just two guys. Yet, you take just two guys that play on our d-line (in rotation) and immeadiately declare that the ENTIRE d-line is old, decrepit, and needs a change.

Brillant. :laugh:

Imagine if something like that happened to Carter? What would happen then? I'll tell you. We'd be worse than the 06' team that set records for patheticness on defense. As I stated before Safety is a "luxury" position. It's nice to have 2 great ones, but any team would rather have 4 top 10 picks on the line instead of the secondary. Well, any team but the Redskins apparently.

More opinion from you. :doh:

Safety is not a "luxury" position in this defense.

It is one of the most important positions in this defense.

You clearly don't understand the team you say you root for.

Yes, yes ALL the other teams were picking linemen all day in the draft except the Redskins. They just don't get it.... blah blah bah...

The Redskins have a lot of young linemen on this team right now.

Do I have to name them again?

You dont know what my way would be, so you dont know what I would do. For one, I wouldnt have been trade picks for older players all the time. And I WOULD build from the lines out. I might REACH one or 2 spots to get a DE instead of a TE if I had a probowl TE and a 35 year old DE that has Grand Total of 14.5 sacks in 4 years (with 4 in one game). But then I would have an attacking defense as well, not a read and react defense and a bend but dont break defense.

It's funny how you stomp your little feet about how I don't know you, but in your plans you would do exactly what I said you would do. :laugh:

Reach for players who may or may not work out instead of going for value.

Glad you aren't running things this year.

[turbodiesel#44]

43% converstion % on 3rd and 5+. That stat has us at the bottom of the pack.

I think that is a key stat, but I have been unable to find a breakdown like that, even though it seemed clearly significant to me as it was happening. Those figures illustrate how an otherwise highly rated defensive philosophy fails. Inability do get off the field and rest yourself, regain clock control and provide an opportunity for your O to score. Where did you find it? Link please. Another key stat was our turnovers, but that's easy to find.

[american soldier]

The are a number of DL apologist that I have a question for? Not to claim football knowledge superiority. I'm geniunely curious.

Name a rookie DL that has come up big in the first year? I must say, I think the Long kid might do well simply because he has probably gotten some coaching from his dad. Other than him, I think most will struggle.

[Morneblade]

Your stats aren't KEY stats.

They are just the ones you are focusing on.

I'd like to know what oher guys could've "helped" the Redskins instead of this JLC-like vague references.

I like Williams too. However, I don't see any serious drop-off with his departure.

Most teams acually DO consider those to be pretty key stats. Tunover ratio is huge. Stopping teams on 3rd and long is HUGE. You dont stop teams on third and long you do 2 things; You giv the team 4 more downs AND you deflate the confidence of the defense and the offense. Because you dont see the impact of it just makes you blind, that's all.

So in other words, the Redskins had great rankings in primary stats due to our lines, but you go out and find a couple of little stats to zero in on and call them TRUE stats that prove our lines suck.

Gotcha. :laugh:

Nah, you just showed what kind of a boob you are. Fourth against the rush is GREAT. However that stat covers up that we had very average total pass defence, if that is all you look at. And how bad we were in creating turnovers and stopping teams on down/distances that whould be greatly in the defenses favor. Since you dont have the sence to look a little deeper, you're going to miss these things.

Daniels is a starter. It is just YOUR opinion that he isn't.

I doubt he makes any other team in the league, even as depth. That is not a "starter". Because we dont have anyone else to put there, doesnt makle him good. He is a starter here because we have trash at LDE.

Griff being 31 is not old. Since when is 31 old? :doh:

Griff has had physical issues that needed surgery for a while, but put off. He finally had those surgeries this off-season.

We'll see if that helps him get back to form.

31 and missing games in ever year since 2001 ages you faster. His body is older than 31. Not that you can count on him actually being in the game, or if he is, healthy. And his play has dropped off sharply in the past couple years. Due to his body being banged up all the time.

But that is just two guys. Yet, you take just two guys that play on our d-line (in rotation) and immeadiately declare that the ENTIRE d-line is old, decrepit, and needs a change.

Brillant. :laugh:

Half of your starters are over the hill. That is old Tex.

More opinion from you. :doh:

Safety is not a "luxury" position in this defense.

It is one of the most important positions in this defense.

You clearly don't understand the team you say you root for.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. I understand that we've been trying to build a team ass-backwards for years. I build a car around the powertrain......not the paintjob. Just because you naive enough to buy that crap doesnt make it smart. You clearly dont understand how defenses work.

Yes, yes ALL the other teams were picking linemen all day in the draft except the Redskins. They just don't get it.... blah blah bah...

Obviously not.

The Redskins have a lot of young linemen on this team right now.

Do I have to name them again?

What, the UDFA rookies? CFL transplants? 5th/6th/7th round draft choices? Doesnt really speak of going after quality, does it? Now, if we did that with your precious safeties, or heaven forbid, WR's you'd be crying a river.

It's funny how you stomp your little feet about how I don't know you, but in your plans you would do exactly what I said you would do. :laugh:

Reach for players who may or may not work out instead of going for value.

Glad you aren't running things this year.

You think Davis is going to work out? Do you even think he'll see the field much? That, my friend, is a STRETCH. And consider there were guys that COULD have been taken by us and were instead taken 1-2 picks behind us.....it's not much of a stretch. Your VALUE difference is zero. Except that you get a position of need with it, instead of blowing a 2nd round pick on depth. :doh:

[Morneblade]

The are a number of DL apologist that I have a question for? Not to claim football knowledge superiority. I'm geniunely curious.

Name a rookie DL that has come up big in the first year? I must say, I think the Long kid might do well simply because he has probably gotten some coaching from his dad. Other than him, I think most will struggle.

Most rookies struggle. Doesnt mean you shouldnt draft. Rookie WR's struggle more than most positions. We took 2 this year. Mario Williams was a bust after his first year. Look what happened the 2nd. Jamaal Anderson was a bust last year. Look for him to have a BIG year this year.

[Morneblade]

I think that is a key stat, but I have been unable to find a breakdown like that, even though it seemed clearly significant to me as it was happening. Those figures illustrate how an otherwise highly rated defensive philosophy fails. Inability do get off the field and rest yourself, regain clock control and provide an opportunity for your O to score. Where did you find it? Link please. Another key stat was our turnovers, but that's easy to find.

I may have to eat some crow on this on. I originally saw the stat on TV, during one of the Redskins last games of the season this year (I forget which one). However after some snooping around, it might have been a stat from the 06' defense. From the Post:

"Washington had only four sacks on third down and produced only four takeaways. Opponents converted 43.7 percent of their third-down chances -- ranking the Redskins 26th -- shredding the league's 31st-ranked defense with long drive after long drive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902227.html

I'll have to see if I can find anything from this past season.

[SonnyJ]

I think that is a key stat, but I have been unable to find a breakdown like that, even though it seemed clearly significant to me as it was happening. Those figures illustrate how an otherwise highly rated defensive philosophy fails. Inability do get off the field and rest yourself, regain clock control and provide an opportunity for your O to score. Where did you find it? Link please. Another key stat was our turnovers, but that's easy to find.

Yeah, he said he heard it on a telecast, but I'm pretty sure that that stat is BS. It just doesn't make sense. He must have misheard it - maybe it was for a game or something.

The fact is that the Redskins were one of the top teams in the league in defensive 3rd down % - about 35%. For that figure to be true, it would mean that the 3rd and 4 or less would have been probably less than 27%. Does it stand to reason that the 3rd and short defensive % would NOT ONLY BE LESS, but in the neighborhood of 20% LESS? Not only is it highly unlikely that the 3rd and short % would be less, but it indicates that teams weren't doing any adjustments to capitalize on that stat. It just doesn't hold any water.

Your turnover stat shows that the Redskins were indeed not amongst the best at producing turnovers. Of course, let's look at two divisional rivals, Philly and the New York football Giants, who are models for investing heavily in the DL via the draft. The Eagles had less turnovers than the Redskins, and the Giants, with their vaunted DL, produced exactly ONE more turnover (and actually had a lower turnover ratio). So, where is the correlation between drafting DL and turnovers?

[Morneblade]

Something else I found. Pretty interesting but the offense would have to take some of the blame for it as well I think. From ESPN

"Washington was the best defense in the first half of games, but ranked 25th in the second half of games."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3178835