Who says we don't draft lines? A look at Danny's drafts and roster status

[zCommander]

does anyone know where I can get starting rosters all the way back to 1999?

See if this helps you out:

http://www.fantasyfootballchallenge.com/102-32-5-1999/1999-washington-redskins-offensive-linemen.html

[eljeasel]

Save for the left tackle, your O-line picks don't need to be high-round picks. Just look at the Giants--most of their O-line players are not first or second round picks. Heck, their O-line doesn't even have one person who's a first-round pick. As for the defensive line, I think that's where we should spend our high round draft picks.

Offensive line of the New York Giants:

LT --David Diehl--5th round pick

LG- Rich Seubert--not even drafted

C- Shaun O'Hara --not drafted

RG- Chris Snee--2nd round pick

RT-Kareem McKenzie --3rd rounded

So, let's see, I'd only consider Chris Snee to be a high round draft pick. Save for the left tack position, all other offensive line positions can be acquired in 5th or 6th round. All you need to do is develop them. Rinehart, to me, is a solid pick this year. So I say don't draft O-line in the first two rounds. Use 3rd-7th round picks to improve your O-line.

I think if you look across the league at top OLine(men) you will find that alot of the gems are those scrap iron guys that dont get drafted, drafted late, or no one thought they would be anything but camp fodder. As great as it is to say "draft OL" it might be better to say "bring in OL that wants to work."

[stat2883]

We've been getting line, but we have been getting scrubs and/or late-round pics who wind up doing nothing. That's the problem. We need talent, not just bodies.

exactly what I was thinking...its not that we're not drafting them, its that we're not drafting well. Dockery was the only one this decade who had turned out ok.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I fear for this paper.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

great topic. I'm glad to see this brought up. Carry on

[CM916]

(as well as, does anyone know where I can get starting rosters all the way back to 1999?)

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/teams.nsf/histories/redskins

You have to look at the stats to get an idea of who was starting but it's the best history site I know. Everyone who came off the bench for at least a play is listed.

[The Consigliere]

Skins picked rather low in the first round to get any of the premier tackles. Skins would have had to give up their first and second to move up to hopefully get one of those OTs. So one OT for the three pass catchers that we got. If all three turn out to be busts then it would have been better to get the OT.

Yep, i screamed bloody murder, as usual when we ignored the lines for the umpteenth time on day one. However, like you say, all the OL worth a damn according to the scouts were essentially gone when it reached our pick in round 1, and the only DL worth a selection was Phillip Merling, a player that sounded like a clone of Kenard Lang, we traded down, probably suspecting we could get him after the trade down, but the dolphins got him instead. No biggie, then we get Thomas, no biggie, he should be a good one by '10 at the latest a la roddy white. My issue was Fred Davis, made no sense at all, the colts got a starting lineman w/a guy a lot of us liked in Pollock quickly after that, there were several pass rushers w/talent also available there whove been okay thus far, and the eagles may have taken our target (T. Laws) right before us.

As it was, I was fine w/the Thomas pick, and could deal w/the kelly pick, but not going 0 for the lines w/all 3 picks particularly when we went w/luxury w/one of them (Davis).

As for the line history. It's pretty straight forward, the redskins have built the DL w/free agents, and the occasional day 2 prospect that made good (Richie Owens, Sterling Palmer, D. Nottage etc) and trades since 1993, only one day one pick used on a DL that entire time. An obscene joke. The OL is a bit more difficult to analyze as it appears to be pretty clear that Casserly in '99, Cerrato in '00, and '03, and '08, and the Gibbs regime made it a priority. They drafted their bookend tackles in '99 and '00, landed a competant guard in '03, and augmented that line w/a stud free agent or was it trade? in Randy Thomas in spring '03, and w/Gibbs acquisition of Raybach in '05. It was built in an intelligent way unlike the DL. The problem is, injuries and time, and a crazy contract offer have decimated that once very good OL, leading to Docks departure, and the slow breakdown in quality of everyone else's play save for Samuels.

That's basically what's happened in a nut shell.

[fansince62]

So yes, the lines have been ignored. Not necessarily in terms of money (Snyder is always willing to blow that) but rather in terms of BUILDING and SUSTAINING them. It's always pieced together from year to year and a hope that our over 30 players don't wear down or get hurt because we don't have anyone coming up behind them who we can rely on.

bingo.

[fansince62]

Yep, i screamed bloody murder, as usual when we ignored the lines for the umpteenth time on day one. However, like you say, all the OL worth a damn according to the scouts were essentially gone when it reached our pick in round 1, and the only DL worth a selection was Phillip Merling, a player that sounded like a clone of Kenard Lang, we traded down, probably suspecting we could get him after the trade down, but the dolphins got him instead. No biggie, then we get Thomas, no biggie, he should be a good one by '10 at the latest a la roddy white. My issue was Fred Davis, made no sense at all, the colts got a starting lineman w/a guy a lot of us liked in Pollock quickly after that, there were several pass rushers w/talent also available there whove been okay thus far, and the eagles may have taken our target (T. Laws) right before us.

As it was, I was fine w/the Thomas pick, and could deal w/the kelly pick, but not going 0 for the lines w/all 3 picks particularly when we went w/luxury w/one of them (Davis).

As for the line history. It's pretty straight forward, the redskins have built the DL w/free agents, and the occasional day 2 prospect that made good (Richie Owens, Sterling Palmer, D. Nottage etc) and trades since 1993, only one day one pick used on a DL that entire time. An obscene joke. The OL is a bit more difficult to analyze as it appears to be pretty clear that Casserly in '99, Cerrato in '00, and '03, and '08, and the Gibbs regime made it a priority. They drafted their bookend tackles in '99 and '00, landed a competant guard in '03, and augmented that line w/a stud free agent or was it trade? in Randy Thomas in spring '03, and w/Gibbs acquisition of Raybach in '05. It was built in an intelligent way unlike the DL. The problem is, injuries and time, and a crazy contract offer have decimated that once very good OL, leading to Docks departure, and the slow breakdown in quality of everyone else's play save for Samuels.

That's basically what's happened in a nut shell.

pretty close. I would argue that there there has never been a coherent long-term strategy to managing the roster. the philosophy has always been "this is the year...couple tweaks and we're good to go"......the manpower rotations never add up to a complete team able to compete for a Championship. watch....Portis will be wasted by the time a good, youthful line that can run and pass block is assembled. the secondary will be good for another 3-5 yrs (barring injuries and signing Hall)...will we rebuild the LB corps and draft/sign some stud DTs and passrushers in time? the fact is...we have been killed (and still are) by years of trading draft picks to sign FAs. we haven't built/sustained a long-term base - especially on the lines. and with what line picks we have made the record is spotty - we haven't succeeded like the Gints in finding the right guys bunched together over a 2 year period.

it all goes back to personnel strategy and roster management.

[maskedsuperstar]

I'm torn on this one. I read scruffy's post, and Om's latest blog entry, and it seems like maybe this FO will never get it past their thick skulls that they need to start building inside-out rather than outside-in.

Then again, I agree with the OP that Vinny hasn't exactly had a lot of picks with which to do so. This year's class could still reap dividends in coming seasons, and while we don't have a full set of picks next year, there are enough that these line needs can and, I believe, WILL be addressed.

Call it blind optimism, or something else entirely. I think we're seeing a paradigm shift in our FO that will take a couple of years to pay off, but it's happening.

And I totally agree with you. Some fans just don't see it. The Skins kept 10 draft picks, not even busy in FA, like past years.

Now, with 4 picks in the draft next year, I can see the Skins trading down and getting more picks. I don't think they will dip into FA. The OL needs to addressed in the draft. The DL is fine. The fans want more sacks. I understand that. But if the DL is not stopping the run, there is a problem. The Colts? They had 25 sacks the year they won the Super Bowl. The Skins have Golston, Montgomery, Alexander, Wilson, Buzbee(IR), and Evans(still young). Skins need to build from there.

It will be an interesting offseason. I don't see some vets returning.

[maskedsuperstar]

Vinny almost always finds an excuse not to take a linemen in the early rounds.

And we keep paying the price for it.

OKAY, in this years draft, what defensive linemen was a no brainer????

Chris Long? Not tearing it up. Gholston? Doesn't even play. Campbell? I don't even hear about him.

How much playing time would he have? I mean, with Carter, Golston, Montgomery, Griffin, Daniels, Alexander, Wilson, Buzbee etc. Not much.

Jackson is inactive almost every game. So, would you draft a DL in the first or second round, paying him all this money to sit on the bench?

The DL draft class wasn't that good, this year.

[maskedsuperstar]

pretty close. I would argue that there there has never been a coherent long-term strategy to managing the roster. the philosophy has always been "this is the year...couple tweaks and we're good to go"......the manpower rotations never add up to a complete team able to compete for a Championship. watch....Portis will be wasted by the time a good, youthful line that can run and pass block is assembled. the secondary will be good for another 3-5 yrs (barring injuries and signing Hall)...will we rebuild the LB corps and draft/sign some stud DTs and passrushers in time? the fact is...we have been killed (and still are) by years of trading draft picks to sign FAs. we haven't built/sustained a long-term base - especially on the lines. and with what line picks we have made the record is spotty - we haven't succeeded like the Gints in finding the right guys bunched together over a 2 year period.

it all goes back to personnel strategy and roster management.

How many times has the defense been in the top 10, in the last 5 years? 4 times. So, the Skins have done something right. With Williams, the Skins ran a zone blitz scheme. That means the DE's won't get a lot of sacks. The pressure comes from the back 7. Fans don't understand that. I mean, damn, this the same line that shut down Adrian Peterson. I don't want to hear about no push. There is a push. The Skins DL plays gap control. You had better be in the right gap.

Fans look at the Giants DL. Totally different scheme. They pressure the QB. Thats there scheme. The Eagles lead the league in sacks. What is there record?

[chipwhich]

OKAY, in this years draft, what defensive linemen was a no brainer????

Chris Long? Not tearing it up. Gholston? Doesn't even play. Campbell? I don't even hear about him.

How much playing time would he have? I mean, with Carter, Golston, Montgomery, Griffin, Daniels, Alexander, Wilson, Buzbee etc. Not much.

Jackson is inactive almost every game. So, would you draft a DL in the first or second round, paying him all this money to sit on the bench?

The DL draft class wasn't that good, this year.

First off as in any draft....you just don't know. Secondly I mean the 3 people we drafted in the second round haven't been playing and we ARE paying *THEM* all this money to sit on the bench.

So whats your point?

[maskedsuperstar]

Yep, i screamed bloody murder, as usual when we ignored the lines for the umpteenth time on day one. However, like you say, all the OL worth a damn according to the scouts were essentially gone when it reached our pick in round 1, and the only DL worth a selection was Phillip Merling, a player that sounded like a clone of Kenard Lang, we traded down, probably suspecting we could get him after the trade down, but the dolphins got him instead. No biggie, then we get Thomas, no biggie, he should be a good one by '10 at the latest a la roddy white. My issue was Fred Davis, made no sense at all, the colts got a starting lineman w/a guy a lot of us liked in Pollock quickly after that, there were several pass rushers w/talent also available there whove been okay thus far, and the eagles may have taken our target (T. Laws) right before us.

As it was, I was fine w/the Thomas pick, and could deal w/the kelly pick, but not going 0 for the lines w/all 3 picks particularly when we went w/luxury w/one of them (Davis).

As for the line history. It's pretty straight forward, the redskins have built the DL w/free agents, and the occasional day 2 prospect that made good (Richie Owens, Sterling Palmer, D. Nottage etc) and trades since 1993, only one day one pick used on a DL that entire time. An obscene joke. The OL is a bit more difficult to analyze as it appears to be pretty clear that Casserly in '99, Cerrato in '00, and '03, and '08, and the Gibbs regime made it a priority. They drafted their bookend tackles in '99 and '00, landed a competant guard in '03, and augmented that line w/a stud free agent or was it trade? in Randy Thomas in spring '03, and w/Gibbs acquisition of Raybach in '05. It was built in an intelligent way unlike the DL. The problem is, injuries and time, and a crazy contract offer have decimated that once very good OL, leading to Docks departure, and the slow breakdown in quality of everyone else's play save for Samuels.

That's basically what's happened in a nut shell.

Some of this is true, but the defensive line has played well. No?

2004 40 sacks, 2nd against the run

2005 35 sacks, 13th

2006 19 sacks, 27th

2007 33 sacks, 4th

2008 19 sacks, 7th

Looking at these numbers, the only season the Skins didn't do well was in 2006. The DL has done their job. So, all this constant whining about the DL is ridiculous. Sure, sacks are great, but it will not win a team the Super Bowl. If a DL can't stop the run, they will be doomed. The only exception was the Colts. In 2006, they had only 25 sacks, last in the league against the run. 185 YDS A GAME!!!!! But we all know why they won the SB. It nothing to do with DEFENSE.

[chipwhich]

Some of this is true, but the defensive line has played well. No?

Looking at these numbers, the only season the Skins didn't do well was in 2006. The DL has done their job. So, all this constant whining about the DL is ridiculous. Sure, sacks are great, but it will not win a team the Super Bowl. If a DL can't stop the run, they will be doomed. The only exception was the Colts. In 2006, they had only 25 sacks, last in the league against the run. 185 YDS A GAME!!!!! But we all know why they won the SB. It nothing to do with DEFENSE.

No the defensive line hasn't played well. Every team we play the opposing QB has 5+ seconds to pass.

I didn't see in your stats where the D-Line was the ones making all the tackles on the run. I see a lot more Linebacker and safety tackling moreso than our d lineman. I would have to do research to prove it. Crediting our ranking on run defense to the D line is just silly when the linebackers and safetys are the ones making the stops.

[fansince62]

How many times has the defense been in the top 10, in the last 5 years? 4 times. So, the Skins have done something right. With Williams, the Skins ran a zone blitz scheme. That means the DE's won't get a lot of sacks. The pressure comes from the back 7. Fans don't understand that. I mean, damn, this the same line that shut down Adrian Peterson. I don't want to hear about no push. There is a push. The Skins DL plays gap control. You had better be in the right gap.

Fans look at the Giants DL. Totally different scheme. They pressure the QB. Thats there scheme. The Eagles lead the league in sacks. What is there record?

and how many times has this defense surrendured a first down on third and long? and how many times has this defense been beaten in the flats and across the middle? and how many times has this defense been beaten in the running game off the edges? the defense has done well. stats, however, can be used to mask a lot - particularly when it gets down to the nitty gritty of making it happen when it counts. it has been a bend but don't break defense for a long time. we need a pass rush. we need push from up the middle. you disagree? have at it! free country.

who cares about other teams? that is IRRELEVANT. it is our team: its manning, its comparative weaknesses. OUR PERSONNEL STRATEGY. there is irrefutable evidence...no matter how much the feel good types argue...that this team's personnel/team building strategy has been an abject failure for 16 years..."what is their record"?

[McD5]

Sonny on Redskins Report:

"What is the problem? When was the last time this team drafted a defensive lineman?"

[fansince62]

Some of this is true, but the defensive line has played well. No?

2004 40 sacks, 2nd against the run

2005 35 sacks, 13th

2006 19 sacks, 27th

2007 33 sacks, 4th

2008 19 sacks, 7th

Looking at these numbers, the only season the Skins didn't do well was in 2006. The DL has done their job. So, all this constant whining about the DL is ridiculous. Sure, sacks are great, but it will not win a team the Super Bowl. If a DL can't stop the run, they will be doomed. The only exception was the Colts. In 2006, they had only 25 sacks, last in the league against the run. 185 YDS A GAME!!!!! But we all know why they won the SB. It nothing to do with DEFENSE.

ummm...you have a problem...your logic is that the Colts won with offense. that implies the failure to beat them ocurred on defense.

[Fred Jones]

Sonny on Redskins Report:

"What is the problem? When was the last time this team drafted a defensive lineman?"

In the same show Riggo said this is a playoff caliber defense.

That said, one can't argue that we have not addressed the lines enough in the draft.

I think we need Oline help more than we need Dline help. Also in the same report I believe Sonny said we are dead last in converting points off turnovers. So, even if the defense can generate a turnover the offense kicks fields or gets nothing.

With the exception of the first few games, the offense has also not helped out the defense this season.

Again, not saying we don't need help along the Dline, but the Oline needs upgrading more.

[Seabee1973]

You guys might kill me for suggesting this but if somehow we can grab a top notch Guard with our 1st round pick and maybe trade the '10 first round pick to get another 1 this year and draft a top notch RT or Center, I would be pretty happy

Lets quite trading picks, Unless we get extra

[Seabee1973]

I really hope that is not the case. This is going to shape up as one of the better FA classes in a while and we simply don't have enough draft picks to help the team out enough to put us above the Giants or Cowboys in 2009 and address our needs.

We should build the team first then use free agency to fill in holes. We have in the past been using free agency to build a teram but i dont think a team built that way has a identity Look at all your succesfull teams they were mainly built through the draft.

[SkinsNumberOne]

It takes patience and a plan. I agree with those who have said that we are a badly managed team personnel-wise. In my opinion it was moronic to get Fred Davis, Devin Thomas, and Malcolm Kelly this year. It reminds me of how the Lions went all WR crazy. I guess we're trying to follow a good blueprint for success there.

[Shilsu]

Some of this is true, but the defensive line has played well. No?

2004 40 sacks, 2nd against the run

2005 35 sacks, 13th

2006 19 sacks, 27th

2007 33 sacks, 4th

2008 19 sacks, 7th

Looking at these numbers, the only season the Skins didn't do well was in 2006. The DL has done their job. So, all this constant whining about the DL is ridiculous. Sure, sacks are great, but it will not win a team the Super Bowl. If a DL can't stop the run, they will be doomed. The only exception was the Colts. In 2006, they had only 25 sacks, last in the league against the run. 185 YDS A GAME!!!!! But we all know why they won the SB. It nothing to do with DEFENSE.

First of all, the job of the DL is two-fold: 1) Stop the run. 2) Get the passer.

You can't say doing half your job is doing great. Our defense is Top 10 because our secondary has done above and beyond, and they better have considering how many former first round picks we have had in our secondary.

Two, sacks do win a team the Super Bowl, and cherrypicking the Colts doesn't help considering they have two proven pass rushers with 2006 being the fluke year.

		SACKS
YEAR	TEAM	RANK	COUNT
2007	NYG	1	53
2007	NE	2	47
2006	IND	30	25
2006	CHI	8	40
2005	PIT	3	47
2005	SEA	1	50
2004	NE	3	45
2004	PHI	2	47
2003	NE	6	41
2003	CAR	7	40
2002	TB	6	43
2002	OAK	6	43
2001	NE	13	41
2001	STL	7	45
2000	BAL	22	35
2000	NYG	9	44
1999	STL	2	57
1999	TEN	3	54
1998	DEN	6	47
1998	ATL	18	38

[TheLongshot]

It takes patience and a plan. I agree with those who have said that we are a badly managed team personnel-wise. In my opinion it was moronic to get Fred Davis, Devin Thomas, and Malcolm Kelly this year. It reminds me of how the Lions went all WR crazy. I guess we're trying to follow a good blueprint for success there.

We were getting what the draft gave us. In the second round it was pretty strong in WRs and TEs and pretty weak in OL and DTs.

[Sawyer5500]

Vinny's strategy is that you use free agency to fill needs and draft the best players available with the tiebreaker on the BPA going to a position of need.

I think we will be active in the free agent market if we need to replace a starter. Or if someone just too good to pass up becomes available. Like Albert Haynesworth for example.