Oh No Dey Didn't (Suppose no OL/DL in the Draft?)

[Robbnva]

all I know is if we don't some line help next season I am going to be extremely sad.

[Mursilis]

I call not getting quality OL ignoring. UDFA's are UDFA's for a reason. They were bypassed by 32 teams for 7 rounds. And then the Skins took them. Heyer and Geisinger both showed you how good they aren't.

No OL drafted past the third round has made a Redskin team in over 10 years. Why? Because they're not any good. Drafting two 3rd round picks in 10 years is not addressing the OLine. It's letting it die by starvation.

Year after year the same stupid statement "you can find good OL talent in the 5th and 6th rounds" has been shown to be garbage. At best, they become practice squad fodder. I challenge you to find, out of the 96 players who were drafted in the 5th, 6th or 7th rounds, one OL that remains with the team that drafted him. I'm sure there is one somewhere, but at best he's far down the depth chart. That is not addressing the OL, even by Vinny's stabndard.

On the other hand, want to guess how many of the first and second round OL picks are now starters for the teams that drafted them? The word 'all' works. Maybe not in game one, but by the end of the season they're all there. That's addressing the OL.

Drafting people who can't start is not addressing the OL. Don't even pretend it is.

Mostly this post is right, but lots of real talent on the OL is found among UDFAs and low-round picks. One of my favorite examples is Jeff Saturday, 3xAll-Pro and UDFA. Of course, our front office rarely finds these 'steals', but other front offices do.

[Thinking Skins]

I call not getting quality OL ignoring. UDFA's are UDFA's for a reason. They were bypassed by 32 teams for 7 rounds. And then the Skins took them. Heyer and Geisinger both showed you how good they aren't.

No OL drafted past the third round has made a Redskin team in over 10 years. Why? Because they're not any good. Drafting two 3rd round picks in 10 years is not addressing the OLine. It's letting it die by starvation.

Year after year the same stupid statement "you can find good OL talent in the 5th and 6th rounds" has been shown to be garbage. At best, they become practice squad fodder. I challenge you to find, out of the 96 players who were drafted in the 5th, 6th or 7th rounds, one OL that remains with the team that drafted him. I'm sure there is one somewhere, but at best he's far down the depth chart. That is not addressing the OL, even by Vinny's stabndard.

On the other hand, want to guess how many of the first and second round OL picks are now starters for the teams that drafted them? The word 'all' works. Maybe not in game one, but by the end of the season they're all there. That's addressing the OL.

Drafting people who can't start is not addressing the OL. Don't even pretend it is.

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but Heyer. He wasn't even drafted and he's still with the Redskins.

[Oldfan]

You seem to suggest evaluating QB talent is easier than the bust rate of the position indicates.

Yes, that's my opinion. I think a very bright, ex-NFL QB should have the final say on the selection, someone like Jim Zorn. I suspect the same approach would improve the hit rate at every position.

When Zorn, Jaworski, Simms and Aikman talk about QBs, I pay attention. They see and point out things that others miss. When other ex-players and coaches talk about QBs, they have the same problem most fans have, they can't separate the QB's performance from his team's.

[e16bball]

Year after year the same stupid statement "you can find good OL talent in the 5th and 6th rounds" has been shown to be garbage. At best, they become practice squad fodder. I challenge you to find, out of the 96 players who were drafted in the 5th, 6th or 7th rounds, one OL that remains with the team that drafted him. I'm sure there is one somewhere, but at best he's far down the depth chart. That is not addressing the OL, even by Vinny's stabndard.

How about a list of guys from the 2004-2006 drafts who have already started at least 10 games for the team who drafted them?

Jason Peters

Chris Kemoeatu

Jake Scott

Jacob Bell

Nick Leckey

Rex Hadnot

Shane Olivea

Eugene Amano

Scott Wells

Brad Butler

Chris Kuper

Tony Moll

Charlie Johnson

Mark Setterstrom

What do I win?

On the other hand, want to guess how many of the first and second round OL picks are now starters for the teams that drafted them? The word 'all' works. Maybe not in game one, but by the end of the season they're all there. That's addressing the OL.

This isn't true, and there are plenty of players you can ask about it, from Winston Justice to Jacob Rogers to Chris Chester to Charles Spencer and on and on. And you can also talk to the numerous players who HAVE played early on because their team need them to, but still sucked, like Deuce Lutui and Mike Williams and Alex Barron and Chris Spencer.

Drafting people who can't start is not addressing the OL. Don't even pretend it is.

This point is true. One wonders why you couldn't just say this instead of making far-fetched and patently false statements about the certainty of success from players based on draft position. The OL should be addressed as a priority this offseason, no doubt. But that truth doesn't change the facts, which certainly support the idea that players CAN succeed and fail from any portion of the draft. Is a 6th round pick as likely to succeed? Heck no, and I'm not advising we make that our only OL pickup. But there's also no need to simply ignore reality for the sake of making a point.

[Warpath11]

Yes, that's my opinion. I think a very bright, ex-NFL QB should have the final say on the selection, someone like Jim Zorn.

I've been a student of QB mechanics for some time. The athleticism, combined with slick mechanics of a Jay Cutler takes about 15 minutes to spot. You never know about the mental aspects of the game, but I don't think that Jim Zorn will have any trouble evaluating QB talent in the draft.

Do you think Zorn had input in drafting Seneca Wallace when he was in Seattle? Wallace was a scrambling QB with horrendous throwing mechanics when coming out of college, in fact, most draftniks had him playing at another position. I do believe initially he did play WR for Seattle and was their emergency/3rd string QB. He only got his chance to play QB when injuries riddled Matt Hasslebeck and the back up. Now his mechanics have improved since his stay in Seattle but you cant tell me that beyond athleticism he had great throwing mechanics coming out of Iowa State.

Maybe the athleticism was enough that Homgren et al in Seattle thought they could teach him the mechanics part of the trade but according to your theory athleticism AND mechanics play an important part of QB evaluation.

[Oldfan]

Do you think Zorn had input in drafting Seneca Wallace when he was in Seattle? Wallace was a scrambling QB with horrendous throwing mechanics when coming out of college, in fact, most draftniks had him playing at another position. I do believe initially he did play WR for Seattle and was their emergency/3rd string QB. He only got his chance to play QB when injuries riddled Matt Hasslebeck and the back up. Now his mechanics have improved since his stay in Seattle but you cant tell me that beyond athleticism he had great throwing mechanics coming out of Iowa State.

Maybe the athleticism was enough and Homgren et al in Seattle though they could teach him the mechanics part of the trade but according to your theory athleticism AND mechanics play an important part of QB evaluation.

If I'm spending a #1 pick on a QB, I want one who has it all, like Cutler. If I'm spending a low-round pick, I want athleticism and intelligence, the mechanics can be taught, as Zorn is doing with Colt.

[Warpath11]

If I'm spending a #1 pick on a QB, I want one who has it all, like Cutler. If I'm spending a low-round pick, I want athleticism and intelligence, the mechanics can be taught, as Zorn is doing with Colt.

Gotchya a big distinction between a first round "lock" and a late round prospect.

[pjfootballer]

Why? Will you elaborate?

I'm guessing he thinks good teams have sufficient talent to allow high-round rookies to sit and not contribute much their first few years, and thus good teams can afford to go BPA, because they have few pressing needs. I'm reminded of last year when the Colts took Anthony Gonzalez (WR) with a first rounder. A team with Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, and Reggie Wayne was picking a WR in the first round? Really?!? But then, they've been to the playoffs for 7+ straight years, so they must be doing something right.

I was going to explain, then Mursilis explained it all for me. The other reason why I'd go with someone like Raji at 13 and not Crabtree is that we are missing a 2nd round pick and that makes the lone 1st round pick THAT much important and why we can't afford BPA at this point. If we had our 2nd, I'd say fine, take Crabtree in the first, snag Duke Robinson in the 2nd (or Raji if he's still on the board) and Unger in the 3rd. We would make our receiving pretty much stacked while still getting needs at G and C.

Last year, when we went with Thomas, we filled a need and that was the only reason we could go BPA with Davis. I don't agree with it because I thought there were some decent offensive linemen at #48 pick. Then we went BPA again with Kelly. We not only did it once, but twice and it didn't improve the team at all.

As far as the Colts go, they had to replace Stoakley the rest of their team was pretty set. They were thinking DT that year, but they didn't want to reach. They had the luxery of taking BPA because despite needing a DT, it wasn't a pressing need because the rest of the team was still good.

There's a delicate balance of taking BPA vs. need and I don't think Vinny understands that concept.

[TheLongshot]

I was going to explain, then Mursilis explained it all for me. The other reason why I'd go with someone like Raji at 13 and not Crabtree is that we are missing a 2nd round pick and that makes the lone 1st round pick THAT much important and why we can't afford BPA at this point. If we had our 2nd, I'd say fine, take Crabtree in the first, snag Duke Robinson in the 2nd (or Raji if he's still on the board) and Unger in the 3rd. We would make our receiving pretty much stacked while still getting needs at G and C.

To be honest, if Crabtree is still there at #13, there are probably plenty of teams who would trade up for him. Either that, or he wasn't as good as some people think or he has a serious red flag.

Last year, when we went with Thomas, we filled a need and that was the only reason we could go BPA with Davis. I don't agree with it because I thought there were some decent offensive linemen at #48 pick. Then we went BPA again with Kelly. We not only did it once, but twice and it didn't improve the team at all.

Actually, I'd argue that Thomas was a BPA pick and that Kelly was more of a need pick. Thomas was picked because of his potential and Kelly was picked for what he could do right away.

There's a delicate balance of taking BPA vs. need and I don't think Vinny understands that concept.

Problem is, the needs most people think the team should have taken care of (OL/DL) wasn't there. Sometimes I think fans would be happier if they reached for a guy at a position rather than not pick the position at all.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Awwwww shoot TS, I was with the OP up until "..... or a CB like Deion Sanders."

There's NO WAY I'm going through that episode twice over.

Seriously though, if Bradford say fell to 13, I think we'd be SERIOUSLY remiss to turn him down.

Hail.

[Misterwookas]

Why in the hell do you think we need to draft another QB. Okay lets take the scenerio that Todd Collins is gone in the coming months. JC and Colt. There are no quality QB's in this draft. If we do go QB it will be late round or maybe free agent, non drafted. Another wasteless thread gone awry!!!

[Andre3stacks]

IF you think were getting a OL or DL in the 1st rd you must not understand how snyder thinks by now.

[pjfootballer]

To be honest, if Crabtree is still there at #13, there are probably plenty of teams who would trade up for him. Either that, or he wasn't as good as some people think or he has a serious red flag.

Maybe if he is there we can trade for extra picks. It would be a good scenerio.

Actually, I'd argue that Thomas was a BPA pick and that Kelly was more of a need pick. Thomas was picked because of his potential and Kelly was picked for what he could do right away.

You may be right, but either way I think most of the fans would have loved to seen the Davis pick turn into at least an O-linemen, because most of the D-Linemen were reaches.

Problem is, the needs most people think the team should have taken care of (OL/DL) wasn't there. Sometimes I think fans would be happier if they reached for a guy at a position rather than not pick the position at all.

I still think there was room to get an O-lineman with the #48 pick. It could have been a luxury pick since we had 3 of them in the same round.

[Oldskool]

Considering that this is the year of the OT's and we need a starter at RT (Heyer is purely depth and Jansen can't cut it anymore), if they don't get one either with the 1st round selection or somehow get a 2nd this year and take a OT with that selection, then this FO is just worthless.

OT, DT, DE and maybe even Center are the key positions that need to be upgraded with players that can start from day 1.

[SkinsAllDay34]

Well this is probably late but Bradford is going back to school and Sanchez is declaring. Sanchez IMO is not a top 10 pick unless some team thinks another team might trade up to get him and reaches.

Either way, a quality player will be there: LB, DL, OL

[Thinking Skins]

Considering that this is the year of the OT's and we need a starter at RT (Heyer is purely depth and Jansen can't cut it anymore), if they don't get one either with the 1st round selection or somehow get a 2nd this year and take a OT with that selection, then this FO is just worthless.

OT, DT, DE and maybe even Center are the key positions that need to be upgraded with players that can start from day 1.

I don't get why people are saying that Heyer is 'purely depth'. I don't see it. I think he should at least be given a shot at being the starter.

[Thinking Skins]

Awwwww shoot TS, I was with the OP up until "..... or a CB like Deion Sanders."

There's NO WAY I'm going through that episode twice over.

Seriously though, if Bradford say fell to 13, I think we'd be SERIOUSLY remiss to turn him down.

Hail.

haha, not the Deion Sanders of Washington....think back to the days of Atlanta and SanFran.

[Thinking Skins]

Actually, I'd argue that Thomas was a BPA pick and that Kelly was more of a need pick. Thomas was picked because of his potential and Kelly was picked for what he could do right away.

Actually, this is a good question. How is BPA defined? I mean, for many the BPA was Calas Campbell. For others it was Trever Laws.

I guess its a big question of how do we compare players at different positions.

I can honestly say that as much that I hope that our picks from last year work out, I would be much happier had we addressed multiple positions instead of putting all our eggs into the one WR basket.

[Thinking Skins]

Yes, that's my opinion. I think a very bright, ex-NFL QB should have the final say on the selection, someone like Jim Zorn. I suspect the same approach would improve the hit rate at every position.

When Zorn, Jaworski, Simms and Aikman talk about QBs, I pay attention. They see and point out things that others miss. When other ex-players and coaches talk about QBs, they have the same problem most fans have, they can't separate the QB's performance from his team's.

Interesting theory - comparing Zorn to Aikman. I respect Aikman, and other former QBs with football knowledge, but still, I see many other QBs who think that "their way" is the way and seem to be analyzing QBs based on how "they played". I think about Young in particular when it comes to this type of analysis.

I'm not sure how this applies to Zorn. I just hope he has the skills as a teacher to keep improving Campbell's on the field performance.

[Shilsu]

Problem is, the needs most people think the team should have taken care of (OL/DL) wasn't there. Sometimes I think fans would be happier if they reached for a guy at a position rather than not pick the position at all.

And what makes you say that the OL/DL weren't there?

Do you realize that 4 out of the next 11 teams took a linemen? How were they not there for us, but they were there for them? Do you also realize that two of those teams consistently make the playoffs, while three of them made it this year, and three made it last year, so I find it hard to attribute it to incompetence that they took those linemen.

Meanwhile, according to ExtremeSkins' logic, it's too early to call anyone a bust, but IF we took a chance at drafting a DL that didn't pan out... We wouldn't have traded away a 2nd or 6th for Jason Taylor, and could use those picks to try again next year.

[Oldskool]

I don't get why people are saying that Heyer is 'purely depth'. I don't see it. I think he should at least be given a shot at being the starter.

Heyer was given a shot this last year and it was obvious as the nose on my face that he wasn't able to control the LoS on running plays and that he was more comfortable at pass protection which is back asswards from most first time OT's. Flat out, we stopped running to the right side when Heyer was in the game.

Heyer simply isn't a complete OT at this time. Perhaps with coaching he can get better, but right now we do not have a ROT that is proficient in all facets of the game.

[twenty-eight]

I guess OLB...plenty of those available in free agency though.

Crowell, Dansby...

[Thinking Skins]

Heyer was given a shot this last year and it was obvious as the nose on my face that he wasn't able to control the LoS on running plays and that he was more comfortable at pass protection which is back asswards from most first time OT's. Flat out, we stopped running to the right side when Heyer was in the game.

Heyer simply isn't a complete OT at this time. Perhaps with coaching he can get better, but right now we do not have a ROT that is proficient in all facets of the game.

I disagree, and Portis was putting up good numbers when Heyer was in there. Those numbers got better when Jansen went in there, but JC's sack numbers increased.

Heyer was developing into a good RT when we benched him. The problem is that we want everybody to be an all-pro out of the bag. It takes time to develop these players.

Heyer did a good enough job in 2007 and 2008 to at least get a shot at a competition in 2009.

[Oldskool]

I disagree, and Portis was putting up good numbers when Heyer was in there. Those numbers got better when Jansen went in there, but JC's sack numbers increased.

Which is exactly what I said; Heyer isn't a good run blocker and Jansen can no longer pass block.

Heyer was developing into a good RT when we benched him. The problem is that we want everybody to be an all-pro out of the bag. It takes time to develop these players.

Heyer did a good enough job in 2007 and 2008 to at least get a shot at a competition in 2009.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Heyer didn't do enough to warrant him being a starter in 2009 at all. Average pass blocker but can't run block worth a damn, which is counter intuitive for a Tackle. He basically showed last year why he was a UDFA.

Heyer wouldn't be starting for any other team in the NFCE, why should he start for us? It's time to stop being mediocre on both sides of the ball.