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

[RedskinPryde]

This post is mainly inspired by Reaganaut's post on the Redskins possibly drafting a QB in the draft. I kinda felt like his thread was hijacked into a debate of whether or not a QB should be picked, which I don't think was his argument.

I'm definately in favor of drafting one of those positions, and so I will not even try to rationalize why they wouldn't. My first choice is for a DT who can collapse the pocket, but honestly I'd be satisfied with some other picks.

That being said, I've hoped and prayed for a DL pick for the last few years, and each year I had to put a smile on my face and root for the team I love. So I kinda want to hear what would people think if the Redskins drafted differently.

I remember in 2008, I wanted a DL and we got WRs. I wasn't too upset because I felt that those would be good contributors and did address a weakness on this team, and I thought we got at least two first round talents for second round prices.

In 2007, we got Landry. I wanted Okoye, but I wasn't too upset with Landry and was quickly thinking about the combo of Sean Taylor and Laron Landry and how that would help our secondary.

In 2006, I wanted DL and we got Rocky, Montgomery and Golston. I wasn't too upset because I thought Montgomery could be a steal if he played up to his potential. I still feel that way, but I feel that he's more likely to be a guy who makes a good play here and there, but won't consistently be doing much.

I can't go back any further because my memory isn't too well any more (I'm gettin old, I'm almost 30 :doh:).

But the main point of my question is Suppose that instead of addressing the lines we got:

- a top tier QB who falls to us (like in 2005 when Aaron Rogders fell)

- a RB with the talent of an Adrian Peterson

- a WR who can take over a game like Larry Fitzgerald (with college experience and good knees)

- a TE (like Chris Cooley)

- an OLB like Lavar Aarington (fresh out of college)

- an ILB like Ray Lewis

- a safety like Ed Reed

- a CB like Deion Sanders

If they spent a first rounder on a K or P, I'd just have to start watching soccer. We're not even going to address that option.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there any position/player that the skins could draft this year thats NOT an OL/DL that you'd be OK with?"

Quick Edit: I've read almost NO articles on this year's upcoming draft class. So I don't know if there are any such players at any of these positions. This is just a "what if" game.

If a team had a draft like that (all those players your referencing), we can forget about the 16-0 Patriots...

Thats one hell of a team

[daskns4life7620]

What are you guys's thoughts on signing Jahri Evans??

[TheSkins2006]

This post is mainly inspired by Reaganaut's post on the Redskins possibly drafting a QB in the draft. I kinda felt like his thread was hijacked into a debate of whether or not a QB should be picked, which I don't think was his argument.

I'm definately in favor of drafting one of those positions, and so I will not even try to rationalize why they wouldn't. My first choice is for a DT who can collapse the pocket, but honestly I'd be satisfied with some other picks.

That being said, I've hoped and prayed for a DL pick for the last few years, and each year I had to put a smile on my face and root for the team I love. So I kinda want to hear what would people think if the Redskins drafted differently.

I remember in 2008, I wanted a DL and we got WRs. I wasn't too upset because I felt that those would be good contributors and did address a weakness on this team, and I thought we got at least two first round talents for second round prices.

In 2007, we got Landry. I wanted Okoye, but I wasn't too upset with Landry and was quickly thinking about the combo of Sean Taylor and Laron Landry and how that would help our secondary.

In 2006, I wanted DL and we got Rocky, Montgomery and Golston. I wasn't too upset because I thought Montgomery could be a steal if he played up to his potential. I still feel that way, but I feel that he's more likely to be a guy who makes a good play here and there, but won't consistently be doing much.

I can't go back any further because my memory isn't too well any more (I'm gettin old, I'm almost 30 :doh:).

But the main point of my question is Suppose that instead of addressing the lines we got:

- a top tier QB who falls to us (like in 2005 when Aaron Rogders fell)

- a RB with the talent of an Adrian Peterson

- a WR who can take over a game like Larry Fitzgerald (with college experience and good knees)

- a TE (like Chris Cooley)

- an OLB like Lavar Aarington (fresh out of college)

- an ILB like Ray Lewis

- a safety like Ed Reed

- a CB like Deion Sanders

If they spent a first rounder on a K or P, I'd just have to start watching soccer. We're not even going to address that option.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there any position/player that the skins could draft this year thats NOT an OL/DL that you'd be OK with?"

Quick Edit: I've read almost NO articles on this year's upcoming draft class. So I don't know if there are any such players at any of these positions. This is just a "what if" game.

To be honest we already have a top-tier QB that fell to us. Colt should have been taken a lot earlier then he did. I'd like to see what the kid can do, if campbell can't get it done in 2009.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think it's interesting looking at the Draft history of Arizona and Pittsburgh...

For instance, Pittsburgh doesn't have a DL on their team that was drafted since 2002... Kiesel was taken in the 7th round. The only 1st rounder on the team now in the DL is Hampton, taken in 2001.

The Cardinals have taken a lot of high round DL, but none of them start... Gabe Watson, C. Campbell & A. Branch all ride the bench in favor of Travis Laboy (Free Agent), Darnell Dockett (a very small DT drafted by Cards in 3rd round in 2004), Robinson (12 year vet/Free Agent), and Antonio Smith (drafted in the 5th round)...

[TheLongshot]

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

Well, I think the fact that they didn't pick one is a clue. But, considering that the focus was on DT and that there was one DT selected in the whole round, it is pretty safe to say that the team didn't feel the value was there. Certainly no other team did.

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.

That's a big if. I mean, we did draft Rob Jackson, but we still traded for Taylor, so it is hard to say.

Some of it is just plain bad luck. It would have interesting to see if we would have picked Merling if he had been there for our first pick and if that would still have driven us for a trade for Taylor. But, that's all speaking in hindsight.

[Skin'Em84]

I think it's interesting looking at the Draft history of Arizona and Pittsburgh...

For instance, Pittsburgh doesn't have a DL on their team that was drafted since 2002... Kiesel was taken in the 7th round. The only 1st rounder on the team now in the DL is Hampton, taken in 2001.

The Cardinals have taken a lot of high round DL, but none of them start... Gabe Watson, C. Campbell & A. Branch all ride the bench in favor of Travis Laboy (Free Agent), Darnell Dockett (a very small DT drafted by Cards in 3rd round in 2004), Robinson (12 year vet/Free Agent), and Antonio Smith (drafted in the 5th round)...

Hampton is nasty, though, and one of the best in the league at his position. Branch and Campbell are sitting to vets, they will improve hopefully. If they end up starting, and doing extremely well in the next 3 or 4 years, then its gonna be genius drafting moves on the Cardinals.

Dockett was still picked in the 3rd, and compliments the fast Arizona defense extremely well.

[Tyron Biggums]

Love those choices. Maybe we will get lucky and VCrato will have a mild stroke(j/k) and he will pick a trencher.

[The Consigliere]

This post is mainly inspired by Reaganaut's post on the Redskins possibly drafting a QB in the draft. I kinda felt like his thread was hijacked into a debate of whether or not a QB should be picked, which I don't think was his argument.

I'm definately in favor of drafting one of those positions, and so I will not even try to rationalize why they wouldn't. My first choice is for a DT who can collapse the pocket, but honestly I'd be satisfied with some other picks.

That being said, I've hoped and prayed for a DL pick for the last few years, and each year I had to put a smile on my face and root for the team I love. So I kinda want to hear what would people think if the Redskins drafted differently.

I remember in 2008, I wanted a DL and we got WRs. I wasn't too upset because I felt that those would be good contributors and did address a weakness on this team, and I thought we got at least two first round talents for second round prices.

In 2007, we got Landry. I wanted Okoye, but I wasn't too upset with Landry and was quickly thinking about the combo of Sean Taylor and Laron Landry and how that would help our secondary.

In 2006, I wanted DL and we got Rocky, Montgomery and Golston. I wasn't too upset because I thought Montgomery could be a steal if he played up to his potential. I still feel that way, but I feel that he's more likely to be a guy who makes a good play here and there, but won't consistently be doing much.

I can't go back any further because my memory isn't too well any more (I'm gettin old, I'm almost 30 :doh:).

But the main point of my question is Suppose that instead of addressing the lines we got:

- a top tier QB who falls to us (like in 2005 when Aaron Rogders fell)

- a RB with the talent of an Adrian Peterson

- a WR who can take over a game like Larry Fitzgerald (with college experience and good knees)

- a TE (like Chris Cooley)

- an OLB like Lavar Aarington (fresh out of college)

- an ILB like Ray Lewis

- a safety like Ed Reed

- a CB like Deion Sanders

If they spent a first rounder on a K or P, I'd just have to start watching soccer. We're not even going to address that option.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there any position/player that the skins could draft this year thats NOT an OL/DL that you'd be OK with?"

Quick Edit: I've read almost NO articles on this year's upcoming draft class. So I don't know if there are any such players at any of these positions. This is just a "what if" game.

My perspective is a bit different. I think we definitely could use help at G (Thomas is 30+, the other jetskins are also old, and Rinehart hasn't shown whether he gets it yet or not), we definitely could use help at OT (Jansen is over as a starter, Heyer is no better than a reserve, and Samuels will need to be moved to RT due to age and effectiveness issues in a year or two). We need DE's, Taylor is old and close to past it, and Carter is now going to be thirty. We need DT help because Griffin is old, and injury prone, and the young FA options are both at best, replaceable cogs.

So what we have here are needs at G, LT, RT, strongside and weakside DE, DT, and hell, even Center (Raybach isn't getting any younger). So how is it possible to justify ignoring the lines on day one of draft day yet again? That is basically 8 or 9 positional needs, and the draftboard shows that there will be OL prospects worthy of slot, barring horrifically bad luck, and at least one quality DE (probably an undersized kid, admittedly).

I will admit only to those. I could see, and indeed I'd understand, why they might target LB if they dont get one in the FA crop. They'd be idiots to address LB in the draft rather than FA, but all the same I could see it happening. LB is in many ways, the direst need on the team. Rocky is injury prone, and probably not an every down backer. Blades is at best an undersized MLB, or an overwhemed OLB, Washington is over, LFB is still a stud, but a very old stud, you dont want to pay guys for say, a 2nd Dishman year if you know what i mean, and Khari is a reserve. There is really no foundation whatsoever here at LB to build on, and virtually no present, so I can see in investing picks and/or players at LB, I just think LB is much more cost effective target for free agency, and third round or later draft picks, then the lines are. It costs mega bucks to fix the lines in FA, why not fix it w/young and cheaper draftees? Find the next Sam Baker. Don't pay him his second contract when he's already proven it and costs a ton.

[Chump Bailey]

The Cardinals have taken a lot of high round DL, but none of them start... Gabe Watson, C. Campbell & A. Branch all ride the bench in favor of Travis Laboy (Free Agent), Darnell Dockett (a very small DT drafted by Cards in 3rd round in 2004), Robinson (12 year vet/Free Agent), and Antonio Smith (drafted in the 5th round)...

They don't start, but they're not necessarily riding the bench either. I believe all three played some in the NFC Championship game.

[Chump Bailey]

There is really no foundation whatsoever here at LB to build on, and virtually no present, so I can see in investing picks and/or players at LB, I just think LB is much more cost effective target for free agency, and third round or later draft picks, then the lines are. It costs mega bucks to fix the lines in FA, why not fix it w/young and cheaper draftees? Find the next Sam Baker.

Absolutely agree with you; however, Fincher might just pan out for us.

[Arsenic]

no. A thousand times no!!!

If we draft anything other than ol or dl with our first pick it will be proof positive that the f.o. Has lost it's mind. Even if the next mike singletary/dan marino/d. Green/ronnie lott/j. Rice is sitting there the only viable thing to do is to rape somebody for a boatload of picks, trade down and then go ol (preferably) or dl.

Dont be mad when we draft a LB..

[Shilsu]

Well, I think the fact that they didn't pick one is a clue. But, considering that the focus was on DT and that there was one DT selected in the whole round, it is pretty safe to say that the team didn't feel the value was there. Certainly no other team did.

TheLongshot: (OL/DL) wasn't there

Please pick a position and stick with it. The OL and DL were there, that's why they were taken before and after Fred Davis.

That's a big if. I mean, we did draft Rob Jackson, but we still traded for Taylor, so it is hard to say.

Some of it is just plain bad luck. It would have interesting to see if we would have picked Merling if he had been there for our first pick and if that would still have driven us for a trade for Taylor. But, that's all speaking in hindsight.

How is that a big if. According to you, we didn't acquire any DL in the draft because we already had Phillip Daniels and Buzbee and Wilson and Jackson on the roster, and the only reason we traded for Jason Taylor was because Daniels and Buzbee both went down. But according to you, if we had a second-round DE, we still might have traded for Jason Taylor because we needed him?

[JohnnyK]

If we don't draft OL or DL, I'll consider boycotting the season.

[Reaganaut]

If we don't draft OL or DL, I'll consider boycotting the season.

Seriously, they might draft OL or DL, but it won't be until the late round picks. This team is el-stupido and has ignored both lines in the draft since Samuels. You may as well boycott now.

[TheLongshot]

TheLongshot: (OL/DL) wasn't there

Please pick a position and stick with it. The OL and DL were there, that's why they were taken before and after Fred Davis.

I've been pretty consistent with my opinion and I've explained many times why I believe it is so from comments from the FO. I'm not going to repeat it again.

How is that a big if. According to you, we didn't acquire any DL in the draft because we already had Phillip Daniels and Buzbee and Wilson and Jackson on the roster, and the only reason we traded for Jason Taylor was because Daniels and Buzbee both went down. But according to you, if we had a second-round DE, we still might have traded for Jason Taylor because we needed him?

Well, it all would have depended on how comfortable they felt with the player in question, if he prepared himself well enough to get some significant playing time. If they felt the hypothetical player was slow off the blocks, they might feel that they need the help.

You would hope that it wouldn't lead to that kind of decision, since it wouldn't reflect well on that rookie.

[SKINchiefer]

How about we just draft the best punter in the first round so everyone could be happy.

[SKINchiefer]

I believe JT has plenty left in the tank. We just need to keep others on our own DL from falling on him. The stuff he can and will teach our DL is priceless.

[The Consigliere]

Well actually our 6th and 7th rounders and some UDFAs have made the team and actually made nice contributions. Wilson had 5 sacks in 2007. Those are not muffy numbers. We had a LB/DE who we signed as an UDFA who went to Oakland as a FA and put up like 11 sacks. Now he's in Philly about to play in the NFC Championship game. There's talk about us possibly trading Golston for a mid round draft pick (shows others teams are interested).

I'll agree that we haven't found the right type of players on our DL (like a DT who can collapse the pocket) and that we should address that. But don't act like we haven't added any players on our DL over the past 10 years, cause thats a lie.

You're missing the point. Everyone knows the litany of additions the team has made to turn the DL into a 2nd contract/retirement home for quality vets, and past it former studs. Nobody of quality drafted or signed from '93-''95 (unless you count Sterling Palmer, and Richie Owens), Fat Gilbert in '96, Lang drafted in ''97, Big Fatty and Stubbystank in '98, and Marco Colemen and B. Smith in '99/'00 if memory serves, Gardener in '02, Grifffin, Wynn and Daniels in '04, Carter in '06, Taylor in '0. We all know the litany and we all know why the DL has been an issue for two decades. If you dont draft DL on day one, you end up having to pay for other teams proven players top dollar, and you have to hope they're hungry and won't break down quick. This strategy is asinine and moronic, and no amount of training camp undrafted fodder, and day 2 gems will make up for this over the short term or the long term. It's a recipe for disaster, period.

Look at the franchises that are good. They don't have lines composed of nothing but free agent signings, that's prohibitively expensive and no way to build, instead, they utilze draft picks consistently on both lines, to constantly refurbish the most important (along w/QB) part of the team w/hungry young players, they dont stuff it to the rafters w/other teams 30+'ers and guys just looking to get paid one last big contract. If you want to compete, you keep and use your draft picks to land your legit QB, and build those longs, then worry about playmakers, then worry about the rest. Instead we utilize top draft picks on safeties, LB's, TE's, and third and fourth WR's. It's no wonder this team is never great, rarely good, and rarely better than mediocre or below average. As has been noted in the Casserly/Cerrato thread. Neither are great talent evaluators, and unfortunately, Cerrato doesn't even have a clue how to build properly (unless his talk about never draftin DL in round 1, was simply cover for Snyder's own philosophy). This team will never build anything of any lasting import so long as it is foolish enough to follow the policy that you seem to prop, or at least, justify in your post.

[Thinking Skins]

You're missing the point. Everyone knows the litany of additions the team has made to turn the DL into a 2nd contract/retirement home for quality vets, and past it former studs. Nobody of quality drafted or signed from '93-''95 (unless you count Sterling Palmer, and Richie Owens), Fat Gilbert in '96, Lang drafted in ''97, Big Fatty and Stubbystank in '98, and Marco Colemen and B. Smith in '99/'00 if memory serves, Gardener in '02, Grifffin, Wynn and Daniels in '04, Carter in '06, Taylor in '0. We all know the litany and we all know why the DL has been an issue for two decades. If you dont draft DL on day one, you end up having to pay for other teams proven players top dollar, and you have to hope they're hungry and won't break down quick. This strategy is asinine and moronic, and no amount of training camp undrafted fodder, and day 2 gems will make up for this over the short term or the long term. It's a recipe for disaster, period.

Look at the franchises that are good. They don't have lines composed of nothing but free agent signings, that's prohibitively expensive and no way to build, instead, they utilze draft picks consistently on both lines, to constantly refurbish the most important (along w/QB) part of the team w/hungry young players, they dont stuff it to the rafters w/other teams 30+'ers and guys just looking to get paid one last big contract. If you want to compete, you keep and use your draft picks to land your legit QB, and build those longs, then worry about playmakers, then worry about the rest. Instead we utilize top draft picks on safeties, LB's, TE's, and third and fourth WR's. It's no wonder this team is never great, rarely good, and rarely better than mediocre or below average. As has been noted in the Casserly/Cerrato thread. Neither are great talent evaluators, and unfortunately, Cerrato doesn't even have a clue how to build properly (unless his talk about never draftin DL in round 1, was simply cover for Snyder's own philosophy). This team will never build anything of any lasting import so long as it is foolish enough to follow the policy that you seem to prop, or at least, justify in your post.

Sorry to say this, but you're missing the point.

When Gibbs was here, he stated very openly that he didn't like rookies. He said that he would rather depend on veterans to build the team. What we saw as a result was the signing of many free agents to fill holes. I was against this way of doing things. But in respect for coach Gibbs, I've got to say that he was able to put this team back on course - getting us to the playoffs in 2 out of 4 years was something that I didn't think possible during the lowest point of the Spurrier years.

But how did he do it? He went and addressed the lines DL and OL. He went and got a RB. He went and got a QB. He went and got WRs. He went and got LBs and CBs. He drafted safeties.

It seems like people think we've been an 0-16 team for the past 17 years because we haven't won a championship in those years.

Its not like we have NO offensive line and NO defensive line. For God's sake, Chris Samuels is a perennial pro bowler and Randy Thomas is a pro bowl alternate this year. I'm not saying that either had GREAT years, but don't act like they are both bums. Same goes for Rabach and Kendall. The only spot on our OL that I'm willing to accept that we may not have a legitimate starter is at RT, but even there we have Heyer who should at least be able to compete for a spot.

The same goes for the defensive line. I have been crying for years and years to draft some people to help with the pass rush. But its not like our defense was ranked number 32 in the league. We have the 4th ranked defense! We are really good at getting 3 and outs and at stopping people. There's definitely room for improvement, but the constant bickering that our D-Line is God awful is just ridiculous!

People are using the draft to say that "we haven't addressed the lines", but thats a lie. We haven't addressed the lines in the draft because our philosophy under Gibbs was not to rebuild through the draft.

Say what you want about Vinny, but last year he stated clearly that he was going to do the opposite and build through the draft, hence his trading down for more draft picks - something we don't normally do and didn't do under Gibbs. I'm not saying that he's the best evaluator of talent, but I'm not too upset with his picks last year. Would I have liked more linemen? Sure! But if Thomas, Kelly, Davis, Rinehart, etc. become quality starters will I like our 2008 draft? Yep!

This is an 8-8 team with several components that are "average" - in fact I'm willing to say that just about every component of this team is about "average". So if we go into this draft and do a BPA approach and find ways to deepen our depth so that some areas can go from "average" to "dominant" then we can become a team with an identity once again. It seems like many of us want that identity to be protecting the QB, running the ball, and getting sacks, but those are not the only identities out there. And if Rinehart, Geisinger, Heyer, and/or Clark, have impressed coaches enough to make them feel comfortable that we have enough depth along the OL and choose to make a different area dominant, then I'll judge them based on what they give me, not just based on my 'ideal' team.

If you want to root for a team that drafts linemen, go root for Cleveland or Denver. They always reach for linemen and look where their franchises are.

[Shilsu]

If you want to root for a team that drafts linemen, go root for Cleveland or Denver. They always reach for linemen and look where their franchises are.

First of all, Cleveland is not known for a team that reaches for linemen. They took one linemen in rounds 1-3 in the past five drafts. The Broncos are also not known as a team that reaches for linemen. They've taken four linemen in the first three rounds of the past five drafts. Three were taken last season. In fact, the knock on the Broncos is that they neglect their defensive line. Until last year's draft where they took a DE in round one and two, they signed a bunch of unproven linemen and considered it "addressing the defensive line".

Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the Broncos have had one losing season in the past five seasons, two in the past ten, three in the past fifteen. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply by telling us to look at where their franchise is.

Second of all, it doesn't matter if you're 0-16 or 8-8. Teams that can't even give itself a chance to make it to the playoffs are equal. Yes there are exceptions such as the 8-8 Chargers making the playoffs or the 11-5 Patriots missing the playoffs, but patting yourself on the back for not being a 0-16 team is just retarded. We made it to the playoffs twice in the past four years, but how many times have we made it in the past 17 (the number of years you referenced)?

There's a reason that the Broncos are looking to go in a new direction despite historically having a much better record and team than the Redskins. There's also a reason that the Buccaneers are looking to go in a new direction despite making the playoffs two out of the last four seasons.

Meanwhile, Redskins fans and the front office are supposed to be happy and content with what we've accomplished, using arguments that make no sense such as "we're not a 0-16 team" and "the Browns and Broncos reach for linemen". A true loser's mentality.

[The Consigliere]

Sorry to say this, but you're missing the point.

When Gibbs was here, he stated very openly that he didn't like rookies. He said that he would rather depend on veterans to build the team. What we saw as a result was the signing of many free agents to fill holes. I was against this way of doing things. But in respect for coach Gibbs, I've got to say that he was able to put this team back on course - getting us to the playoffs in 2 out of 4 years was something that I didn't think possible during the lowest point of the Spurrier years.

This depends entirely on what you mean by "on course". It was obvious from day one that regardless as to what Gibbs was doing, he was not building a foundation for success. He was importing free agents in '04 and '06 to address major holes that needed quick addressing in his view (a replacement for Gardener on the DL, a legit threat at LB, a legit stud corner, a legit in his view QB, quality 2nd and 3rd tier options at WR, and a center) w/older players who would not be long for the team, he was mortgaging future draft pick assets in trades for Boonell, then Cooley, then Campbell, then Rocky, Lloyd, Duckett etc for a combo of quick fixes, and hopeful assets that emptied the cupboard consistently of draft picks, this paid off once (Cooley), and failed to pay off every other time. He was building a quick fix, it was something I was against then and now, some Redskins fans just wanted a return to productivity, and playoffs, if you wanted a return to long term, lasting prominence, this wasn't a way to do it.

But how did he do it? He went and addressed the lines DL and OL. He went and got a RB. He went and got a QB. He went and got WRs. He went and got LBs and CBs. He drafted safeties.

Again, it depends upon how you view addressing the lines. The DL was stuffed w/elderly lineman, and nearly 30 year old lineman, a few day 2 flyers were thrown as well at the line, and a mid-tier edge rusher was signed. All moves were quick fixes, none of them were long term planning. Daniels, Griffin, Carter? Not long term fixes. As for the OL. No building whatsoever went on. We signed a nearly 30 year old center, and drafted a few busts on day 2, and brought in a quick fix jet after we lost Dock. None of this was legitamently addressing the lines in a fashion that would have any long term positive impact whatsoever, and its reflected in the fact that our pass rush continues to suck, as always, from the DL position, and our line blocking has progressively deteriotated since we've ignored it from '04-'07 on draft day.

It seems like people think we've been an 0-16 team for the past 17 years because we haven't won a championship in those years.

Its not like we have NO offensive line and NO defensive line. For God's sake, Chris Samuels is a perennial pro bowler and Randy Thomas is a pro bowl alternate this year. I'm not saying that either had GREAT years, but don't act like they are both bums. Same goes for Rabach and Kendall. The only spot on our OL that I'm willing to accept that we may not have a legitimate starter is at RT, but even there we have Heyer who should at least be able to compete for a spot.

The same goes for the defensive line. I have been crying for years and years to draft some people to help with the pass rush. But its not like our defense was ranked number 32 in the league. We have the 4th ranked defense! We are really good at getting 3 and outs and at stopping people. There's definitely room for improvement, but the constant bickering that our D-Line is God awful is just ridiculous!

Look at the OL, Thomas has been seriously injured two of the last four seasons and is hitting the wall, ditto Jansen who already has hit it. Smart teams pull the plug and have answers before the wall is hit. We are not smart and so do not do this. While Samuels has hinted at minor decline, he's certainly someone we could play at LT in '09, and RT in '10 and maybe '11, while we fix the problems at RT and RG that are product of age and injuries, and at LG due to age and talent, and at C, which is a product of age, and issues at LG and RG and RT. A domino effect is in play here. Jansen is over, Heyer is no answer, Thomas is near the wall, our Jets are over, only Samuels and Raybach are probably answers beyond '09. We should have had a plan in place when Jansen showed serious problems and Thomas started getting injured several years ago, instead we continually pawned off picks on Lloyd, Duckett, Taylor, and trade ups for Campbell, and Rocky etc.

As for the DL, it's ranking is entirely a product of investing all our draft and free agent resources on the back seven over the past few years, and we've seen what a tired, old, and lacking in pass rush talent DL gets us in the playoffs. Our rankings have been a mirage produced by outstanding secondary play, and LB play (the latter obviously not relevant last year), the proof was in the pudding in the playoffs, and down the stretch when we couldnt get stops when we needed them, ever, against the niners or anyone else. If you think this ste up works, and this is the foundation for success and you love how much that D ranking got us in the Gibbs and Zorn years, more power to you, I look at it as spinning the wheels, and ignoring what makes for consistently competitive franchises.

People are using the draft to say that "we haven't addressed the lines", but thats a lie. We haven't addressed the lines in the draft because our philosophy under Gibbs was not to rebuild through the draft.

Say what you want about Vinny, but last year he stated clearly that he was going to do the opposite and build through the draft, hence his trading down for more draft picks - something we don't normally do and didn't do under Gibbs. I'm not saying that he's the best evaluator of talent, but I'm not too upset with his picks last year. Would I have liked more linemen? Sure! But if Thomas, Kelly, Davis, Rinehart, etc. become quality starters will I like our 2008 draft? Yep!

Gibbs rebuilt through a blend, not free agency, but my indictment is of the redskins in the Cooke, and Snyder era's of '93-'08, and in Vinny's case an indictment of his moves in San Francisco as well. We simply havent built properly and this is why we've sucked and not built anything of consequence in the Snyder era, in the Cooke era, it was more about terrible scouting and decisionmaking rather than inept foundation strategies.

This is an 8-8 team with several components that are "average" - in fact I'm willing to say that just about every component of this team is about "average". So if we go into this draft and do a BPA approach and find ways to deepen our depth so that some areas can go from "average" to "dominant" then we can become a team with an identity once again. It seems like many of us want that identity to be protecting the QB, running the ball, and getting sacks, but those are not the only identities out there. And if Rinehart, Geisinger, Heyer, and/or Clark, have impressed coaches enough to make them feel comfortable that we have enough depth along the OL and choose to make a different area dominant, then I'll judge them based on what they give me, not just based on my 'ideal' team.

No it isn't. The entire OL is over as a competitive entity beyond Samuels and Raybach, and Thomas probably beyond '09. The DL is a joke. No answers at strong side DE, no answers at one other DT slot, the other is manned by two free agents, neither of which are no doubt about it starters, and our edge rusher is hitting 30, and even if he reaches his peak performance the fact that the lineman next to him suck, are old, or are merely adequate, and the LB's behind him are a joke makes that highly unlikely. At LB, we're young, injured and inadequate (Rocky), old (LFB), and over (Washington). The secondary is the only thing of any long term quality on this team. That is fine, 8-8 or better, the rest is a rotted staircase or roof, ready for collapse. As for the O. The line is entirely 30+ w/no definitive youthful answers ready to come in and start. The QB is at best a question mark, the running game is up there in age and in carries, the WR's are all question marks or getting old (Moss), and TE is fine.

This is a team w/o a future, and not much of a present. That's reality. You can believe 6-2, or 2-6, I believe the age, and the injury history, and when I look at the cap, and our collection of draft picks, freaking FOUR, and the man in charge and his strategy, I am at best, lacking in faith in any short term success for this team. That's reality.

If you want to root for a team that drafts linemen, go root for Cleveland or Denver. They always reach for linemen and look where their franchises are.

How conveniant that you leave out NYG, Philly, New England, Baltimore (until they finished building their lines a few years ago, i suspect they will start drafting lineman again soon) and the like. The vast majority of the consistently competitive teams this decade have made it a habit of drafting for the lines, and then worrying about the rest. The poster above me addressed the erroneous reality of your Cleveland and Denver references.

[Guest NebraSKIN]

I really do not understand all of this mock draft and speculating on who we will draft. We will draft the "best available" on OUR list. Period. Need(s) be damned.

[[[ghost]]]

Dont be mad when we draft a LB..

Which is our Second Biggest need. It couldn't be easier to spot- I'd rather see Monty/Golston at DT than Blades at OLB.

[Est.1974]

];6078343']Which is our Second Biggest need. It couldn't be easier to spot- I'd rather see Monty/Golston at DT than Blades at OLB.

or Khary Campbell or Alfred Fincher at this point.

:applause: 100% Correct

[tryfuhl]

OLB would be satisfactory