Skins unbelievable history of not drafting d-linemen(Merged)

[Dah-Dee]

I've looked at a bunch of ES mock drafts. Almost all of them have us drafting a D lineman. Almost all of them pick a D Lineman in the 7th round :doh:

:paranoid:

[NoVaSkins21]

The problem is that the Skins like to use FA to build their DL. It may be more expensive, but it's quicker than drafting and developing.

[captain_obvious]

The problem is that the Skins like to use FA to build their DL. It may be more expensive, but it's quicker than drafting and developing.

True. The vets love to come to Uncle Danny to relax and get paid, with few exceptions. I wish this worked the other way around...

[SirClintonPortis]

But somehow we still have a top 5-10 defence

Only on ES do you find that 'building from the secondary in' is claimed to be the right way to build a D.

[elkabong82]

Only on ES do you find that 'building from the secondary in' is claimed to be the right way to build a D.

In terms of overall D, it's worked hasn't it? There's no one singular way to succeed in the NFL.

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

As a side note, you can mock the Raiders for taking Sebastian Janikowski in the 1st.

However, last I checked he's still playing for them, which is more than can be said of some of the guys drafted ahead of him in the 2000 draft:

1. Courtney Brown

2. Lavar Arrington

4. Peter Warrick

10. Travis Taylor

11. Ron Dayne

Interesting. I guess you can't be too harsh on them.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Anyone care to point out the great DL that would have been a better pick than what we made at the time?

I've got Osi instead of Taylor Jacobs, Jason Jones instead of Davis (though it's too early to say this IMO), Kalimba Edwards instead of Ramsey (but a lot of hindsight on that one, at the time Ramsey might have been the better pick, don't know remember the talk on them entering the draft).

this is so subjective because who knows whether some of these guys would have flourished in our system or not. you named 3 that are no brainers, and id still rather have calias campbell than kelly or davis. and frankly at the time i wanted okoye over landry. now with taylors death landry is a godsend, but had taylor never been murdered, the landry pick was not smart in my opinion. you dont need 2 top 6 draft pick safteys.

but again, its impossible to determine whether a guy would have succeeded with our team. im more upset with our lack of even attempting to draft guys in the first place. i think its pretty bad managemet to completely ignore a position that is the key to a defense in the draft.

[SirClintonPortis]

In terms of overall D, it's worked hasn't it? There's no one singular way to succeed in the NFL.

Had Romo sits to pee with a damaged pinky...he went unscathed.....they blitzed a lot too...got fried by Ward and BENSON...BENSON of all people...on SCREENS

[elkabong82]

this is so subjective because who knows whether some of these guys would have flourished in our system or not. you named 3 that are no brainers, and id still rather have calias campbell than kelly or davis. and frankly at the time i wanted okoye over landry. now with taylors death landry is a godsend, but had taylor never been murdered, the landry pick was not smart in my opinion. you dont need 2 top 6 draft pick safteys.

but again, its impossible to determine whether a guy would have succeeded with our team. im more upset with our lack of even attempting to draft guys in the first place. i think its pretty bad managemet to completely ignore a position that is the key to a defense in the draft.

I think you're selling very, very short how effective Taylor and Landry were together. NOBODY could throw deep on us. Favre tried and ST had a field day. Landry was the first rookie draft pick to start right away in GW's defense. He was considered about the most NFL-ready defensive player available in the draft. Just like you say we have no way of knowing if those draft picks would have worked out here, you have no way of knowing how great our D could have been with Taylor and Landry as a duo.

And sorry, but a bust is more or less a bust. Sure we could argue that a player might have done better elsewhere, but that is purely hypothetical. I've done the research before, and other than the 2 I pointed out, we really haven't missed on any stud DL. I guess that's why you're stating we can't put this into context, instead of doing the research. Regradless, BPA is a better philosophy than drafting purely need, IMO, and I won't be swayed otherwise, so this talent vs need is a moot point between you and I not really worth further discussion.

BTW, this thread and the whole premise of us not drafting DL early is subjective as well. It completely ignores what we've done to address DL in free agency, just as it completely ignores who we drafted instead. It's a blanket statement with no in-depth analysis. Sadly, I'm not surprised you were more taken back by me trying to put things in context than you are with the glaring ommissions of this thread, since they vibe with your feelings towards the FO. What a day it will be when people actually research something instead of just cut and pasting what agrees with them.

[elkabong82]

Had Romo sits to pee with a damaged pinky...he went unscathed.....they blitzed a lot too...got fried by Ward and BENSON...BENSON of all people...on SCREENS

Haven't you heard? Every game we lost is JC's fault, and his alone.

Look, I too have said the 4th overall rating was deceptive, that our D gave away the Rams game at the end, the 49ers game, they did little to stop Cincy, and almost gave away the Eagles game.

However, this is why I said "in terms of OVERALL D." Overall they had one of the lowest scoring averages on them, and held the yards down, which is what the secheme dictated. I want more sacks and turnovers, I want shorter fields for the O, I have said all of this many times before. However, I don't believe that means we should reach on a player in the draft just for that to happen. You should get who you have rated as the best talent available, IMO.

But again, overall, and over the year, our D has been good (top 10), with the exception of '06, under the current philosophy, which just furthers my point that there's no one singular way to succeed in the NFL.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I think you're selling very, very short how effective Taylor and Landry were together. NOBODY could throw deep on us. Favre tried and ST had a field day. Landry was the first rookie draft pick to start right away in GW's defense. He was considered about the most NFL-ready defensive player available in the draft. Just like you say we have no way of knowing if those draft picks would have worked out here, you have no way of knowing how great our D could have been with Taylor and Landry as a duo.

im not selling it short at all, i vividly remember it. but nobody threw deep on us last year with horton and landry back there. our whole d plan is not to allow the deep ball. i think i remember like 2 bombs last year, one in the rams game and one in the 2nd giants game. our whole d is centered around taking away the deep stuff and keeping the play in front of us. again, landry is a great player, but i would have rather had okoye. and you already said you would have rather had okoye in the "if i were the GM" thread so i dont know why youre arguing with me.

And sorry, but a bust is more or less a bust. Sure we could argue that a player might have done better elsewhere, but that is purely hypothetical. I've done the research before, and other than the 2 I pointed out, we really haven't missed on any stud DL. I guess that's why you're stating we can't put this into context, instead of doing the research. Regradless, BPA is a better philosophy than drafting purely need, IMO, and I won't be swayed otherwise, so this talent vs need is a moot point between you and I not really worth further discussion.

but how many stud dlineman have we missed on because we gave away those draft picks? if we had 0 draft picks, then technically we never missed out on a single Dlineman in the draft. the fact that we never have those picks to begin with, and never draft dlineman when we even have them is whats so frustrating. and youve already admitted to not liking our constant trading of draft picks so id assume youre in agreement with me on that point. itd take time, but i bet if we saw all 7 picks the skins could have had every year since 2000, we've probably missed out on a ton of dlineman (not to mention a ton of great players in general).

ITW, this thread and the whole premise of us not drafting DL early is subjective as well. It completely ignores what we've done to address DL in free agency, just as it completely ignores who we drafted instead. It's a blanket statement with no in-depth analysis. Sadly, I'm not surprised you were more taken back by me trying to put things in context than you are with the glaring ommissions of this thread, since they vibe with your feelings towards the FO. What a day it will be when people actually research something instead of just cut and pasting what agrees with them.

im never gonna agree with you trying to make light of the failures of the front office. yes weve addressed the dline in free agency, we do every year. why? because we dont use the draft. you obviously seem to agree with this, i dont. id rather us draft younger dlineman and hope they pan out, then overspend for guys past their prime or who dont pan out. i dont want more andre carters on this team, guys paid 6 year 30 million dollar contracts who dont produce very much. we can draft those guys and pay them 1 million a season and get the same production.

and get off the high horse about all your research. your research just shows that with the limited picks we have (which again youve admitted you dont like) weve missed out on 3 picks that were not busts. kinda hard to miss out on guys when you dont have picks in the first place right? again, if we traded our entire draft every year, technically vinny could never draft a bust. my whole problem is the lack of trying to use the draft. id rather vinny fail using it then ignore it.

[elkabong82]

im not selling it short at all, i vividly remember it. but nobody threw deep on us last year with horton and landry back there. our whole d plan is not to allow the deep ball. i think i remember like 2 bombs last year, one in the rams game and one in the 2nd giants game. our whole d is centered around taking away the deep stuff and keeping the play in front of us. again, landry is a great player, but i would have rather had okoye. and you already said you would have rather had okoye in the "if i were the GM" thread so i dont know why youre arguing with me.

but how many stud dlineman have we missed on because we gave away those draft picks? if we had 0 draft picks, then technically we never missed out on a single Dlineman in the draft. the fact that we never have those picks to begin with, and never draft dlineman when we even have them is whats so frustrating. and youve already admitted to not liking our constant trading of draft picks so id assume youre in agreement with me on that point. itd take time, but i bet if we saw all 7 picks the skins could have had every year since 2000, we've probably missed out on a ton of dlineman (not to mention a ton of great players in general).

im never gonna agree with you trying to make light of the failures of the front office. yes weve addressed the dline in free agency, we do every year. why? because we dont use the draft. you obviously seem to agree with this, i dont. id rather us draft younger dlineman and hope they pan out, then overspend for guys past their prime or who dont pan out. i dont want more andre carters on this team, guys paid 6 year 30 million dollar contracts who dont produce very much. we can draft those guys and pay them 1 million a season and get the same production.

and get off the high horse about all your research. your research just shows that with the limited picks we have (which again youve admitted you dont like) weve missed out on 3 picks that were not busts. kinda hard to miss out on guys when you dont have picks in the first place right? again, if we traded our entire draft every year, technically vinny could never draft a bust. my whole problem is the lack of trying to use the draft. id rather vinny fail using it then ignore it.

No, you are selling short how good Area 51 was. Horton came on, which was lucky for us given he was our last pick in the draft, but that duo was nothing like ST and Landry, nor did it create the amount of INTs that Area 51 did. It doesn't matter if I wanted Okoye or Anderson, that doesn't mean I can't like the Landry pick, nor does it mean that the Landry pick was a not a smart move, as you stated. That is why we are arguing on this point, you said it wasn't a smart move, I disagree.

Oh, we've missed on a couple of DL due to trading away picks for sure. I've said many, many times, especially recently since the draft is almost here, that we have been too frivolous in the past with trading away draft picks. However, Gibbs values vets more than rookies, and him having full control meant we likely weren't ever going to have a full draft under him (which we didn't). So really, we have no disagreement here. (In fact, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a big fan of the Jason Taylor trade).

We use FA to address things, because, just as you said right before, we don't have a lot of draft picks each year. I obviously don't agree with just using free agency, I agree with using a combo of draft and free agency. Just cuz you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to put words in my mouth. You're better than that, even if we are talkign about the FO which, IMO, makes you crazy and almost impossible to talk with.

What I want, like I said, is for us to not lock onto a position of need and reach on a player as a result. Carter gaves us the first double-digit sack season from a DE in quite a while. How much of that money will Carter see? Who knows, but 6 years 30 mill is about what a 1st round DE would receive from us anyways, I think.

What high horse? I've actually taken the time to do the damn research, and show where we picked, and what DL were still available then. Just cuz you all are either too lazy, or already took notice that the argument doesn't hold up when properly analyzed, doesn't mean I'm on a high horse cuz I actually took the time to investigate something, rather than just hopping on the newest out-of-context and unresearched rhetoric that's getting spewed out just because it agrees with my opinion.

Just as we missed on 2 guys (3rd is from last draft, too early IMO), we also saved ourselves from picking a bunch of busts. Of course you don't see just 2 misses on DEs going back to 2000, you simply see a couple misses and use it to feed your opinion on the FO, again taking something out of context.

And when did Vinny ignore the draft? Gibbs was in charge, as TEAM PRESIDENT, from 2004 to 2007. He prefers vets to rooks, and it showed with our handling of draft picks as loose change. Gibbs goes, Vinny's first draft in an actual position of full accountability, he gives us 10 picks, and you can't criticize the picks, because you just said you'd rather Vinny fail using it, then not use it at all. I'd say trading down and getting us 10 picks is a good example of using the draft.

This year, we don;t have the 4th because of the Kendall trade, from the Gibbs era. We don;t have a 2nd cuz of the Jason Taylor trade. While I wasn't a big fan of it, it did attempt to bolster our pass rush. Just our luck a guy with no injury history has 2 freak injuries with us. And the move, IMO, was made out of desperation since 2 DEs went down the 1st day of camp. I've said this plenty of times when discussing the JT trad, that at least this time it was because of injuries creating a need, instead of a part of a big offseason splash.

[Spartacus87]

Defensive line picks are likely to be busts. I'm just saying, is all.

Yeah.

Tell that to the Giants, for starters. Both their lines are made up of high round picks.

In every round, from the 1st, or 2nd or 5th, it's probably around the same ratio of successes to busts for all the players taken.

But rounds 1 and 2 are more likely where you'll find your biggest impact players out of the most successful guys.

That means you take chances on d-line in those rounds if you're looking for impact d-linemen.

[abdcskins]

In 2006, we took Montgomery in the fifth round.

Before that, we had not drafted a d-linemen in the first five rounds since 1997.

Wow. Just wow.

It's more than puzzling, it's stupid and sickening. The reasoning behind such a strategy must be....well it's retarded because whatever it is it makes no sense.

[redskins55]

There has been alot of discussion about our 4th ranked defense. I think everyone should realize that defense is about one stat. Give a way =Take a way ratio!!

Now low yardage is great but there is one glaring difference between the Washington Redskins and the other top five defenses in the league. The Steelers,Ravens, Eagles, and even the Giants whom sit 5th behind us all basically had at least twice as many sacks as we did last year. We had 24 and the lowest they had was 38 by Baltimore. All of them made the playoffs and we failed to make it. Our offense contributed to some of this but lets face it Philly, NY, Baltimore and the Steelers didnt have great offenses either. Their defenses create turnovers and field position so their offense could score points on a short field.

Thats the key to success in the NFL and we must draft a playmaker on defense to generate more turnovers while maintaining discipline in the overall scheme of our 4th ranked defense.

[scruffylookin]

There has been alot of discussion about our 4th ranked defense. I think everyone should realize that defense is about one stat. Give a way =Take a way ratio!!

Thats the key to success in the NFL and we must draft a playmaker on defense to generate more turnovers while maintaining discipline in the overall scheme of our 4th ranked defense.

Exactly.

Rankings are nice in the regular season, but championship defenses force turnovers. Look at even the Cardinals. How did they get to the Super Bowl? Their offense? Yes it was good but really it was their defense that started forcing a ton of turnovers that set their offense up that got them to the Super Bowl.

You force turnovers with the front 4 not the back 4. Landry was a bad pick in 2007. It was a luxury to team him up with Sean Taylor but it did not address the glaring weakness that this defense demonstrated after the 2006 season. They could not generate sacks nor turnovers. We now have Landry (a player who still has not lived up to his draft position by the way) and yet the same problems persisted last year. No sacks and a lack of turnovers.

Okoye should have been the pick in 2007.

2005 we should have drafted Merriman or Ware. I understand the Rogers selection because Fred Smoot walked but the weakness of the 2004 defense (which was the best defense we've had these last 5 years) was that it did generate pressure but it was from exotic blitzes so upgrading the natural pass rushing ability of this defense has been an issue the whole time and they continue to ignore it and decide to work on the secondary instead of what counts the most the front.

How did the Redskins win titles under Petitbon?

With all due respect to Darrell Green, it wasn't because of him in the secondary but rather the front 4. Now the best of that front four (83-88) consisted of a 5th round pick (Dexter), a 3rd round pick (Mann), a former #1 who some viewed as a bust that we traded a couple of 1st for (Butz), and a late round converted Olineman (Grant). So yes, you don't have to draft dline in the first round if you have talent scouts who can find gems. We don't have that anymore.

As for this year, I'm no longer going into these drafts hoping for a dlineman. I've been burned too often.

I just hope those that defended this front office in the past and made excuses for them as to why we don't draft defensive line just keeping deluding themselves as we trot out 100 year old Phillip Daniels and 95 year old Renaldo Wynn next year. Then of course when they flop or get hurt, these same people will justify the front office going out and giving away draft picks for another 90 year old "name" player because "who could have forseen two players going down like that? We needed to find a replacement":doh:

[Nighthawk]

First, the Redksins have historically, never been a team that drafted Defensive Lineman, and when they have, they've rarely drafted them in the 1st Round.

I went all the way back to 1978 which was Bobby Beathards first draft with the Redskins. Since 1978 we've selected 263 players and of the 263 only 31 have been Defensive Lineman.

31

I'm not a mathmetician, but I believe that's 11% of our picks have been spent on Defensive Lineman since 1978.

Now, that's 31 drafts we've had since '78 and we've selected 31 Lineman.

Of the 31 only 2 have been 1st Round Picks.

Kendard Lang was the 17th pick in the 1st Round in 1997

Bobby Wilson was the 17th pick in the 1st Round in 1991.

5 2nd Rounders (Mat Mendenhal, Steve Hamilton, Bob Slater, Markus Koch, Shane Collins)

2 3rd Rounders (Charles Mann,Tracy Rocker)

2 4th Rounders (Todd Liebenstein, Sterling Palmer)

4 5th Rounders (Dexter Manley, Lybrant Robinson, Rich Owens, Anthony Montgomery)

5 6th Rounders (Kent Wells, Dexter Nottage, Kelvin Kinney, Mario Monds, Kedric Golston)

3 7th Rounders (Delbert Cowsette, Gregory Scott, Rob Jackson)

1 8th Rounder (Ralph Warthen)

1 9th Rounder (Randy Trautman)

3 10 Rounders (Scott Hartenstein, Harold Smith, Thomas Rayam)

2 11th Rounders (Mike Matocha, Curt Koch)

1 12th Rounder (Dean Hamel)

Of the 31, only 2 became Pro Bowlers.

Now we could do the same thing for each and every position, but I just wanted to do this to show that it's not just Vinny and Snyder, it's the Redskins historically that don't draft Defensive Lineman.

[Nighthawk]

Yeah.

Tell that to the Giants, for starters. Both their lines are made up of high round picks.

In every round, from the 1st, or 2nd or 5th, it's probably around the same ratio of successes to busts for all the players taken.

But rounds 1 and 2 are more likely where you'll find your biggest impact players out of the most successful guys.

That means you take chances on d-line in those rounds if you're looking for impact d-linemen.

The Giants are one of the few teams that don't seem to get caught up in numbers. They draft guys based on how successful they were in college. Strahan and Osi went to small schools but they dominated at their positions.

They also selected Kiwanuka at the end of the 1st round. How he slid to the bottom of the first round is a mystery to me. But they selected him even though they had Strahan and Osi because he produced in college. The same thing goes for Tuck. They produce in college and they ingnore the rest of the numbers.

[skinsfanno9]

Kenard Lang (1997) was the last Dlinemen selected by the Redskins on the first day of the draft. Anyone know if any other team has a record this ridiculous?

BTW, anyone wonder why our line play on both sides of the ball suck? I have a guess...

[Thinking Skins]

Kenard Lang (1997) was the last Dlinemen selected by the Redskins on the first day of the draft. Anyone know if any other team has a record this ridiculous?

BTW, anyone wonder why our line play on both sides of the ball suck? I have a guess...

its not just that we don't draft em, its also that we don't play the youth. Monty and Golston are decent. So is Alexander. But we didn't play Rob Jackson at all. We played Chris Wilson out of necessity in 2007. We don't like our rookies. Thats just a fact and it shows most along our aging lines.

[maskedsuperstar]

But somehow we still have a top 5-10 defence

Yes, but seems to understand that. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 Skins finished in the top 10 in defense.

There are a tremendous amount of DL that get drafted, that don't work out.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

First, the Redksins have historically, never been a team that drafted Defensive Lineman, and when they have, they've rarely drafted them in the 1st Round.

I went all the way back to 1978 which was Bobby Beathards first draft with the Redskins. Since 1978 we've selected 263 players and of the 263 only 31 have been Defensive Lineman.

31

I'm not a mathmetician, but I believe that's 11% of our picks have been spent on Defensive Lineman since 1978.

Now, that's 31 drafts we've had since '78 and we've selected 31 Lineman.

Of the 31 only 2 have been 1st Round Picks.

Kendard Lang was the 17th pick in the 1st Round in 1997

Bobby Wilson was the 17th pick in the 1st Round in 1991.

5 2nd Rounders (Mat Mendenhal, Steve Hamilton, Bob Slater, Markus Koch, Shane Collins)

2 3rd Rounders (Charles Mann,Tracy Rocker)

2 4th Rounders (Todd Liebenstein, Sterling Palmer)

4 5th Rounders (Dexter Manley, Lybrant Robinson, Rich Owens, Anthony Montgomery)

5 6th Rounders (Kent Wells, Dexter Nottage, Kelvin Kinney, Mario Monds, Kedric Golston)

3 7th Rounders (Delbert Cowsette, Gregory Scott, Rob Jackson)

1 8th Rounder (Ralph Warthen)

1 9th Rounder (Randy Trautman)

3 10 Rounders (Scott Hartenstein, Harold Smith, Thomas Rayam)

2 11th Rounders (Mike Matocha, Curt Koch)

1 12th Rounder (Dean Hamel)

Of the 31, only 2 became Pro Bowlers.

Now we could do the same thing for each and every position, but I just wanted to do this to show that it's not just Vinny and Snyder, it's the Redskins historically that don't draft Defensive Lineman.

i guess you could say once we got manley and mann we realy didnt need to draft dlineman at that point, so the number gets a little skewed. when you have two beasts at the position, theres no reason to draft others.

[maskedsuperstar]

There has been alot of discussion about our 4th ranked defense. I think everyone should realize that defense is about one stat. Give a way =Take a way ratio!!

Now low yardage is great but there is one glaring difference between the Washington Redskins and the other top five defenses in the league. The Steelers,Ravens, Eagles, and even the Giants whom sit 5th behind us all basically had at least twice as many sacks as we did last year. We had 24 and the lowest they had was 38 by Baltimore. All of them made the playoffs and we failed to make it. Our offense contributed to some of this but lets face it Philly, NY, Baltimore and the Steelers didnt have great offenses either. Their defenses create turnovers and field position so their offense could score points on a short field.

Thats the key to success in the NFL and we must draft a playmaker on defense to generate more turnovers while maintaining discipline in the overall scheme of our 4th ranked defense.

Guess what? The Skins offense averaged 16 points a game, which was 28th in the league. The defense gave up 18 points a game! I agree with some of what you have said. But an offense has to score points. Baltimore has never had a great offense. It seems they rely on their defense all the time. Whats going to happen if Baltimore gets down 14-0? During the Raven Super Bowl run, they went 5 weeks without scoring a single TD. That is ridiculous.

Draft a playermaker on defense to generate more turnovers? Okay, but its about scheme. Giants, Steelers, Eagles, Ravens use heavy pressure.

Skins don't. Now, under Gregg Williams, they pressured the QB by using a zone blitz scheme. The same scheme used by the Steelers. Only difference is the Steelers use a 3-4 defense.

[Thinking Skins]

The problem is really that we don't draft at all. We - especially in the Snyder era - trade our picks too often.