ES: Redskins are nothing without Samuels

[Arsenic]

We've got to get a Superowl Ring so that Samuels can one day get into the hall of fame. This guy is a class act. We need more like him.

On the defensive side, Orakpo reminds me alot of Chris Samuels.

[TSO]

Who has this so-called "quality depth" on the Oline, really? I am honestly asking that question... does anyone know?

Why do I get the feeling that we've just been really unfortunate the last few years in terms of health on our Oline, and that's the only reason why there is such a heavy focus on our depth there. It's not easy getting quality starting Olineman, let alone depth that you can just plug in. What teams in the NFL do? The Giants, Cowboys ( :puke: ), and Pats Olines have been praised left and right the last few years, but both have had great fortune in terms of injuries. I don't think we've seen any of their backups play in forever.

Can anyone tell me which team has been as unfortunate as us in terms of injuries on the Oline and just plugged in a couple of guys and still played as well? Cuz if you can, then it'll go a long way in making me feel a little bit worse about our situation. Right now, I just can't blame our FO that much.

I remember in 07 thinking Buges should be coach of the year the way he handled our Oline. It was an amazing job plugging in guys, and I don't think there was a team in the NFL that could've done it like we did.

[boofMcboof]

Who has this so-called "quality depth" on the Oline, really? I am honestly asking that question... does anyone know?

Why do I get the feeling that we've just been really unfortunate the last few years in terms of health on our Oline, and that's the only reason why there is such a heavy focus on our depth there. It's not easy getting quality starting Olineman, let alone depth that you can just plug in. What teams in the NFL do? The Giants, Cowboys ( :puke: ), and Pats Olines have been praised left and right the last few years, but both have had great fortune in terms of injuries. I don't think we've seen any of their backups play in forever.

Can anyone tell me which team has been as unfortunate as us in terms of injuries on the Oline and just plugged in a couple of guys and still played as well? Cuz if you can, then it'll go a long way in making me feel a little bit worse about our situation. Right now, I just can't blame our FO that much.

I remember in 07 thinking Buges should be coach of the year the way he handled our Oline. It was an amazing job plugging in guys, and I don't think there was a team in the NFL that could've done it like we did.

You have to put in your own work around here. It's simple. Look up the best offensive lines in the NFL today, NYG, Philly, Dallas, Mini . . .

Look at the depth chart and see how many 4th+ rounders they have on their bench. The perennial playoff teams will consistently invest draft picks in OL in at least the middle rounds.

At least look at Philly. They lost two starters and they still have depth on the OL.

[themurf]

You have to put in your own work around here. It's simple. Look up the best offensive lines in the NFL today, NYG, Philly, Dallas, Mini . . .

At least look at Philly. They lost two starters and they still have depth on the OL.

Or how about Jacksonville? They were decimated by injuries a year ago and basically spent the draft restocking their offensive line to avoid repeating the problem again this year. Sure, they could have signed a couple of undrafted free agents to try and solve their woes, but they felt it was a little more of a priority than ... well ... you get the hint.

[DCMONEY]

No matter what happens the Skins need should've been bringing in younger O-linemen totake over once Samuels and company retire. The Ravens did a good job bringing in Jared Gaither after Jonathan Ogden retired.

[TheLongshot]

Or how about Jacksonville? They were decimated by injuries a year ago and basically spent the draft restocking their offensive line to avoid repeating the problem again this year. Sure, they could have signed a couple of undrafted free agents to try and solve their woes, but they felt it was a little more of a priority than ... well ... you get the hint.

First, I don't call picking OL in the first and second round "spending the draft" on OL. Second, bully for them for being in a good position to draft those guys. Had Monroe or Smith dropped to us, it would have been an interesting decision for us. What we really had at #13 is that we could have reached for Oher, who is a talent but is a bit raw. We could have traded back, but I know how fans would have reacted to passing on Orakpo.

Looking at their backups, they have one guy who they have drafted (Uche Nwaneri). All the other guys are veterans from other teams. Admittedly, we are pretty young and inexperienced with our backups, but that in itself doesn't make us better or worse than other teams.

[mi6]

Think NOT!

Chris has deteriorated in his play and has a hard time protecting speed rushes.

The Skins did okay when he was injured.

LT is Heyer natural position. He should be groomed accordingly.

[titus3]

There is no PROVEN depth. We have a lot of young guys who haven't done much on an NFL field.

Actually, Batiste started 4 games with the Falcons in 2007 and Montgomery 6 games - 4 with the Panthers in 2006 and 2 with the Jets in 2007. So along with big Mike, 3/5 of our back up linemen have played in regular season games. Hopefully, Rinehart can play some this year for Thomas so that he too can get some game expeirience.

[TSO]

You have to put in your own work around here. It's simple. Look up the best offensive lines in the NFL today, NYG, Philly, Dallas, Mini . . .

Look at the depth chart and see how many 4th+ rounders they have on their bench. The perennial playoff teams will consistently invest draft picks in OL in at least the middle rounds.

At least look at Philly. They lost two starters and they still have depth on the OL.

Or how about Jacksonville? They were decimated by injuries a year ago and basically spent the draft restocking their offensive line to avoid repeating the problem again this year. Sure, they could have signed a couple of undrafted free agents to try and solve their woes, but they felt it was a little more of a priority than ... well ... you get the hint.

I see what you both are saying (except that "You have to put in your own work around here" bit by the first guy, little less false bravado my man, I can ask a question, get over yourself) but you guys act as if spending draft picks automatically equals "good, quality depth". I'm certainly not opposed to spending picks on Olineman... but I'd like them to actually produce. I'd hate it if we threw 3 picks at the Olineman position and none of them worked out. How'd that benefit us?

I asked if those teams you just mentioned have had injuries to starters and just plugged guys in and everything went smoothly, and neither of you answered that. I didn't ask if they spent draft picks on Olineman, or made it a priority. I am specifically asking if they've had the same injury issues we've had and were able to plug guys in like it was nothing.

Well, instead of telling you what I asked, why don't you guys give it a second shot, since, well, I shouldn't have to be doing your work around here?

Who has this so-called "quality depth" on the Oline, really? I am honestly asking that question... does anyone know?

Why do I get the feeling that we've just been really unfortunate the last few years in terms of health on our Oline, and that's the only reason why there is such a heavy focus on our depth there. It's not easy getting quality starting Olineman, let alone depth that you can just plug in. What teams in the NFL do? The Giants, Cowboys ( ), and Pats Olines have been praised left and right the last few years, but both have had great fortune in terms of injuries. I don't think we've seen any of their backups play in forever.

Can anyone tell me which team has been as unfortunate as us in terms of injuries on the Oline and just plugged in a couple of guys and still played as well? Cuz if you can, then it'll go a long way in making me feel a little bit worse about our situation. Right now, I just can't blame our FO that much.

I remember in 07 thinking Buges should be coach of the year the way he handled our Oline. It was an amazing job plugging in guys, and I don't think there was a team in the NFL that could've done it like we did.

I'll wait patiently for the answer since I like others to do my "work" around here, lol.

[budski]

Hard to believe Samuels is still playing while Lavar is on a talk show. To bad we lost Jansen.

[themurf]

I'm certainly not opposed to spending picks on Olineman... but I'd like them to actually produce. I'd hate it if we threw 3 picks at the Olineman position and none of them worked out. How'd that benefit us?

Of couse there's always a chance that the team picks the wrong guy. But I'd still rather roll the dice with a first or second rounder than hoping for the second time in three years that undrafted free agents will work out.

I went back to my Football Outsiders interview and grabbed a quote from Dour Farrar because it goes with my mindset on this topic:

"I’d feel a lot better about this offense if they’d addressed the issues on the offensive line," he said. "We added a new stat to the book this year, and we talk about it in the St. Louis Rams chapter, teams that draft offensive linemen – specifically tackles – totaling 1,200 on the draft value chart, whether it’s one lineman or two combined, have major upswings in offensive DVOA the next year. And it makes sense because you’re increasing your protection.

“Well, Vinny Cerrato has opted not to upgrade that offensive line through the draft, even though it’s cheaper and a more long-term solution,” he said. “You could say he originally drafted Derrick Dockery, and now he’s brought him back, but otherwise, I’d feel a lot better about their chances if they’d done more to add offensive line depth."

[Oldfan]

Of couse there's always a chance that the team picks the wrong guy. But I'd still rather roll the dice with a first or second rounder than hoping for the second time in three years that undrafted free agents will work out.

I went back to my Football Outsiders interview and grabbed a quote from Dour Farrar because it goes with my mindset on this topic:

"I’d feel a lot better about this offense if they’d addressed the issues on the offensive line," he said. "We added a new stat to the book this year, and we talk about it in the St. Louis Rams chapter, teams that draft offensive linemen – specifically tackles – totaling 1,200 on the draft value chart, whether it’s one lineman or two combined, have major upswings in offensive DVOA the next year. And it makes sense because you’re increasing your protection.

“Well, Vinny Cerrato has opted not to upgrade that offensive line through the draft, even though it’s cheaper and a more long-term solution,” he said. “You could say he originally drafted Derrick Dockery, and now he’s brought him back, but otherwise, I’d feel a lot better about their chances if they’d done more to add offensive line depth."

I'll disagree with you and Farrar. The important factor is -- should teams draft with the emphasis on need or on taking the BPA who fits their scheme? You used the Jags as an example of a team doing it right. Before this year's draft, Jack Del Rio promised fans that the Jags would stop drafting for need -- because they have drafted poorly in recent years.

The Skins have drafted well because need is a secondary factor in their selection. The bottom line is that need has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the player being drafted.

[themurf]

I'll disagree with you and Farrar. The important factor is -- should teams draft with the emphasis on need or on taking the BPA who fits their scheme? You used the Jags as an example of a team doing it right. Before this year's draft, Jack Del Rio promised fans that the Jags would stop drafting for need -- because they have drafted poorly in recent years.

The Skins have drafted well because need is a secondary factor in their selection. The bottom line is that need has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the player being drafted.

There's a middle ground that smart teams acknowledge. You can't blindly go for best player available or draft solely for need. You factor it all together and make a smart decision from there. And if it comes down to two players, and one fills a need, hopefully the tie goes into filling the hole in the lineup.

[SonnyJ]

At least look at Philly. They lost two starters and they still have depth on the OL.

HA!!!! It's clear you're talking out of your butt.

Philly is the WORST argument for drafting OL constantly. No one drafts more OL than Philly and, when they finally replaced their two starting Ts, they had to go get two players, at high cost, FROM OTHER TEAMS because the players they had in reserve SUCK!

And you cite Dallas as one of the best OL in the league. Do you even watch football? You do know that they have some old OL, too, right? And that most of their OL are FAs from other teams? And that their reserves SUCK? And, when Romo sits to pee was injured, their OL couldn't keep defenders off of their QBs because Romo sits to pee avoids a bunch of sacks himself?

How about one of the anchors of the Minnesota OL, Steve Hutchinson, was a HUGE $ FA from Seattle?

You and murf are completely full of crap on this. thesubmittedone asked a question (and I've asked it plenty of times myself and only get silence in return) - what teams have great depth on their OL? And just saying it doesn't make it so.

Prove that investing heavily in the draft (at the exclusion of going with a general BPA approach) will naturally lead to a deep and talented OL. The onus is on those that make this claim to prove that this is a sound draft strategy - please cite teams that have done this and have superior starters and depth on the OL. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that hard to do so, should it?

[TSO]

There's a middle ground that smart teams acknowledge. You can't blindly go for best player available or draft solely for need. You factor it all together and make a smart decision from there. And if it comes down to two players, and one fills a need, hopefully the tie goes into filling the hole in the lineup.

We can both agree on this, for sure. I'm never against drafting Olineman... but like you said, there should be a balance. Let's wait and see what kind of Olineman were around at our picks that developed into legitimate starters before we go saying "our FO could've done more" though, you know what I mean?

I'd say losing the 2nd rounder because of the Jason Taylor trade is definitely open for criticism in terms of the FO not doing all they can to set the team up to success, but other than that, I just don't see our depth as much different than any other teams. Let's just hope we don't have the unfortunate situation of injuries to our starters like we have the last couple of years. The last time they all started for an entire season (2006) they were also one of the elite Olines in the league, though it went to waste in a lost season.

[themurf]

You and murf are completely full of crap on this.

Easy there, slugger. I'm simply saying that it would be nice if rebuilding one of the oldest offensive lines in the NFL was more of a priority at Redskins Park. Here's a excerpt from something I did on my website not too long ago using research from the Football Outsiders:

Campbell was fifth in the NFL in QB hits with 47, and tied for third in quarterback knockdowns with 88. In fact, Campbell got knocked down more than 16 percent of the time he dropped back to pass, which was eighth most in the league.

So while it's great to have such depth in the secondary, thanks to using several high draft picks and an occasional free agent signing to reload with so many talented youngsters, it'd be equally as nice to have someone in the front office be a little proactive in getting younger on the offensive line and relying on more than the return of Derrick Dockery, the project that is Mike Williams and a couple of undrafted free agents (like Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer).

If either Chris Samuels, Randy Thomas or any of the other starters goes down for any length of time this season, I'm not very confident in the backups currently on this roster.

I don't care how Philly, Dallas or anyone else sets their draft board. I'm simply concerned with what I (and many others) perceive to be the biggest hole in the 2009 Washington Redskins.

[boofMcboof]

HA!!!! It's clear you're talking out of your butt.

Philly is the WORST argument for drafting OL constantly. No one drafts more OL than Philly and, when they finally replaced their two starting Ts, they had to go get two players, at high cost, FROM OTHER TEAMS because the players they had in reserve SUCK!

And you cite Dallas as one of the best OL in the league. Do you even watch football? You do know that they have some old OL, too, right? And that most of their OL are FAs from other teams? And that their reserves SUCK? And, when Romo sits to pee was injured, their OL couldn't keep defenders off of their QBs because Romo sits to pee avoids a bunch of sacks himself?

How about one of the anchors of the Minnesota OL, Steve Hutchinson, was a HUGE $ FA from Seattle?

You and murf are completely full of crap on this. thesubmittedone asked a question (and I've asked it plenty of times myself and only get silence in return) - what teams have great depth on their OL? And just saying it doesn't make it so.

Prove that investing heavily in the draft (at the exclusion of going with a general BPA approach) will naturally lead to a deep and talented OL. The onus is on those that make this claim to prove that this is a sound draft strategy - please cite teams that have done this and have superior starters and depth on the OL. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that hard to do so, should it?

You must have me confused with another ESer who actually cares if you disagree with me or not. Calling me out only exposes you're own ignorance on the subject.

A team going out and improving their team by getting additional starters through trades and free agency has nothing to do with the strategy of continually addressing your offensive line through the draft. There are no guarantees when it comes to drafting. Not every picks reaches their potential but over the long haul you're still collecting talent. That talent reaches the bench and if you can't come to the general conclusion that higher drafted picks end up more successful than lower drafted picks then you should stop reading right now.

You don't like Philly or Dallas as examples of perennial playoff teams, look at New England and Baltimore and count how many 4th+ rounders they have manning their bench. By my count, most good teams have 2 4th+ rounders filling their bench.

[SonnyJ]

I don't care how Philly, Dallas or anyone else sets their draft board. I'm simply concerned with what I (and many others) perceive to be the biggest hole in the 2009 Washington Redskins.

I don't disagree that I wouldn't like to see more depth - I'm quite concerned if one of the Ts goes down. I'm not convinced there is any player on the roster that can just step in at RT and the team would be OK (I'm presuming Heyer would move to LT if Samuels goes down).

I just dispute the notion that there are teams out there that are in a much better situation depth-wise than the Redskins. If any team loses a top-notch LT like Samuels - they will be hurting. No team is well-equipped to deal with that. It will effect how their offense is run.

Didn't mean to jump on you. I just get tired of the constant moaning about the OL depth w/o any regard to what is really a league-wide issue.

[SonnyJ]

A team going out and improving their team by getting additional starters through trades and free agency has nothing to do with the strategy of continually addressing your offensive line through the draft.

Oh, please. It has everything to do with it. It shows that just drafting OL for the sake of drafting them doesn't necessarily help the situation. Furthermore, it speaks directly to your statement that implied that the Eagles were able to let their starting tackles go and just replenish from their own depth - which is blatantly false. They replenished at a substantial cost from outside their own organization.

You don't like Philly or Dallas as examples of perennial playoff teams, look at New England and Baltimore and count how many 4th+ rounders they have manning their bench. By my count, most good teams have 2 4th+ rounders filling their bench.

Well, the Redskins have one, so, if they draft another one next year, will that make you happy?

Please list these teams that have high OL draft picks on the bench and that you KNOW can actually play. It must be easy to do, right? BTW, you do know that the Patriots gave up almost 50 sacks last season, right?

[TSO]

I don't disagree that I wouldn't like to see more depth - I'm quite concerned if one of the Ts goes down. I'm not convinced there is any player on the roster that can just step in at RT and the team would be OK (I'm presuming Heyer would move to LT if Samuels goes down).

I just dispute the notion that there are teams out there that are in a much better situation depth-wise than the Redskins. If any team loses a top-notch LT like Samuels - they will be hurting. No team is well-equipped to deal with that. It will effect how their offense is run.

Didn't mean to jump on you. I just get tired of the constant moaning about the OL depth w/o any regard to what is really a league-wide issue.

That, right there, sums up exactly how I feel.

[Oldfan]

There's a middle ground that smart teams acknowledge. You can't blindly go for best player available or draft solely for need. You factor it all together and make a smart decision from there. And if it comes down to two players, and one fills a need, hopefully the tie goes into filling the hole in the lineup.

That's why I used the word "emphasis" which denotes giving BPA more weight than need. It seems to me that in order to criticize the Skins for not drafting an O-linemen, you need to either show that drafting with the emphasis on need is smart, or show that the FO passed up a player who was as good as, or at least close to being as good as, the player they drafted when they made their selection. I don't see how you could make either case persuasively.

[themurf]

That's why I used the word "emphasis" which denotes giving BPA more weight than need. It seems to me that in order to criticize the Skins for not drafting an O-linemen, you need to either show that drafting with the emphasis on need is smart, or show that the FO passed up a player who was as good as, or at least close to being as good as, the player they drafted when they made their selection. I don't see how you could make either case persuasively.

I see where you're coming from. But I'm pretty sure I'd laid out my case by using our secondary as an example.

Carlos Rogers and LaRon Landry are first rounders. Fred Smoot and DeAngelo Hall are free agents that earned a nice payday. Justin Tryon and Kevin Barnes are high draft picks. Chris Horton is a late-round steal. But look at the commitment it took, whether in draft picks or via free agency, to stockpile the amount of young players the team now has in the secondary. That doesn't even factor in the Sean Taylor tragedy.

If half of the emphasis that is clearly placed upon the secondary was on the offensive line, I'd feel a lot better about this team heading into the season. Derrick Dockery and Stephon Heyer over Pete Kendall and Jon Jansen is a start.

The front office just needs to remember that offensive linemen might not be as flashy as a cornerback, but they're just as important on gameday.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Of couse there's always a chance that the team picks the wrong guy. But I'd still rather roll the dice with a first or second rounder than hoping for the second time in three years that undrafted free agents will work out.

I went back to my Football Outsiders interview and grabbed a quote from Dour Farrar because it goes with my mindset on this topic:

"I’d feel a lot better about this offense if they’d addressed the issues on the offensive line," he said. "We added a new stat to the book this year, and we talk about it in the St. Louis Rams chapter, teams that draft offensive linemen – specifically tackles – totaling 1,200 on the draft value chart, whether it’s one lineman or two combined, have major upswings in offensive DVOA the next year. And it makes sense because you’re increasing your protection.

“Well, Vinny Cerrato has opted not to upgrade that offensive line through the draft, even though it’s cheaper and a more long-term solution,” he said. “You could say he originally drafted Derrick Dockery, and now he’s brought him back, but otherwise, I’d feel a lot better about their chances if they’d done more to add offensive line depth."

Taking Mr Murphy's point on here, since the 2000 draft, when we ironically drafted the aforementioned Samuels 3rd overall, making him the last first or second round O-Line pick this organization has taken, all but 5 of the other 31 teams, (Bills, Chiefs, Giants, Rams and Titans), have taken two or more offensive linemen in the first two rounds in that time, with half the league taking 3 or more.

To use a small microcosm of that period, and look directly at our divisional rivals, the Eagles and Cowboys have drafted 3, with the Giants 1; to the following success:

Dallas:

2002. Rnd. 2. C. Andre Gurode- Current starter.

2003. Rnd. 2. C/G. Al Johnson- Starter 2 of 3 years until injured.

2004. Rnd. 2. T. Jacob Rogers- Re-injured existing injury pre-season, never played leading to injury retirement. Was a projected first round pick.

Giants:

2004. Rnd. 2. T. Chris Snee- Starter for the last 75 straight games.

Philadelphia:

2000. Rnd. 2. G. Bobbie Williams- Starter for the Bengals the past 5 years.

2004. Rnd. 1. G/T. Shawn Andrews- Starter since being drafted.

2006. Rnd. 2. T. Winston Justice- Current back-up to Andrews.

And all the above doesn't include this year's draft class, nor third round picks where we don't fair much better alongside the rest of the league.

Bottom line, if you don't buy a ticket, you don't get to take part.

And when it comes to the offensive line, we've bought VERY few high end tickets for WAY too many years now, limiting our chances severely in finding either starting quality players from the get go, or quality depth to eventually takeover down the line.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

The front office just needs to remember that offensive linemen might not be as flashy as a cornerback, but they're just as important on gameday.

Let's give the O-line problem a little history. When Gibbs returned, the O-line was the the team's strongest unit. Joe said so.

Between 2004 and 2006, the FO traded up in the draft and traded picks for vets leaving us short of picks, especially in rounds three and four. Some part of the team had to be neglected in the draft. While the O-line was neglected in the draft, it wasn't neglected in free agency and trades.

The O-line didn't just begin degrading when Vinny took over after Joe left. The problem traces back to Gibbs and trading away too many picks.

Vinny has us on the right track by drafting the BPA, but the draft isn't Home Depot. He can't make a shopping list and expect to go in and fill his order.

Replacing Campbell wasn't a top priority, but QBs like Jay Cutler don't often become available. That's what it's all about as I see it. It's not about prioritizing and filling needs. It's about recognizing and seizing opportunities to improve your team as they present themselves. Orakpo had to be taken over Oher because he graded out as a much better NFL prospect.

[boofMcboof]

Oh, please. It has everything to do with it. It shows that just drafting OL for the sake of drafting them doesn't necessarily help the situation.

Furthermore, it speaks directly to your statement that implied that the Eagles were able to let their starting tackles go and just replenish from their own depth - which is blatantly false. They replenished at a substantial cost from outside their own organization.

There are no guarantees when it comes to drafting. Not every pick pans out but over the long haul that talent trickles down to the bench. If nothing else a 4th rounder will in most cases be the better athlete over a 7th rounder, able to play in spots. If the FO wants someone better than what they already have then more power to them.

Well, the Redskins have one, so, if they draft another one next year, will that make you happy?

Constantly addressing the offensive line is a long term priority. Replenishing the bench with youth and talent is important especially when you're dealing with a unit that puts five guys on the field at a time.

Please list these teams that have high OL draft picks on the bench and that you KNOW can actually play. It must be easy to do, right? BTW, you do know that the Patriots gave up almost 50 sacks last season, right?

By the way, you do know that the Patriots have been going to the playoffs for a number of years right? Why would I concentrate on one year when we are talking a long term approach to addressing the offensive line.

Here are some of the past SuperBowl winners:

Pittsburgh

New York Giants

Indianapolis Colts

New England Patriots

Baltimore Ravens

Go through the last ten years and how many OL they drafted with a 4th rounder or higher. It comes out to about one lineman every other year that is at least a mid-pick. With Pittsburgh, they go almost every year drafting OL. If a team strikes gold with a 5th rounder or lower, even better. Then look at the 'Skins draft history. Does it register?