Scout's Take on Tackles

[DiscoBob]

As long as we are considered a contender to take a QB in the draft, there will be a risk that someone will trade up. That's particularly true since Detroit has made it clear that they will listen to offers.

True....BUT.....if both Bradford and Clausen are off the board before we pick, then we should be getting some pretty good trade down offers with 2 of these 3 on the board: Suh, McCoy, Okung...

Trading down is OK by me, but probably would not have been an option at #1 because of money, and the perceived value of the #1 pick....

[Ghost of]

Big Ben (Roethlisberger) gets hit like that 20 times a week.

To hear some tell it, you can't be a good QB (and throw for a game-winning score after scorching a D for 500 yards) if this happens. It just CANNOT be overcome! (they say)

[Conn]

It's Vinny Cerrato.

That's impossible!! This guy knows how to scout OL!

[gorebd82]

That last statement although would really help...not so sure its that simple. We really need a RT, C, RG, LT if not day 1 starters good depth. Thats just on one side of the ball. We could use CB help, FS, and a Linebacker especially if we go to a 3-4 which sounds like we are. However, I am waiting to see how Clausen does in his pro day but I like him as our QB if Shanahan does.

I understand that people feel we need some depth as insurance on defense, but our defense has plenty of talent. We need better CB play, but we've invested at that position through the draft and brought in Buchanon. Same thing with safety. I'd like to see Landry at SS, but both he and Moore can play that spot. We could improve our LB situation, but Carter, Orakpo, Wilson, Jarmon, Gatewood are a nice mix for now. We can always get mid round picks, UDFAs, vet FAs, and hopefully, Haslett has some UFL gems.

While depth can be improved, the only areas on our team in need of drastic upgrade is at QB and on the offensive line. While everyone would like upgrades, our interior line is solid and has some options. Dockery, Rabach, and Hicks would be solid, not spectacular. We also have guys that have been developing and vets that can compete in Rinehart, Litchensteiger, BMW, Edwin Williams, and Will Montgomery. These guys didn't necessarily look great last year, but there's something to be said for the experience of being thrown in the fire plus an overall improved, more professional and competent coaching staff.

That just really leaves QB and OT. Heyer is young and has lots of starting experience. He has physical talent, but struggles with technique. Maybe a new coaching staff and system can help him become what caught Bugel's eye in the first place. Hicks can play tackle. I'm hoping we lot at Flozell Adams, re-signing Levi and the possibility of a trade for Gaither.

This is all before using a single draft pick. I think there's room for improvement, but that will come through competition and investment over time. I don't think we have any major holes (except OT) right now and have the talent to be competitive with this current level of coaching.

So my point is that we should look to use our top two picks to upgrade in the most under-performing areas. And those are QB and LT. The two most important positions on the offense are our two most worst producing areas. Of those two, QB performance translates most to team success. It is the most important position on the team and we need to take advantage of the opportunity to grab an elite prospect.

If we grab two offensive linemen, yes that will help our team more next season. But we have to consider the long-term success of our team and nothing will benefit that more than getting a blue chip QB. I have great faith in Mike and Kyle Shanahan. I feel they could turn Clausen or even Colt McCoy in to a great QB a la Jake Plummer (Broncos Pro Bowl years) and Matt Schaub. But giving those guys a prospect like Bradford, they can mold an Elway, Steve Young type that can catapult us to an upper-echelon club again.

Getting upgrades at LG, C, RG, and RT are very, very important to me, but not so important that its worth sacrificing the opportunity to get a stud QB. I don't think that Bradford would necessarily be an elite QB for the Rams, but with our coaches and our systems, I think he can be molded into a Hall of Famer.

[J-bomb]

I understand that people feel we need some depth as insurance on defense, but our defense has plenty of talent. We need better CB play, but we've invested at that position through the draft and brought in Buchanon. Same thing with safety. I'd like to see Landry at SS, but both he and Moore can play that spot. We could improve our LB situation, but Carter, Orakpo, Wilson, Jarmon, Gatewood are a nice mix for now. We can always get mid round picks, UDFAs, vet FAs, and hopefully, Haslett has some UFL gems.

While depth can be improved, the only areas on our team in need of drastic upgrade is at QB and on the offensive line. While everyone would like upgrades, our interior line is solid and has some options. Dockery, Rabach, and Hicks would be solid, not spectacular. We also have guys that have been developing and vets that can compete in Rinehart, Litchensteiger, BMW, Edwin Williams, and Will Montgomery. These guys didn't necessarily look great last year, but there's something to be said for the experience of being thrown in the fire plus an overall improved, more professional and competent coaching staff.

That just really leaves QB and OT. Heyer is young and has lots of starting experience. He has physical talent, but struggles with technique. Maybe a new coaching staff and system can help him become what caught Bugel's eye in the first place. Hicks can play tackle. I'm hoping we lot at Flozell Adams, re-signing Levi and the possibility of a trade for Gaither.

This is all before using a single draft pick. I think there's room for improvement, but that will come through competition and investment over time. I don't think we have any major holes (except OT) right now and have the talent to be competitive with this current level of coaching.

So my point is that we should look to use our top two picks to upgrade in the most under-performing areas. And those are QB and LT. The two most important positions on the offense are our two most worst producing areas. Of those two, QB performance translates most to team success. It is the most important position on the team and we need to take advantage of the opportunity to grab an elite prospect.

If we grab two offensive linemen, yes that will help our team more next season. But we have to consider the long-term success of our team and nothing will benefit that more than getting a blue chip QB. I have great faith in Mike and Kyle Shanahan. I feel they could turn Clausen or even Colt McCoy in to a great QB a la Jake Plummer (Broncos Pro Bowl years) and Matt Schaub. But giving those guys a prospect like Bradford, they can mold an Elway, Steve Young type that can catapult us to an upper-echelon club again.

Getting upgrades at LG, C, RG, and RT are very, very important to me, but not so important that its worth sacrificing the opportunity to get a stud QB. I don't think that Bradford would necessarily be an elite QB for the Rams, but with our coaches and our systems, I think he can be molded into a Hall of Famer.

I agree with everything except your QB choice, clausen is the next Elway mold you should have said but other than that good points.

[The Rook]

The part that always peeves me is that they refer to Samuels in this way, including on this board and always invoke the holy trinity of Jones, Ogden and Pace.

The problem is, Samuels had a better career and was a better player than Orlando Pace. But nevermind actual facts, let's continue on with these assumptions built on one or two actual years of being possibly somewhat true.

TRUTH!

When I think about the posts I read on ES that called him "over-rated" ... :redpunch:

:helmet:The Rook

[gorebd82]

I agree with everything except your QB choice, clausen is the next Elway mold you should have said but other than that good points.

That's cool. To each his own, I'm really big on Sam and want to trade up to get him. That said, if we take Clausen at #4 I will be happy because of his pro-style experience, tutelage from Weis, and stamp of approval from the Shanny boys. I just think Bradford has a much higher ceiling, but Clausen is safer.

[gatorskin77]

I only have one question as I'm reading this...who is this scout? Do we have any idea?

But anyways...That blurb on Clausen that HailNatSkins just posted kind of brings me closer to his side in the Bradford vs. Clausen debate...I need to go find some games to download and watch. I don't want to just see his highlights, I want to see how this kid played on a team that overall didn't win all the time, with no defense and apparently no line. I am definitely prepared to open my eyes more on this, though.

I can't stand Notre Dame so I pretty much never watched Clausen and didn't like him at all. After reading a lot of stuff on him I decided to spend my day off yesturday watching him and I couldn't have been more impressed.

I watched a bunch of interviews, highlights and downloaded 4 full games from pirate bay. If you have the time I would deffinately recomend checking it out.

I was a Clausen hater until about a week ago now he's probably my top choice in the draft.

[MrJL]

Interesting take on Chris Samuels as well seeing as how he was a multi year Pro Bowler.

He was in several but not really a bunch consecutively.

[mi6]

Samuels got to more than a few pro bowls on rep alone. the reality is that he was a solid to good player not an elite player. guys like pre injury boselli, Pace, ogden, walt jones are premier Lts guys like samuels and mckinnie are the next step down, good but not amazing.

Agreed. The best darn LT the Skins had was an ex-Raider, Jim Lachey.

Chris is not in the same league.

[Ryman of the North]

The part that always peeves me is that they refer to Samuels in this way, including on this board and always invoke the holy trinity of Jones, Ogden and Pace.

The problem is, Samuels had a better career and was a better player than Orlando Pace. But nevermind actual facts, let's continue on with these assumptions built on one or two actual years of being possibly somewhat true.

No he didn't, Pace was bigger, stronger and had better feet than Samuels, Samuels always had issues with speed rushers while Pace until very recently was easily a HOF OT, Samuels was at the very least a step below him.

Samuels really only had a couple elite seasons and those were early on in his career, after his first major leg injury in his third season he was overrated and lost a lot of agility, he was still pretty good and better than anyone else we had but he was no longer an elite LT. if he was then Steve spurriers system would have worked but with JJ we had a pretty poor set of pass protecting tackles.

[Ryman of the North]

Agreed. The best darn LT the Skins had was an ex-Raider, Jim Lachey.

Chris is not in the same league.

exactly, Lachey was one of the first ELITE Lt's to play in the game let alone the skins, and he was the best LT the skins have ever had, if not for a shoulder injury he would have been among the all time best Lts.

[bulldog]

I think the more salient thing to take away from the discussion is that the Redskins have had some of the best LTs of their generations over the past 25-30 years.

The position is that important and so I really don't see any quandry here - you take Okung at #4 if he is available and don't even look back

[gatorskin77]

No he didn't, Pace was bigger, stronger and had better feet than Samuels, Samuels always had issues with speed rushers while Pace until very recently was easily a HOF OT, Samuels was at the very least a step below him.

Samuels really only had a couple elite seasons and those were early on in his career, after his first major leg injury in his third season he was overrated and lost a lot of agility, he was still pretty good and better than anyone else we had but he was no longer an elite LT. if he was then Steve spurriers system would have worked but with JJ we had a pretty poor set of pass protecting tackles.

I pretty much agree with everything you said except the part about spurrier's system would have worked, I think you might have gotten a little carried away there.

[Ryman of the North]

I pretty much agree with everything you said except the part about spurrier's system would have worked, I think you might have gotten a little carried away there.

LOL maybe, but the key to SS system is outnumbering coverage guys, we simply couldnt do that as both of our tackles at the time had issues with speed rushers and teams could just hammer us outside. for his system to work you would need a superlative Oline, he gets away with it in college because most college defences dont have the man power to beat a strong Oline, in the NFL you would need a probowler at every spot and thats not realistic anymore.

[Veretax]

If both Clausen and Bradford are off the board, there isn't another QB even in the Top ten, but if they are both gone, EIther Suh, McCoy, or Okung will be there, and if you don't like DTs you can take Buluga at that point. We can't control people trading up and sniping us. IF we can get a trade down offer at any point I don't think its a problem.

So my point is that we should look to use our top two picks to upgrade in the most under-performing areas. And those are QB and LT. The two most important positions on the offense are our two most worst producing areas. Of those two, QB performance translates most to team success. It is the most important position on the team and we need to take advantage of the opportunity to grab an elite prospect.

If we grab two offensive linemen, yes that will help our team more next season. But we have to consider the long-term success of our team and nothing will benefit that more than getting a blue chip QB. I have great faith in Mike and Kyle Shanahan. I feel they could turn Clausen or even Colt McCoy in to a great QB a la Jake Plummer (Broncos Pro Bowl years) and Matt Schaub. But giving those guys a prospect like Bradford, they can mold an Elway, Steve Young type that can catapult us to an upper-echelon club again.

This is my feeling. a LT pick skipping Bradford or Clausen is a short term fix and makes me worried for the next three years.

[fansince62]

This is my feeling. a LT pick skipping Bradford or Clausen is a short term fix and makes me worried for the next three years.

not sure abt clausen...but agree with the long-run pov.

[Laxpunk2006]

The part that always peeves me is that they refer to Samuels in this way, including on this board and always invoke the holy trinity of Jones, Ogden and Pace.

The problem is, Samuels had a better career and was a better player than Orlando Pace. But nevermind actual facts, let's continue on with these assumptions built on one or two actual years of being possibly somewhat true.

What actual facts do you have that Samuels was better than Pace? Pace has dropped off recently but in his prime he was the better tackle. Is there some sort of stat you have to prove Samuels better or is it just from observing/opinion?

[Ghost of]

Pace was bigger, stronger and had better feet than Samuels, Samuels always had issues with speed rushers while Pace until very recently was easily a HOF OT, Samuels was at the very least a step below him.

Samuels really only had a couple elite seasons and those were early on in his career, after his first major leg injury in his third season he was overrated and lost a lot of agility, he was still pretty good and better than anyone else we had but he was no longer an elite LT. if he was then Steve spurriers system would have worked but with JJ we had a pretty poor set of pass protecting tackles.

Spurrier's system's problem was Kim Helton, as ASF chronicled when it was happening. Not sure how we would have been OK with Spurrier's system, do you remember those years at all? It's Spurrier and Helton that basically changed the way people looked at Jansen and Samuels in the first place.

We had two excellent Ts who were looking worse than they had before Spurrier became coach and not merely due to being put solo against a DE. Early in his career, Jansen was known as a Strahan-stopper.

I know Pace came into the league just a bit before Samuels but I think you seriously overrate him. I still remember in HIS PRIME Pace giving up THREE game-changing sacks to an ancient Bruce Smith in 2000. I know Bruce was HoF and I know Chris struggled against Hugh Douglass early in his career, but that was mainly due to leverage (Hugh was like 6-0 or 6-1) and the combo of speed and power, not being beat so much around the edge.

As for injuries and you speak of Pace "until very recently." Why don't you check out pro football reference or look at some online articles. Pace hasn't been Pace any longer than Samuels was Samuels. Pace has been hurt for many years now and hasn't been at HoF level but for a couple of years himself.

Whether Pace had certain attributes that Samuels didn't isn't really the question--production. Samuels, if I'm not mistaken was rated more highly in the run game as well in recent years, by Joyner's metrics (I think he was #1 or 2 in that category.)

No, you're wrong. I'm not backing down on that one. In any given year, there is a lot of subjectivity but as a whole, Samuels actually had the better career, I think. I'm not going to blame him or Jansen for the disastrous Helton interlude.

Pace had a complete season in 2008 but he was awful (which is why he was allowed to leave for Chicago where he was benched) Before 2008, Pace's last complete season was in 2005. I suppose since he came in in 97 (I was thinking 98 actually) that it does give him some extra time but he hasn't been good SINCE 2005 (at best) and even by then he was being overrated.

If Samuels is overrated, most of what I remember keeping my finger on the pulse of such things as I am able is that Pace was very much overrated as well for several years and gave up sacks quite easily and to different types of rushers.

[Ghost of]

What actual facts do you have that Samuels was better than Pace? Pace has dropped off recently but in his prime he was the better tackle. Is there some sort of stat you have to prove Samuels better or is it just from observing/opinion?

I cite some things in my last post. SOme of it is observation. I don't know, aside from injury, if I've ever seen Samuels (I have seen Brunell run backwards causing a sack that was blamed on Chris in a game) get his ass handed to him when healthy like Pace was in that 2000 MNF game vs. Bruce Smith and the mighty Skins D (that's sarcasm.) Though other performances are less distinct in my mind, I've seen Pace struggle.

Samuels missed last season mainly but for the time he was out there, he's been better since 2005. That's quite a long time don't you think? I mean, really. Since 2005. That's many seasons now. Some people need to get over their Pace love. Some of it was his health, I know. But I disagree and just stored my impressions of what I remember various observers were saying and what I saw when I watched games.

Samuels really had a lot of people attributing some very awful QB play to him. Though people may criticize Jason, he does not run backwards for the msot part. Whereas Mark Brunell literally created multiple sacks and pressures that got blamed on him not using the pocket by running backwards.

I remember this because on the board we had people blaming Chris, when I tried to explain the basics of how a QB was dropping back and that Chris did not display the physical movements and panic of one who had been beaten because he HAD his man, but was being blamed because his man no longer had to go AROUND him but just straight into Brunell. Do a search history and i bet you'll find posts by me on the subject of how guys like our Ts in particular were getting blamed for poor play---even in 2005, occasionally.

What metrics do you have to support the idea that Pace was some kind of sure-fire HoF? Leave aside the idea that the Rams actually had superior offensive talent and thus everyone then just starts assuming they have better talent everywhere.

It is true Chris got to a Pro Bowl or two I think during the Spurrier years, which was likely not deserved but he deserved them aside from that (I think he may have missed one in a year he deserved it.) It's not as if guys like Pace, Ogden and Jones didn't get an extra PB on reputation since they all declined precipitously JUST as they had established their rep for being HoF caliber. I don't really see any distinction between how it went down for them and Samuels.

[mhearn]

just makes me wish we could snag another 2nd or two 3rd round picks even more.

[Ryman of the North]

Spurrier's system's problem was Kim Helton, as ASF chronicled when it was happening. Not sure how we would have been OK with Spurrier's system, do you remember those years at all? It's Spurrier and Helton that basically changed the way people looked at Jansen and Samuels in the first place.

We had two excellent Ts who were looking worse than they had before Spurrier became coach and not merely due to being put solo against a DE. Early in his career, Jansen was known as a Strahan-stopper.

I know Pace came into the league just a bit before Samuels but I think you seriously overrate him. I still remember in HIS PRIME Pace giving up THREE game-changing sacks to an ancient Bruce Smith in 2000. I know Bruce was HoF and I know Chris struggled against Hugh Douglass early in his career, but that was mainly due to leverage (Hugh was like 6-0 or 6-1) and the combo of speed and power, not being beat so much around the edge.

As for injuries and you speak of Pace "until very recently." Why don't you check out pro football reference or look at some online articles. Pace hasn't been Pace any longer than Samuels was Samuels. Pace has been hurt for many years now and hasn't been at HoF level but for a couple of years himself.

Whether Pace had certain attributes that Samuels didn't isn't really the question--production. Samuels, if I'm not mistaken was rated more highly in the run game as well in recent years, by Joyner's metrics (I think he was #1 or 2 in that category.)

No, you're wrong. I'm not backing down on that one. In any given year, there is a lot of subjectivity but as a whole, Samuels actually had the better career, I think. I'm not going to blame him or Jansen for the disastrous Helton interlude.

Pace had a complete season in 2008 but he was awful (which is why he was allowed to leave for Chicago where he was benched) Before 2008, Pace's last complete season was in 2005. I suppose since he came in in 97 (I was thinking 98 actually) that it does give him some extra time but he hasn't been good SINCE 2005 (at best) and even by then he was being overrated.

If Samuels is overrated, most of what I remember keeping my finger on the pulse of such things as I am able is that Pace was very much overrated as well for several years and gave up sacks quite easily and to different types of rushers.

1- I dont think that was his only problem but I agree that helton wasnt very good. It did expose the fact that neither of our tackles were elite pass protectors any more, both were actually better run blockers but samuels was at least competant at pass pro.

2-Jansen had great games against Strahan but his problem was always pass pro, he always gave up far too much ground in pass pro and if you do a search you will find an argument between me and Art about it. I stated our Oline was vastly overrated and Art disagreed. Pace was a player who made his qbs better, other than Bruce smith I cant think of anyone who could say they owned him, his years with the greatest show on turf were prettty damn good, when was the last time we actually had a qb able to throw deep? you blame brunell but ffs Brunell threw short because he had to, we never gave him time to throw deep.

3- Samuels had 1 superlative season (I think it was his second) he then injured his leg and suddenly was having serious issues with speed and technique guys. He was still solid but not anywhere near how some of you seem to remember him.

4- Hmm I think a guy getting beaten by a HOF player who ended up being one of the best pass rushers of all time vs a guy getting beat by a guy who had a couple decent years pretty much makes my point. PACE was a linchpin on some of the greatest offences of all time, the skins O has struggled for a decade. You do the math.

[bobisimo]

I have no idea if Clausen is worth the #4 pick...

Value is an overrated term when it comes to the NFL draft. Yes, there's "value" as a concept in regard to getting the best player/cost ratio, but the more important definition of "value" is getting the player you really want before another team.

Maybe someone could look at Clausen and say that he "shouldn't" go higher than 15, and maybe close to the bottom of the first round -- but the truth is he will not drop out of the top 10. Hopefully, he doesn't slip past #4 to us.

So while one might argue that we should be able to trade down 20 spots and still get Clausen (in terms of value) that ain't reality. And one might be able to argue that if all positions are equal, we shouldn't reach for a guy -- but again, that ain't reality.

I really enjoyed the article. I love reading coverage from NFL insiders -- actual scouts and so on, not reporters -- about prospects. Even if there could be some subterfuge at play, and even though there's likely a world of difference regarding opinions between individual scouts and coaches, I feel like I learn so much more about these guys coming out of college. I'm glad these guys risk their careers, to an extent, to get the info out to the fans.

[MartinC]

Value is an overrated term when it comes to the NFL draft. Yes, there's "value" as a concept in regard to getting the best player/cost ratio, but the more important definition of "value" is getting the player you really want before another team.

I should have been clearer in my post.

I agree with your point 100% - my reference to not being sure if Clausen was 'worth the #4 pick' was in relation to Clausens value to us and Shanny's opinion as to if he is or is not a potential franchise QB and his fit for his offense.

If Shanny thinks he is a fit then his value to us shoots up and he becomes a legit contender (maybe even a lock) for the #4 pick.

None of us know how Shanny really rates Clausen nor has any real idea ourselves as to how good he is or could be. That was why I was saying I am not sure if he is worth the #4 pick.

[bobisimo]

None of us know how Shanny really rates Clausen nor has any real idea ourselves as to how good he is or could be. That was why I was saying I am not sure if he is worth the #4 pick.

Ah, I gotcha! And yeah, that makes sense. I'm just so used to hearing the draftniks saying that a guy isn't a good value at a specific pick. They'll say that "Clausen is good at 15 but not 4, so don't reach. If you can't get Clausen at 15, then you take someone else." And while, logically speaking, they're right -- the truth is that if you need a QB, I'd think you'd rather get a blue-chip QB 10 picks too soon then a late-round project a round later than he was expected to go. In other words, I'd rather reach for a star than feel like I got a steal in the 6th.

So yeah, I completely agree with you, too. If Kyle and Mike like Sam or Jimmy or Colt or whoever best, and think they can have the most success with that guy over anyone else available or who might be available to them in the next year or two, then they need to make it happen. Personally, I'm still more in favor of getting a guy like Clausen at 4 over trading up to get Sam at 1 -- but again, like you said, whatever tools they need to get the team winning.