What to do with LG

[Veryoldschool]

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

You keep saying this but you have no answer to what you would do differently than just saying draft guard. I laid out the options of who was available for then in each of the 1st 3 rds both with and without the trade.  You be the GM with reality not just in a vacuum saying draft G.  So I ask again now that you say you can do better tell us exactly what you would have differently.  Name the player and draft position.   

 

Are suggesting there were no interior linemen available in the 2018 draft?  They choose to draft a DT, a RB and an OT with picks 1-3, I hope they all work out but there were a lot interior linemen that the Skins could have drafted instead:

 

1st Round:

 

20  Detroit  Frank Ragnow Center

 

2nd Round

 

1  Cleveland  Austin Corbett G

2  Will Hernandez  G

5  Indianapolis Braden Smith G

7  Chicago  James Daniels  OL

18  Dallas  Connor Williams  G

 

3rd  Round

 

16  Houston Martinas Rankin G

30  Tampa Bay  Alex Cappa  G

33  Arizona Mason Cole Center

 

There were lots of interior linemen available and the Skins chose to draft a DT, RB and OT instead.  Don't tell me there weren't guards and centers available.  The Skins "brain trust" must believe the center of the Skins line that is consistently stoned by defenses in the red zone is good enough and now two of their good enough guards are down.

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Are suggesting there were no interior linemen available in the 2018 draft?  They choose to draft a DT, a RB and an OT with picks 1-3, I hope they all work out but there were a lot interior linemen that the Skins could have drafted instead:

 

1st Round:

 

20  Detroit  Frank Ragnow Center

 

2nd Round

 

1  Cleveland  Austin Corbett G

2  Will Hernandez  G

5  Indianapolis Braden Smith G

7  Chicago  James Daniels  OL

18  Dallas  Connor Williams  G

 

3rd  Round

 

16  Houston Martinas Rankin G

30  Tampa Bay  Alex Cappa  G

33  Arizona Mason Cole Center

 

There were lots of interior linemen available and the Skins chose to draft a DT, RB and OT instead.  Don't tell me there weren't guards and centers available.  The Skins "brain trust" must believe the center of the Skins line that is consistently stoned by defenses in the red zone is good enough and now two of their good enough guards are down.

 

I do appreciate the response but I think you are still missing the point. Of course there were Gs in the draft. However, the way the draft went, they would have had to either really reach or do without one of the more critical positions. It also ignores that there are 31 other teams picking .So you don't just get to pick anyone you want. 

 

Here is the information from before - this highlights the actual options at G during the draft. It addresses the guys you highlighted above. 

 

Again you be th GM and say exactly who you would have taken and what round based on how the draft went. In short summary: 

 

You had to really reach for a G at 13 since Nelson was already gone or you had to trade some of your picks with already being down a 3rd rd from the Alex trade. The specifics are below. Are we really taking Alex Cappa? A guy from Humbolt State who has never seen any quality competition and won mostly with better athleticism. If you do that you lose Guice and Christian - for LG? Seems a steep price. 

 

You have Ragnow listed - he was clearly the best C i nth draft. Why move him to G? You are better off taking a OT and moving him. Bu there just was not much talent at Oline in the draft. 

 

Full disclosure - I believe they should have been active in free agency at G. So I do believe they could have and should have done more - just not in the draft. Too many things had to work out for you to get anyone of value. And if I knew that, they had to know that. 
 

So my thoughts are they think they have a LG in house. Or they decided that if there is a position you going into the season light at, G is probably the least dangerous. Again, I would have been more active in fee agency. I wonder if the Hankins thing had not dragged out they wouldn't have been more active for G. 

 

Anyway, I am asking again - which player at what draft position are you taking? And at what cost? It's my belief that there were just not many realistic options with how the draft unfolded. You either really reach losing the extra draft pick and quality somewhere else, or you use valuable resources to move up to get someone of quality. 

 

 

Here are the options based on the actual draft for reference. What is GM Oldschool doing? What round and who staying within the confines of how the draft unfolded in front of each of the picks. It's off season - have some fun with it. I mean that. Should lead to a good discussion. 

 

You could have gone G at #13 - Nelson was off the board. My next highest G was Hernandez even though Corbett went just before him. Both went in the top of the 2nd rd. So, assuming no trades as it takes two to tango - are you taking someone like Hernandez at 13? With talent like James, Tremaine Edmunds, Jaire Alexander - to reach for G?

 

Let's move to #44. We could try to trade up. But without a 3rd already, what do we have to offer? Along with switching places in the 2nd, to move to say 35 or 36 (although I think those Gs taken after Hernandez were taken too high, but that's just me) you lose at least the 4th (#109) and your 5th (#163). Draft chart shows #35 worth 550, #44 worth 460, #109 worth 76, #163 worth 25.8 - so 550 vs 561.8 - not likely as the person trading down is going to want more value. But it's make believe so let's assume it can be done. 

 

Or you can pick at #44. The next G after the ones taken before 44 was Alex Cappa from Humbolt State. Nice potential but never played good quality opponents, plays a bit clumsy and typically won with strength. BTW: He is 6' 6". the big complaint about Ty or Christain not playing G. Not saying he can't be coached but clearly a project. You want that at 44? He was taken at 94 BTW. Anyone else is a converted T and there were not that many talented Ts I would have wanted to use the pick on anyway. And if you do that you don't get Guice or the 3rd pick we picked up. 

 

Or you trade down at #44. Let's say we get the same trade. So are you taking Cappa at 59 instead of Guice?  That's still 35 spots early for a project over a RB that has the potential of being transformational. Do you take Cappa at 74 instead of Christian? Christian is clearly the better athlete and has much more potential. Also, you have all 3 of your tackles were injured last year. I would rather limp at G than T any day.  

 

You be the GM. What would you do and when and why? I mean that as an honest question. It's the off-season and time to pontificate. Have some fun. What would you have done differently? 

 

 

Last but not least. Perine and Guice are not in the same stratosphere by any stretch of the imagination. Perine was a 4th rd back that we all hoped would be our Kamara. Guice is crazy more talented than Perine. It's really night and day. 

[Veryoldschool]

58 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I do appreciate the response but I think you are still missing the point. Of course there were Gs in the draft. However, the way the draft went, they would have had to either really reach or do without one of the more critical positions. It also ignores that there are 31 other teams picking .So you don't just get to pick anyone you want. 

 

Here is the information from before - this highlights the actual options at G during the draft. It addresses the guys you highlighted above. 

 

Again you be th GM and say exactly who you would have taken and what round based on how the draft went. In short summary: 

 

You had to really reach for a G at 13 since Nelson was already gone or you had to trade some of your picks with already being down a 3rd rd from the Alex trade. The specifics are below. Are we really taking Alex Cappa? A guy from Humbolt State who has never seen any quality competition and won mostly with better athleticism. If you do that you lose Guice and Christian - for LG? Seems a steep price. 

 

You have Ragnow listed - he was clearly the best C i nth draft. Why move him to G? You are better off taking a OT and moving him. Bu there just was not much talent at Oline in the draft. 

 

Full disclosure - I believe they should have been active in free agency at G. So I do believe they could have and should have done more - just not in the draft. Too many things had to work out for you to get anyone of value. And if I knew that, they had to know that. 
 

So my thoughts are they think they have a LG in house. Or they decided that if there is a position you going into the season light at, G is probably the least dangerous. Again, I would have been more active in fee agency. I wonder if the Hankins thing had not dragged out they wouldn't have been more active for G. 

 

Anyway, I am asking again - which player at what draft position are you taking? And at what cost? It's my belief that there were just not many realistic options with how the draft unfolded. You either really reach losing the extra draft pick and quality somewhere else, or you use valuable resources to move up to get someone of quality. 

 

 

Here are the options based on the actual draft for reference. What is GM Oldschool doing? What round and who staying within the confines of how the draft unfolded in front of each of the picks. It's off season - have some fun with it. I mean that. Should lead to a good discussion. 

 

You could have gone G at #13 - Nelson was off the board. My next highest G was Hernandez even though Corbett went just before him. Both went in the top of the 2nd rd. So, assuming no trades as it takes two to tango - are you taking someone like Hernandez at 13? With talent like James, Tremaine Edmunds, Jaire Alexander - to reach for G?

 

Let's move to #44. We could try to trade up. But without a 3rd already, what do we have to offer? Along with switching places in the 2nd, to move to say 35 or 36 (although I think those Gs taken after Hernandez were taken too high, but that's just me) you lose at least the 4th (#109) and your 5th (#163). Draft chart shows #35 worth 550, #44 worth 460, #109 worth 76, #163 worth 25.8 - so 550 vs 561.8 - not likely as the person trading down is going to want more value. But it's make believe so let's assume it can be done. 

 

Or you can pick at #44. The next G after the ones taken before 44 was Alex Cappa from Humbolt State. Nice potential but never played good quality opponents, plays a bit clumsy and typically won with strength. BTW: He is 6' 6". the big complaint about Ty or Christain not playing G. Not saying he can't be coached but clearly a project. You want that at 44? He was taken at 94 BTW. Anyone else is a converted T and there were not that many talented Ts I would have wanted to use the pick on anyway. And if you do that you don't get Guice or the 3rd pick we picked up. 

 

Or you trade down at #44. Let's say we get the same trade. So are you taking Cappa at 59 instead of Guice?  That's still 35 spots early for a project over a RB that has the potential of being transformational. Do you take Cappa at 74 instead of Christian? Christian is clearly the better athlete and has much more potential. Also, you have all 3 of your tackles were injured last year. I would rather limp at G than T any day.  

 

You be the GM. What would you do and when and why? I mean that as an honest question. It's the off-season and time to pontificate. Have some fun. What would you have done differently? 

 

 

Last but not least. Perine and Guice are not in the same stratosphere by any stretch of the imagination. Perine was a 4th rd back that we all hoped would be our Kamara. Guice is crazy more talented than Perine. It's really night and day. 

 

I would have drafted a center and a guard with the first two picks to fix the interior of the OL and addressed other needs with later picks or another year.  That is what I wanted them to do and said so prior to the draft, I said it last year also.  Which guard I don't know, but I would have picked two guys, maybe 2 guards or maybe a guard and a center and fixed the OL.

[carex]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I would have drafted a center and a guard with the first two picks to fix the interior of the OL and addressed other needs with later picks or another year.  That is what I wanted them to do and said so prior to the draft, I said it last year also.  Which guard I don't know, but I would have picked two guys, maybe 2 guards or maybe a guard and a center and fixed the OL.

 

they don't need a center they have Chase.  Your way of drafting would have led the Skins to two fairly major reaches I'd say cost us three players, cause no trade down

[bowhunter]

22 minutes ago, carex said:

 

they don't need a center they have Chase.  Your way of drafting would have led the Skins to two fairly major reaches I'd say cost us three players, cause no trade down

I agree, we KNEW that our need at DL was much greater than our need at LG. Nelson was gone by the time we picked. I loved Hernandez and wanted him here, but he would have been quite the reach at #13.

[goskins10]

 

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I would have drafted a center and a guard with the first two picks to fix the interior of the OL and addressed other needs with later picks or another year.  That is what I wanted them to do and said so prior to the draft, I said it last year also.  Which guard I don't know, but I would have picked two guys, maybe 2 guards or maybe a guard and a center and fixed the OL.

 

I know you said this last year because I asked you the same question and you were not keen to answer it then either....  

 

This was a partial answer, so I will fill in the gaps and show you what I was looking for. This was really meant to be a fun exercise not a grilling. I believe there were ways the team could have bolstered both lines. And as much as I love me some Guice, I would not have faulted them for going hard on both lines even if it meant not getting Guice. 

 

So here we go. The team does not need a C. They pretty much had to go Def in the 1st rd. And while I thought Payne was a bit of a reach at 13, the team desperately needed to  develop the DLine. But I am not taking C any earlier than in the 5th rd or later. So we will have to agree to disagree there. 

 

So thinking G, if they were able to say drop down to 26 and pick up a 2nd and maybe a later rd pick and take Hernandez there, I would have been Ok with that. Of course then you are looking at taking someone like Speaks who I am not too high on as NT - he is probably better as a DE and we have a few of those or PJ Hall who is smallish for a NT but may turn out to be pretty decent. Or you are forced to take Tim Settle much earlier than the 5th.

 

D was more important, but if you can drop down and get more picks in that 1st 100, this was a good draft to do that. You might even be able to drop to 26 then use your extra picks to jump back into the top of the 2nd and say take Tavon Bryant or probably still get Payne at 26 and then sneak into 34 and take Hernandez or 38 and take Braden Smith. The assumes the rest of the draft goes as is so Hernandez and Corbett would be off by #38. Assuming you swap #44 and give up say your 5th to jump to 38, your other 2nd should be high enough to still get Guice. 

 

The problem with all this is you need trade partners and who knows what the actual cost would have been to jump back up. And it's using hindsight in terms of who was available. But at least for me it's a fun exercise. 

 

In the end, they got a top NT to address one of the worst run Ds in football, they took who I and many others thought was a the best pure rushing RB in the draft (Barkley is a better probably a little bit better all around player but as a pure runner I would take Guice.), and picked up a 3rd where they got a really nice OT which is more important to me than G since all 3 of the teams Ts were injured last year with two of them requiring off-season surgery. 

 

Again, where I fault them is not going after G in free agency. Really any of the guys signed after Norwell who was crazy expensive. Justin Pugh or Josh Sitton would have been good. But at the time I think they were saving money for Hankins. Had they signed him they may have targeted Oline earlier and more aggressively in the draft. 

 

 

 

[Veryoldschool]

48 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I know you said this last year because I asked you the same question and you were not keen to answer it then either....  

 

This was a partial answer, so I will fill in the gaps and show you what I was looking for. This was really meant to be a fun exercise not a grilling. I believe there were ways the team could have bolstered both lines. And as much as I love me some Guice, I would not have faulted them for going hard on both lines even if it meant not getting Guice. 

 

So here we go. The team does not need a C. They pretty much had to go Def in the 1st rd. And while I thought Payne was a bit of a reach at 13, the team desperately needed to  develop the DLine. But I am not taking C any earlier than in the 5th rd or later. So we will have to agree to disagree there. 

 

So thinking G, if they were able to say drop down to 26 and pick up a 2nd and maybe a later rd pick and take Hernandez there, I would have been Ok with that. Of course then you are looking at taking someone like Speaks who I am not too high on as NT - he is probably better as a DE and we have a few of those or PJ Hall who is smallish for a NT but may turn out to be pretty decent. Or you are forced to take Tim Settle much earlier than the 5th.

 

D was more important, but if you can drop down and get more picks in that 1st 100, this was a good draft to do that. You might even be able to drop to 26 then use your extra picks to jump back into the top of the 2nd and say take Tavon Bryant or probably still get Payne at 26 and then sneak into 34 and take Hernandez or 38 and take Braden Smith. The assumes the rest of the draft goes as is so Hernandez and Corbett would be off by #38. Assuming you swap #44 and give up say your 5th to jump to 38, your other 2nd should be high enough to still get Guice. 

 

The problem with all this is you need trade partners and who knows what the actual cost would have been to jump back up. And it's using hindsight in terms of who was available. But at least for me it's a fun exercise. 

 

In the end, they got a top NT to address one of the worst run Ds in football, they took who I and many others thought was a the best pure rushing RB in the draft (Barkley is a better probably a little bit better all around player but as a pure runner I would take Guice.), and picked up a 3rd where they got a really nice OT which is more important to me than G since all 3 of the teams Ts were injured last year with two of them requiring off-season surgery. 

 

Again, where I fault them is not going after G in free agency. Really any of the guys signed after Norwell who was crazy expensive. Justin Pugh or Josh Sitton would have been good. But at the time I think they were saving money for Hankins. Had they signed him they may have targeted Oline earlier and more aggressively in the draft. 

 

 

 

 

Partial response?  Did expect me to know or have an opinion on which guards or center to pick?  I haven’t watched hundreds of hours of game film on the candidates or interviewed them so I don’t have an opinion but I would have made that focus of the draft and if interior of the OL sucks in 2018 they need to do fix it in 2019.

[goskins10]

Just now, Veryoldschool said:

 

Partial response?  Did expect me to know or have an opinion on which guards or center to pick?  I haven’t watched hundreds of hours of game film on the candidates or interviewed them so I don’t have an opinion but I would have made that focus of the draft and if interior of the OL sucks in 2018 they need to do fix it in 2019.

 

Yes, that is exactly the point. You have not watched hours of film or done 100s of hours of research of the players or interviewed the players and done all kinds of analytics. I have my problems with the team but there is also a reality here. I also asked you about this because I have watched hours and hours of film on many of these guys. I have done research on many of them - not all but many. That's why I provided options. They were not done on a whim. 

 

I believe the Dline was a bigger priority for this team and the team apparently saw it that way too. Could they have done more for G? Yes. I highlighted what a few options would have been. But as much research as I have done as a hobby it is nothing compared to what the team has done. Not even a fraction. 

 

Last but not least. The problems with the oline were in no small part due to so many injuries - 31 different line combinations. So if I am addressing any position on the line it's T, not G and definitely not C since we have a guy there. 

 

But oK, beat this horse to death. Thanks for playing along at least some. I mean that sincerely not as a shot. 

 

 

[Bonez3]

I feel the argument, definitely during draft period, that we were weaker at the OT position is valid. 

 

For starters, our 2 starting Ohs have bum wheels and still undergoing rehab. Our backup is well into his 30's and injured last year as well. Obviously a need is demonstrated.

 

As far as the G position went, we had a full on anchor at RG with an all-pro. Half the equation is solved there. While injured briefly last year, not nearly to the extent of the 2 OT's and fully recovered. The LG spot at time of the draft had a below average vet, a potential peaking player that looked to possibly betaking the next step in development and a 3rd stringer who knows the system and has filled for us.

 

So, yes we're weak at G but the Line was addressed. Given draft needs and positions, I couldn't see a clear role in top 3 rounds for G over the positions we drafted. Fact is, was Lavuo is the weakest link, he knows the system and hopefully is healthy for start of season

[JaxJoe]

Interesting. Tony Adams, a very good guard at NC State and who amazingly went undrafted is a free agent again as he failed the physical for the Jaguars this past week

 

 https://packinsider.com/2018/05/21/tony-adams-fails-physical-wont-sign-jags/

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/tony-adams?id=32462018-0002-5600-5514-d490cac6d989

[bowhunter]

7 hours ago, JaxJoe said:

Interesting. Tony Adams, a very good guard at NC State and who amazingly went undrafted is a free agent again as he failed the physical for the Jaguars this past week

 

 https://packinsider.com/2018/05/21/tony-adams-fails-physical-wont-sign-jags/

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/tony-adams?id=32462018-0002-5600-5514-d490cac6d989

Good work. Hope they bring him in to kick tires

[bird_1972]

On 5/28/2018 at 7:26 AM, bowhunter said:

Good work. Hope they bring him in to kick tires

 

But if he just failed a physical for the Jags, how could we possibly bring him in? He would just fail whatever physical we give him. Not sure he's a viable option.

[Master Blaster]

3 hours ago, bird_1972 said:

 

But if he just failed a physical for the Jags, how could we possibly bring him in? He would just fail whatever physical we give him. Not sure he's a viable option.

 

<Cough>Ryan Grant<Cough>

[Darth Tater]

On the draft:

 

• What other position should we have ignored to find a LG?
• Should we have reached to get a guy?
• Tackle, especially a swing one, is a much bigger need.

 

In FA:

 

• Who was available that would certainly have been better options BEFORE Arie went down and that UDFA retired?

 

Given the fact that there are 31 other teams looking to improve and you have limited resources to actually acquire the guy you target, there are going to be positions that are weak or have to be filled with has-beens or NFL rejects.  McKenzie was our starting LG on two SB teams, he was rejected 289 times. Jeff Bostic was a second hand UDFA who allowed us to play a future HOF at LG. RC Thielmann was a has been who gave us a couple of good years.  Even Ken Huff gave us a few good years.  Argument should not be about the fact that we need to project resources but that we may have an issue finding those diamond in the rough, the has beens and never were types that have that year or two. Could also be that is part of the reason Alex Smith was brought in and Guice was drafted as we may feel we can game plan around the weakness kin of like the Falcons did in 2015 and 2016.

[#BgMase76#]

On 5/8/2018 at 7:40 AM, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I get it, and you're right.  But LG has been a failure since the days of Chris Chester and before.... and it hasn't been scheme or coaching, it's been a talent issue.  We have not had talent at LG and it exposes the interior of the line.  

WHOA, Chris Chester. You're right about that position. But I've seen some on here say we're getting the wrong run scheme. I'd have to admit I'm not well versed enough to challenge an NFL coach's scheme.

[carex]

 Chris Chester was our right guard. he's why Lauvao went to left guard.  Kory Lichtensteiger was LG during that period

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 5/26/2018 at 4:57 PM, Veryoldschool said:

 

I would have drafted a center and a guard with the first two picks to fix the interior of the OL and addressed other needs with later picks or another year.  That is what I wanted them to do and said so prior to the draft, I said it last year also.  Which guard I don't know, but I would have picked two guys, maybe 2 guards or maybe a guard and a center and fixed the OL.

 

 

And this is why you do not pick players for a living. DT and RB were as big of a need as LG, and harder to find.  They already have their center, your idea would have cost them Payne, Guice and a promising OT which is another huge need.   So leave 3 spots unfilled to fill a need at guard, with a reach as you pass over better players, and another reach to find a center when you already have a center.  Brilliant.  

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 Chris Chester was our right guard. he's why Lauvao went to left guard.  Kory Lichtensteiger was LG during that period

 

 

Crap you're right.... I was just reflecting on lack of talent and he popped into my head because he remains a name that stands out to me regarding our struggles along the O-line.  

[Veryoldschool]

14 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

And this is why you do not pick players for a living. DT and RB were as big of a need as LG, and harder to find.  They already have their center, your idea would have cost them Payne, Guice and a promising OT which is another huge need.   So leave 3 spots unfilled to fill a need at guard, with a reach as you pass over better players, and another reach to find a center when you already have a center.  Brilliant.  

 

Do you pick players for a living?  

 

Do the Skins have an effective starting center?  I think there is still a question mark on the back of Chase's jersey and LG is definitely an issue.  It is very hard to win football games when the OL can not be relied on in short yardage situation because the core of the OL is weak.  The Skins throw on 3rd and short and pass within the 5 yard line because their OL can't get a push and again they did nothing to address the problem.

 

We'll see how excited everyone is about the top picks when the games are played.  Hopefully they will be able run for short yardage, but if it is the same old same old I'll be pissed. 

[carex]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Do you pick players for a living?  

 

Do the Skins have an effective starting center?  I think there is still a question mark on the back of Chase's jersey and LG is definitely an issue.  It is very hard to win football games when the OL can not be relied on in short yardage situation because the core of the OL is weak.  The Skins throw on 3rd and short and pass within the 5 yard line because their OL can't get a push and again they did nothing to address the problem.

 

We'll see how excited everyone is about the top picks when the games are played.  Hopefully they will be able run for short yardage, but if it is the same old same old I'll be pissed. 

 

yes well at this point most of us on here are more concerned about the run D and most of us think you're wrong about Roullier

[OVCChairman]

9 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Do you pick players for a living?  

 

Do the Skins have an effective starting center?  I think there is still a question mark on the back of Chase's jersey and LG is definitely an issue.  It is very hard to win football games when the OL can not be relied on in short yardage situation because the core of the OL is weak.  The Skins throw on 3rd and short and pass within the 5 yard line because their OL can't get a push and again they did nothing to address the problem.

 

We'll see how excited everyone is about the top picks when the games are played.  Hopefully they will be able run for short yardage, but if it is the same old same old I'll be pissed. 

 

 

There wasn't anyone available at our picks that would have been worth taking.  Had Nelson fallen, I'd agree, take him at 13 over Payne.  Had Hernandez fallen in the 2nd round, you'd have to think long and hard about taking him.  That said, you can't spend a 1st round pick on a LG or C if they're graded as 2nd round talent.   Not when you have the needs we had coming into the draft regarding the d-line.  We had no way of knowing Settle was going to fall as far as he did, and Payne was our biggest need, as well as a one of the BPA when our number got called.  We're going to need a kicker in the not too distant future... should we take one in the 2nd round because it's a need?  No, because it's not worth that pick.  The unfortunate way that the draft fell, no interior O-lineman were on the board when we were up, that would have been worth using that pick.  

[MassSkinsFan]

10 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

Do the Skins have an effective starting center?  

 

Yes. Yes, they do. Don't believe it? Watch his games from last season. He made Long, Bergstrom and Rhaney look like doormats. Yes. He's The Scherff's Mini Me.

[Veryoldschool]

2 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

Yes. Yes, they do. Don't believe it? Watch his games from last season. He made Long, Bergstrom and Rhaney look like doormats. Yes. He's The Scherff's Mini Me.

 

It would be great if that is true, I hope the coaches have reason to feel that bullish.  The OL got beat up so bad last year it is hard or me a guy that watched games but didn't study game films to know if Chase was an upgrade and is adequate, I hope you are right.  We'll see this fall how he is doing.

[Veryoldschool]

3 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

There wasn't anyone available at our picks that would have been worth taking.  Had Nelson fallen, I'd agree, take him at 13 over Payne.  Had Hernandez fallen in the 2nd round, you'd have to think long and hard about taking him.  That said, you can't spend a 1st round pick on a LG or C if they're graded as 2nd round talent.   Not when you have the needs we had coming into the draft regarding the d-line.  We had no way of knowing Settle was going to fall as far as he did, and Payne was our biggest need, as well as a one of the BPA when our number got called.  We're going to need a kicker in the not too distant future... should we take one in the 2nd round because it's a need?  No, because it's not worth that pick.  The unfortunate way that the draft fell, no interior O-lineman were on the board when we were up, that would have been worth using that pick.  

 

The Skins were free to trade down if they wished to use their 1st and 2nd rounds most effectively on improving the center of the line but they chose to address the DL and RB position instead of the interior of the OL which I think has been ineffective for years.  Another thing, I do not subscribe to the BPA school of thought, I believe in accomplishing objectives instead.  In my view the primary objective in this draft should have been upgrading the OL to help the Alex Smith led Skins to run more effectively in short yardage and near the goal to help Alex succeed.  I don't expect the Skins to be able to be better than a .500 team but I think if the offense was more balanced and the Skins played .500 ball the trade would viewed as successful and the team could work on improving the defense and the record in 2019.

[Darth Tater]

Defensive tackle was a glaring need and one of the top rated guys was available. Even if we'd gotten Nelson, we'd still have to wonder what we are going to do at defensive tackle. While he may prove me wrong, at this time, you cannot assume Settle is likely anything but a little bit more than we had last year. At this time, you couldn't assume that someone like Settle would even be available.

 

Running back was a need and a first round rated guy fell to us in the second, even after moving back to recoup a third.  Several times last season we had runs of 2-3 yards that would have been 4-6 with a young Portis, 5-6 yarders that Alfred Morris use to turn into 8-15 yarders and a couple of 15 yard runs that an elite back turns into 25 or more. While Kelly and Perine need holes, Guice appears to do well with cracks.

 

Offensive tackle was a need as neither Ty nor Trent are young pups. Given how the draft fell, this is the earliest we could have even considered a guard. None were available that was better than the guy we actually took.  You could argue that we should have traded back but you are getting to the point you can't assume that the guy you pick is actually an answer in year 1. From 2011 to 2017, only a handful of mid to late pick offensive lineman proved to be good starters in year 1 and most are still no better than JAGS.

 

I think most of us would agree that Settle was hands down the BPA when we picked. Our running defense was hurt big time because of injury. Settle really could help us with the missing depth.