What to do with LG

[NickyJ]

3 hours ago, Master Blaster said:

Remember how many sacks the o-line gave up with RGIII?

 

Then remember how those sacks dramatically dropped with Cousins?

 

Sometimes the sum of the parts is better than the individual pieces. 

Have people really forgotten what the difference is between Brandon Scherff and Chris Chester?

[bird_1972]

Here's Here's the NFL.com draft profile on Avery Gennesy - OT, Texas A&M. He looks reasonably promising although sounds more like an optimal tackle than a guard. I hope the Skins give him a look. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/avery-gennesy?id=2557948

 

OVERVIEW

A&M has become a place that scouts look for offensive linemen, as the Aggies have produced first-round picks on the line in the past four drafts. Whether or not Gennesy is selected that high, league coaches believed he played well enough at the left tackle spot in 2016 to earn first-team All-SEC honors. He originally planned to go to Arkansas State out of high school, but failed to qualify academically. After two years at East Mississippi Community College (where he won a national title), Gennesy spent a redshirt year in College Station. Once a starting spot at left tackle opened up in 2015, he stepped up to start every game at that spot.

ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS

 Has lateral agility and desire to get to difficult reach blocks in zone game. Rapid responder out of snap. Shoots out on top of defensive ends with quick sets and hustles to swing his hips into position to wall off three-techniques on gap plays. Able to torque his hips and widen defenders off the edge. Moves well in space with desired body control on all levels. Can pull effectively. Choppy, controlled kick slide. Able to gain enough ground against most edge speed. Feet and balance help mirror effectively and can redirect back inside. Latches onto defenders with strong hands. Has length and athletic ability for adequate recovery when beaten. Aware and alert. Senses twists coming and understands how to handle them.

WEAKNESSES

 High-cut with long waist and stiffness in his hips. Not a natural bender. Too tall into pass sets, allowing bull-rushers a viable attack point under his pads. Fears speed-to-power rushers and leans into engagements in order to supplement his anchor. Rarely asked to generate push at point of attack as base blocker and might lack leverage to do it on pro level. Hands prefer to gather and grab rather than punch. Average block finisher. Wide hands might be muscle-memory issue that is difficult to correct. At the top of the rush arc, will push and muscle rushers rather than continuing to slide feet to cut off the angle. Edges a little soft and could struggle to find redirect strength.

DRAFT PROJECTION

 Round 5

SOURCES TELL US

 "He's unique because he's athletic and has great feet, but his hips are stiff. He's not strong enough to play guard and his anchor could get quarterbacks hit too much." -- Scout with AFC North team

NFL COMPARISON

 Marshall Newhouse

BOTTOM LINE

 Former junior college transfer who displayed the athleticism that allowed Texas A&M to keep Germain Ifedi at right tackle in 2015. Foot quickness could make him a target of teams who ask more from their tackles in the run game, but his lack of bend could create consistent issues against bull-rushers. While teams could try him at guard, he will likely stay outside at tackle and compete as a swing tackle right away.

[HigSkin]

Here is the OLine depth chart according to Rotoworld - I think converted DT Alex Balducci also played mainly guard for SF.

 

[bird_1972]

22 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

Here is the OLine depth chart according to Rotoworld - I think converted DT Alex Balducci also played mainly guard for SF.

 

 

Interesting. I was unaware we signed Alex Balducci. 

[SkinsGuy]

4 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Two injuries to the OL? Most likely insurmountable (as the roster is now). 

 

Pretty much every o-line in the NFL would be devastated if they lost two starters.

 

That would be two-fifths of your line.

[Veryoldschool]

16 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

If you believe that, you don't know Guice's reputation. That man runs with POWER and ANGER.  

 

Center, I believe will be fine. We have pro bowlers at the other 3 positions.

 

LG is the only issue here in mid-May.

 

It's important to have quality backs and I assume Guice is going to be a quality NFL back but I'd rather have a powerful OL and a mediocre back behind it than a weak at the core OL with a high quality back behind it.  This is the 3rd attempt to upgrade the running game by drafting a better running back, I remember the talk about Jones and Perrine, now we are hearing about Guice.  I hope it works out but I have been wanting upgrades at the LG and C for a couple of years now and they drafted another back.  If the running game isn't improved and by that I mean they acquire the ability to run on 3rd and short and into the end zone from within the 10-yard line, then they squandered another year.   Let's see if they know what they are doing this year, I have my doubts. 

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

It's important to have quality backs and I assume Guice is going to be a quality NFL back but I'd rather have a powerful OL and a mediocre back behind it than a weak at the core OL with a high quality back behind it.  This is the 3rd attempt to upgrade the running game by drafting a better running back, I remember the talk about Jones and Perrine, now we are hearing about Guice.  I hope it works out but I have been wanting upgrades at the LG and C for a couple of years now and they drafted another back.  If the running game isn't improved and by that I mean they acquire the ability to run on 3rd and short and into the end zone from within the 10-yard line, then they squandered another year.   Let's see if they know what they are doing this year, I have my doubts. 

 

I understand your concern with the hole we have at LG, but we drafted the right RB to cover for that hole IMO.  Even if the LG consistently whiffs on his blocks, I expect Guice to be able to make a man miss and pick up the yards that most RBs can't.  Just look at what he did last season whenever there was an extra man in the box:

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, LSU product Derrius Guice faced a stacked box on an otherworldly 73 percent of his carries, by far most in the class. It didn't matter. Guice destroyed extra defensive attention in his sample of 95 collegiate carries, shredding opposing defenses for 5.88 Yards Created per attempt (third-best in the class). Guice is a bad, bad man and a classic throwback to a position that is transitioning evermore to space backs, receiving ability, and the subsequent mismatches running backs present in the passing game.

...

PSU's offense is nearly all shotgun and spread based, while LSU's attack is still stuck in the 1980s with an overwhelming amount of blocking disadvantage placed on the running backs plate due to the archaic scheme. That was no matter for Derrius Guice. Hilariously, Guice led the class in 12- and 21-personnel usage, faced a stacked box on 67% of his runs out of those two packages, and still led the entire crop in Yards Created per attempt from 12- and 21-personnel (6.13).

 

https://www.fantasyguru.com/articles/yards-created-2018-stacked-boxes

[Anselmheifer]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

It's important to have quality backs and I assume Guice is going to be a quality NFL back but I'd rather have a powerful OL and a mediocre back behind it than a weak at the core OL with a high quality back behind it.  This is the 3rd attempt to upgrade the running game by drafting a better running back, I remember the talk about Jones and Perrine, now we are hearing about Guice.  I hope it works out but I have been wanting upgrades at the LG and C for a couple of years now and they drafted another back.  If the running game isn't improved and by that I mean they acquire the ability to run on 3rd and short and into the end zone from within the 10-yard line, then they squandered another year.   Let's see if they know what they are doing this year, I have my doubts. 

It's just the way the draft fell. The good guards and centers were taken by the time we were slotted to pick in the 2nd. Tell me a guard that we could have had at pick 44 that you think would have been a better selection than Guice at 59. I don't think that guy was there. 

[Dark Acre]

Why don't we just find another RG and play LT-C-RG-RG-RT? 

[Darrell Green Fan]

18 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

PFF is basically worthless. He’s fine when healthy.  The biggest issue is he’s never healthy.  Which probably contributes to his low ranking.

 

again, I’d prefer there was a better solution.  However if you go back and look at the ranking for Chester when he was here, I’m sure it was pitiful. But he was still the starting LG for a team that had a 20+ poInt lead in the SB.

 

My point is it’s not really worth panicking about LG yet.  It’s probably the least important position on the field. 

 

Again PFF was not the only source to rate him poorly.  If you really believe he is the 32nd best starting guard in the league, which defines average, you won't get a lot of people agreeing with you.  Tired of the injury excuse, he was never any good.   There was a reason he was still available for cheap, the 32nd best guard in the league would have had a job by now.

[carex]

18 hours ago, Tarpon75 said:

I would say they didn’t forget but used the resources elsewhere. I don’t understand taking a developmental tackle with a third round pick that you had to trade to get.Particulary when you have glaring weaknesses at lg. 

 

because they thought he was better than any of the guards available

[TD_washingtonredskins]

17 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

Yep - I misinterpreted that. Sorry!

 

I agree with you, with one minor exception - guys who are super-tall can have some limitations inside. You'd want to really examine that to see if they can "play shorter" and avoid being out-leveraged by bowling ball DL.  A great example of a guy good enough to overcome that is Joe Jacoby.

 

 

 

Good post...I'm sure you guys are right on that aspect. 

 

I don't pretend to know from watching football who COULD do it. My argument is that we shouldn't hold Ty out if he's indeed the best option just because he may need to play tackle at some point and we want to limit the musical chairs. If Lauvau or some other natural guard is the best option, then that's great. 

 

TL;DR - I want the best 5 guys starting and the next 3-4 as rotational backups...

[Master Blaster]

17 hours ago, NickyJ said:

Have people really forgotten what the difference is between Brandon Scherff and Chris Chester?

 

You realize there were times when RGIII and Cousins played behind the same o-line, right?

[OVCChairman]

3 hours ago, carex said:

 

because they thought he was better than any of the guards available

 

 

I constantly see the adverse to this argument where people are up in arms we didnt get a guard in this draft.  I wonder how many people have gone back and looked at what Guards are available at that position, and how many were in the room to definitively say we neglected the position. 

 

Clearly not directed at you.....

 

We MAY have tried to trade back and there was no value there.  We MAY have looked at the guards earlier and our guy wasn't there.... We can't expect to find 4 day 1 starters in every draft.  You hope to find 2 guys who can start today, then a few guys who can develop.  We found (what we expect to be) 3 day 1 starting players (Payne, Guice, Settle) in this draft.  2 guys (Hamilton and Quinn) who will push for rotational snaps, and 3 more guys (Christian, Apke, Stroman) who are depth guys, a 2 of which can contribute in ST and other areas.

[carex]

1 hour ago, Master Blaster said:

 

You realize there were times when RGIII and Cousins played behind the same o-line, right?

 

during their second year RG3 was borderline immobilized, and during their third the O-line let RG3 and McCoy get hurt while Kirk made up for it by throwing enough INTs to get shoved to the bottom of the depth chart

 

[MassSkinsFan]

12 hours ago, GothSkinsFan said:

Why don't we just find another RG and play LT-C-RG-RG-RT? 

 

I'm a fan of ditching QB, RB, TE and WRs in favor of an all-OL offensive eleven. Just keep the pile moving!!! 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

2 hours ago, carex said:

 

during their second year RG3 was borderline immobilized, and during their third the O-line let RG3 and McCoy get hurt while Kirk made up for it by throwing enough INTs to get shoved to the bottom of the depth chart

 

 

Stats say that Kirk was sacked an average of 3.8% of the time on 212 drop backs.  His career average for sack rate is 4.8%.

McCoy was sacked an average of 11.7% of the time on 145 drop backs.  His career average for sack rate is 8.4%.

RG3 was sacked an average of 13.4% of the time on 247 drop backs.  His career average for sack rate is 9.2%.  (RG3's next year of playing also had an insanely high sack rate of 13.0%)

 

So that's two QB's who were getting sacked at a worse than normal rate, but their career rates are still awful.  Then there's Kirk who has shown an ability to reduce sacks.  Btw, Kirk's sack rate in 2013 (the year before we're talking about) was only 3.1% in 160 drop backs.

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I constantly see the adverse to this argument where people are up in arms we didnt get a guard in this draft.  I wonder how many people have gone back and looked at what Guards are available at that position, and how many were in the room to definitively say we neglected the position. 

 

Clearly not directed at you.....

 

We MAY have tried to trade back and there was no value there.  We MAY have looked at the guards earlier and our guy wasn't there.... We can't expect to find 4 day 1 starters in every draft.  You hope to find 2 guys who can start today, then a few guys who can develop.  We found (what we expect to be) 3 day 1 starting players (Payne, Guice, Settle) in this draft.  2 guys (Hamilton and Quinn) who will push for rotational snaps, and 3 more guys (Christian, Apke, Stroman) who are depth guys, a 2 of which can contribute in ST and other areas.

 

I asked this question last year when people complained about not drafting specific positions. The next G drafted after Guice at 59, was Alex Cappa at 94. We took Christian (OT) at 74. So, if we take G at 59, then it's at least 35 to 40 spots early. Not exactly good value for that pick position. It's still 20 spots too early at 74 when we picked Christian. Cappa IMO was still a stretch at 94. He has seen no NFL level competition. He won mostly with power. And BTW he is 6' 6" the reason being used by many that neither Ty or Christian cannot possibly be Gs. 

 

The only other options based on who was selected was either go G at 13 - or possibly trade down - but you need a partner. Or stay at 44 and take Conner Williams who is also listed as a T and is 6' 6". But then you don't have Guice or a 3rd rd pick. Two for one. 

 

So when people say - we should have taken G at ??? When you actually look at who was available at that time, it's just not that easy. So to take a G you either do not take Payne or Guice. What i would have liked is if they were more aggressive in free agency for a G. 

 

Having said that, I have to believe they think they have their starting LG in house. I know people keep saying why they think it can;t happen, but I still believe that it's either Ty or even TW with Ty at LT. 

[Master Blaster]

3 hours ago, carex said:

 

during their second year RG3 was borderline immobilized, and during their third the O-line let RG3 and McCoy get hurt while Kirk made up for it by throwing enough INTs to get shoved to the bottom of the depth chart

 

 

 

I love this style style of argument, because implicit in your response is an agreement that Cousins got sacked less behind the same o-line, which was my point. 

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, Master Blaster said:

 

 

I love this style style of argument, because implicit in your response is an agreement that Cousins got sacked less behind the same o-line, which was my point. 

 

Yes, he did get sacked less. But he threw more ints - a lot more ints. Which is worse? In the end the line was not good for any of them really. I think that's the real point here. The QBs just dealt with it differently. 

[OVCChairman]

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I asked this question last year when people complained about not drafting specific positions. The next G drafted after Guice at 59, was Alex Cappa at 94. We took Christian (OT) at 74. So, if we take G at 59, then it's at least 35 to 40 spots early. Not exactly good value for that pick position. It's still 20 spots too early at 74 when we picked Christian. Cappa IMO was still a stretch at 94. He has seen no NFL level competition. He won mostly with power. And BTW he is 6' 6" the reason being used by many that neither Ty or Christian can possibly be Gs. 

 

The only other options based on who was selected was either go G at 13 - or possibly trade down - but you need a partner. Or stay at 44 and take Conner Williams who is also listed as a T and is 6' 6". But then you don't have Guice or a 3rd rd pick. Two for one. 

 

So when people say - we should have taken G at ??? When you actually look at who was available at that time, it's just not that easy. So to take a G you either do not take Payne or Guice. What i would have liked is if they were more aggressive in free agency for a G. 

 

Having said that, I have to believe they think they have their starting LG in house. I know people keep saying why they think it can;t happen, but I still believe that it's either Ty or even TW with Ty at LG. 

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

The only 2 Guards I wanted to take before the end of the 3rd round would have been Nelson or Hernandez.   Had Hernandez been there at our draft position prior to the trade back, then you take him and we miss out on Guice and Christian.  Christian is a bonus at this point.  Value wise we could have taken Guice at our original spot and not only would nobody have questioned it... it probably would have still been considered a high value pick.  I'm all for drafting for need if the need has value at your pick (see Daron Payne).  Payne probably graded a little lower than Edmunds or James, but at 13, Payne's worth plus our need added up made him a better pick.

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I'm a fan of ditching QB, RB, TE and WRs in favor of an all-OL offensive eleven. Just keep the pile moving!!! 

[NickyJ]

14 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Yes, he did get sacked less. But he threw more ints - a lot more ints. Which is worse? In the end the line was not good for any of them really. I think that's the real point here. The QBs just dealt with it differently. 

Exactly the point I'm getting at. Our offense sucked during 2013 and 2014, including the QBs. More sacks or less, the offense was trash and our record reflected it. In 2015, we get 2 new starters on the O-Line and we make the playoffs, all under the same QB who got benched after playing so badly in 2014. It is not a coincidence. The skill difference between Chester-Polumbus and Scherff-Moses is massive.

[Veryoldschool]

4 hours ago, carex said:

 

during their second year RG3 was borderline immobilized, and during their third the O-line let RG3 and McCoy get hurt while Kirk made up for it by throwing enough INTs to get shoved to the bottom of the depth chart

 

 

Why are we discussing Griffin?  He sucked in the NFL once he was forced to try to execute a regular pro offense because he doesn't process the field.  Baltimore signed him to lose the Kaepernick controversy, the Raven's know Griffin sucks also but wasting a million on Griffin is less harmful than Kaepernick and his baggage.

 

 

15 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

It's just the way the draft fell. The good guards and centers were taken by the time we were slotted to pick in the 2nd. Tell me a guard that we could have had at pick 44 that you think would have been a better selection than Guice at 59. I don't think that guy was there. 

 

I hope this works but we were sold Jones and Perine as the solution to our running woes also and I'm not jumping up on the bandwagon this time.

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

 

I hope this works but we were sold Jones and Perine as the solution to our running woes also and I'm not jumping up on the bandwagon this time.

 

 

While i completely understand, and honestly can't blame you for it, I don't believe Perine OR Jones came close to being the same prospect that Guice has.