Is this the most talented yet misused defensive front we've had in years?

[XxSpearheadxX]

I gues my point was I dont think we will be in a position to over draft for position need at LG. If Quentin Nelson/Scherff type is at our spot next year? I would say heck yeah, but I think after investing so much in the lines recently it would be wise to go BPA.  especially a game changing TE or a defender who will just be dominant. Hell a top flight CB would be fine with me if he looks as good as Denzel Ward did. 

[Koolblue13]

If we're talking position only in the first round of the draft (which is ridiculous of us to be doing really) I only have two positions that I want and that's a true free safety or a giant bully inside backer. I'm never mad at defense but those are my priorities. 

[Darth Tater]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

I don't understand why when someone proposes a trade it isn't automatically assumed the person is expecting an extension before agreeing to the trade.  Is that what you are saying?

That if all we had to give them was Smith, that would telegraph that Smith is at least a Mack equal.  In fact, the extension issue makes that even more clear.

[JSSkinz]

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

I think we have to do something at WR, but I'd almost rather go FA for that.

I agree, other than QB I think this is the toughest position to find in the draft.

 

The problem is the lack of good WR's in next years free agency pool.

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

That if all we had to give them was Smith, that would telegraph that Smith is at least a Mack equal.  In fact, the extension issue makes that even more clear.

Why are you even saying this, i said preston and a first in my post, did you miss that?

[Darth Tater]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Why are you even saying this, i said preston and a first in my post, did you miss that?

No, Preston's last name is Smith. Sorry if I confused you, I tend to use last names. That is who I was referring to.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Darth Tater said:

No, Preston's last name is Smith. Sorry if I confused you, I tend to use last names. That is who I was referring to.

I'm ultra confused now.  Water under the bridge, but i would've offered Preston and a 1st for Mack, expecting both to sign extensions.  Raiders get a cheaper, younger  alternative at the position and we get a game changer for our win-now mode.  I'm ready to drop this, no point in defending it anymore.

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If you don't want to think about it you aren't going to get it.  It coulda been Preston and a 1st instead of two firsts.  Whatever you don't want to pay Mack, imagine what you will have to overpay to keep Preston, someone who has never had more then 9 sacks in his career.

 

See, I don't get this. You automatically assume that "you will have to overpay Preston". And as to the trade, you assume that a 1st and Smith gets it done, a guy that has as you say, has never had anymore then 9 sacks. You assume a lot here, and you act like there is no alternative. And then there is the nearly $150 million dollar price tag after that.

 

Quote

 

Define "force"?  Like if he has a season on par with Mack he stands to make MORE if anything because he's younger.  With Mack you know what you get and know it will be worth it.  Lets out it this way, if Preston gets 9 sacks, thats actually worst case scenario.  Someone will overpay him and if we keep him we overpaid a guy who cant get more then 9 sacks. Mack's first year is $13 million then goes up to 22 with the bonus money front loaded.  By time he's 30 its super easy to get out that contract.  Thats an over the top player, you need those to get rings instead of playoff berths.

 

 

I used your word, you tell me. And honestly, I  don't see paying a DE/OLB that kind of money and getting the return on it.

We have to get to the playoffs first before we can worry about a ring. Mack on this team doesn't get us to a ring, but it might handcuff us out of getting several players that as a team, could get us there.

 

Quote

Agreed.  Ill need to see draft board when that time comes, it won't be a top 10 pick.  I know LG is a weakness, but if Nicholson busts (which i don't think he will) thats more of a liability.  Line is pretty good, but i don't want people to get behind us and eaten up by TE's all day.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on what is more important. SS to me is about the least important position on the D.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

Not surprised Ziggy didn't do much in his 20 snaps.  Let him lead from the sideline.  Put someone in there that has an impact.  I'm sorry, but it's true.

 

They stuck him at DT the last couple of drives in the 4th. Not really his position, and not really his game, rushing the passer.

[Darth Tater]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

I'm ultra confused now.  Water under the bridge, but i would've offered Preston and a 1st for Mack, expecting both to sign extensions.  Raiders get a cheaper, younger  alternative at the position and we get a game changer for our win-now mode.  I'm ready to drop this, no point in defending it anymore.

If I am the Raiders, I much prefer what I got over Preston Smith and a first unless I thought Smith was much better than Mack. Raiders look to be in a rebuild mode. Factoring in injuries, offense and teams performance, our defense was better than the Raiders last year. If I am the Redskins, I'd prefer the same possibility to extend P. Smith plus my first.  Remember, if someone is willing to over pay for Preston (offer more than us), we will still likely get something and we will still have our first. We need to have faith in our own ability to find and develop our own guys, especially when after 4 years, good ones often become too expensive to keep. Mack might have been an improvement but he would not have been that much of an improvement that we would be better off without next years number one and the possibility to extend Preston if desired. If we have no plans to extend Preston, I don't think we'd have wanted to pay Mack what he got.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

If I am the Raiders, I much prefer what I got over Preston Smith and a first unless I thought Smith was much better than Mack. Raiders look to be in a rebuild mode. Factoring in injuries, offense and teams performance, our defense was better than the Raiders last year. If I am the Redskins, I'd prefer the same possibility to extend P. Smith plus my first.  Remember, if someone is willing to over pay for Preston (offer more than us), we will still likely get something and we will still have our first. We need to have faith in our own ability to find and develop our own guys, especially when after 4 years, good ones often become too expensive to keep. Mack might have been an improvement but he would not have been that much of an improvement that we would be better off without next years number one and the possibility to extend Preston if desired. If we have no plans to extend Preston, I don't think we'd have wanted to pay Mack what he got.

And thats why you aren't a GM.  Raiders arent rebuiding, they already have a franchise QB and Lynch, they just didn't want to give Mack what he wanted.  Why would someone trade someone as good as Mack and a 1st to get Mack?  Why would the Raiders expect that from anyone.  Please stop responding to me in this topic, if you don't agree with me doing it, fine, bur you aren't making anymore sense then your claiming im don't and the trade is already done.  Let it go.

[Sandy Monk]

Takes nap. Thread devolves. 

 

 

[Renegade7]

57 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

See, I don't get this. You automatically assume that "you will have to overpay Preston". And as to the trade, you assume that a 1st and Smith gets it done, a guy that has as you say, has never had anymore then 9 sacks. You assume a lot here, and you act like there is no alternative. And then there is the nearly $150 million dollar price tag after that.

 

Thats a position thats going to have a rediculous amount of demand, i have zero faith in us being able to resign Preston before FA, his agent will probably try stop him and i don't blame them.

 

And i didn't assume Preston and 1st gets it done, i said that's what id offer.  It gives them a younger cheaper replacement so they don't have to risk a bust trying to replace Mack.

 

I really don't care what your talking about in regards to no alternatives, please stop responding me on this topic regarding Mack, he plays for Chicago now.  I'm willing to wait until FA to see if Preston resigns, but mark my words, it won't be a team friendly deal, not at his position and age.

 

Quote

 

I used your word, you tell me. And honestly, I  don't see paying a DE/OLB that kind of money and getting the return on it.

 

Mack is defensive player of the year, and had a sack and pick 6 in first game with Chicago coming on that team late as hell.  This ain't that complicated.

 

Quote

We have to get to the playoffs first before we can worry about a ring. Mack on this team doesn't get us to a ring, but it might handcuff us out of getting several players that as a team, could get us there.

 

 

What did you predict our record to be this year? I said 10-6, adding Mack absolutely makes us a contender if our offense stays healthy.

 

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree on what is more important. SS to me is about the least important position on the D.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, and i can see your arguement here.  I'd prefer a LG, but know we can get a quality starter in 2nd round.  If a rediculous talent is staring us in the face in late first round and Nicholson is not the guy, im going to at least consider it.  I remember when we had Landry play in position, absolute difference maker.

22 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

Takes nap. Thread devolves. 

 

 

People respond to me, im gonna respond back.  I've repeatedly asked to drop the Mack talk with me, but i will defend myself.

[Koolblue13]

Mack

[Darth Tater]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

And thats why you aren't a GM.  Raiders arent rebuiding, they already have a franchise QB and Lynch, they just didn't want to give Mack what he wanted.  Why would someone trade someone as good as Mack and a 1st to get Mack?  Why would the Raiders expect that from anyone.  Please stop responding to me in this topic, if you don't agree with me doing it, fine, bur you aren't making anymore sense then your claiming im don't and the trade is already done.  Let it go.

If you don't think the Raiders are rebuilding, you don't even have anything worthwhile.

[Renegade7]

41 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

If you don't think the Raiders are rebuilding, you don't even have anything worthwhile.

Guess it depends on your definition of a rebuild, then.

[JaxJoe]

That sack by Ryan Anderson was a beauty. His hips allowed him to bend while staying low and come around the tackle 360* to get Bradford. If this is a new pass rush move Anderson can master, then we wont have to worry about Preston Smith signing elsewhere. 

[XxSpearheadxX]

2 hours ago, JaxJoe said:

That sack by Ryan Anderson was a beauty. His hips allowed to bend and stay low and come around the tackle 360* to get Bradford. If this is a new pass rush move Anderson can master, then we wont have to worry about Preston Smith signing elsewhere. 

It was a good'un, I think Matty I. leaping strip sack was the cake winner though! 

[98ORAKPO98]

11 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

I really don't understand this.

 

Ok, let's start with Mack. He's a heck of a player, but I don't see him living up to the cost it took to get him, and the cost of his contract. 2 firsts and change, and what, $141 million dollars with $98 million guaranteed? Nah, sorry. I don't even want to think about what that does to the ability of the team to keep other players.

 

Now, let's talk about Smith. If he's not going to be a force, he isn't going to demand that much, and hence, you can resign him...............if you want to. If he's a force, he STILL isn't going to get Khalil Mack Money. So you figure out if he's worth it, and you go from there.

 

To close, I'd rather Draft a LG high than a SS at this time. SS is not a huge deal for me (I like to build from the lines out) and LG is a big hole. An elite OL makes your RB's look good, and your QB's stay upright. I'll take that over a SS, just about any day. And as it is, our SS has question marks, but he could be good. We know our LG sucks, and is very injury prone. Yeah, draft that LG all day.

I think Shawn Lauvao is better than people give him credit for, he's a pretty good run blocker.

 

https://nflspinzone.com/2016/05/20/washington-redskins-impact-shawn-lauvao/amp/

 

Just take a look at Washington’s numbers in his three games compared to the rest of their season without him.

 

Through three weeks, the Redskins ran the ball 94 times for 431 yards. That averages out to 4.59 yards per carry. If they continued at that pace the entire year, Washington would have been the seventh best rushing offense in the NFL.

In the 13 games that Lauvao didn’t appear in for the Redskins, they ran 335 rushing plays for 1,135 yards. That comes out to 3.39 yards per carry. If they had that average the entire year, Washington would’ve been the worst rushing offense in the NFL. As it turned out, they finished near the bottom anyways (30th).

 

It’s not just lucky that the Redskins running game is at it’s best with Lauvao on the field either, he’s a major part of it. His ability to find his man, drive him, and take him out of the play is extremely underrated.

 

https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/2018/06/20/bill-callahan-sings-praises-warrior-shawn-lauvao/amp/

 

For Callahan, Lauvao’s return signals much more than a quality player, as captured by Kareem Copeland of the Washington Post:

“It’s not what I like [about him], it’s [what] I love,” Callahan said. “I love him. He’s a warrior, he’s a veteran. He’s well prepared. More than that, in the room, in the locker room, in the weight room, you watch him practice and he’s a very contentious pro. He’s a pro’s pro. He’s a consummate pro in that respect. He does everything you want him to do. He works hard. He studies. He knows the game. He can teach the young guys.”

 

[Morneblade]

[Sandy Monk]

Looks to me like an example of lazy observations from PFF, @Mournblade. 

 

They know Lauvao is the weak link going into the season, and just give him no lovin' from preconceived notions. 

 

He deserves a better grade than that for week 1, and the next weak link in Roullier definitely does too. 

[cakmoney61]

16 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I agree, other than QB I think this is the toughest position to find in the draft.

 

The problem is the lack of good WR's in next years free agency pool.

If there is a #1 WR available when they pick in the first round next year, I strongly suggest they take him.  IMO, a #1 WR appears to be the team's biggest need.

 

It would be great if Josh Doctson made this unnecessary, however, to date, I haven't seen the potential to be that type of receiver.

[SkinsGuy]

To me, Lauvao's problem hasn't been ability. It has been consistency.

 

One play, he would look like a pro bowl-world beater. The next, Lauvao would look like the greenest, rawest rookie, getting bowled over by a defensive lineman running through him.

 

If Lauvao can be more consistent, it would great for the Redskins' offense.

[Warhead36]

Luavao is good against the run. He struggles in pass pro. Hopefully that gets alleviated if Roullier is the real deal at C.

[Morneblade]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

Looks to me like an example of lazy observations from PFF, @Mournblade. 

 

They know Lauvao is the weak link going into the season, and just give him no lovin' from preconceived notions. 

 

He deserves a better grade than that for week 1, and the next weak link in Roullier definitely does too. 

 

1. At least get my name right.

2. That was 2017 Rankings. The last full season we played.

3. See 2.

 

9 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

To me, Lauvao's problem hasn't been ability. It has been consistency.

 

One play, he would look like a pro bowl-world beater. The next, Lauvao would look like the greenest, rawest rookie, getting bowled over by a defensive lineman running through him.

 

If Lauvao can be more consistent, it would great for the Redskins' offense.

 

Not really true. Lauvao is a much better run blocker than pass protector, and he is hurt ALOT. So if he stays healthy (big if) and we run the ball a lot, he will look better than he has.

 

5 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Luavao is good against the run. He struggles in pass pro. Hopefully that gets alleviated if Roullier is the real deal at C.

 

Bingo. And he has to stay healthy.

[Sandy Monk]

5 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

1. At least get my name right.

 

 

The great irony here is, this was THE first time I actually tried to get your name right. I started with the @ and worked my way down, saw this one with the U and clicked it. LOL. The other times were just being silly with you, but not this one. No hard feelings, I hope.

 

I assumed that chart you posted up was of the games so far this year, obviously. Because I couldn't see why you would bother posting last year's, but so you did, I guess. Okay, having a rough go with you, so I'll leave you to simmer down.