2019 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[dballer]

1 hour ago, profusion said:

Current NFL thinking is that your best shot is a loaded team with a young, cheap QB, unless you luck into a Brady or Rodgers who can carry a flimsy roster.

 

Redskins are a fiery dumpster apart from DL and RBs.

 

Disagree about that being the thinking. Otherwise you would see more turnover on QBs, and less extensions. Currently you get guys like Cousins and Garappolo with big contracts. Foles. Matt Ryan getting extended for life. The thinking still is, franchise QB at all costs. It is near impossible to time up the "loaded team" with the QB that actually works. Yeh, the Rams did it. That's the exception.

[Anselmheifer]

13 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That said, I think there are a couple of guys offering solid second or early third round value like Deionte Thompson and Thornhill.  Chauncey Gardner-Johnson could be another good day 2 to early day 3 option at the position too.  He's a ballhawk who gives you that extra value at the position by generating turnovers.  He's got 9 career INTs.

I also love Murphy. 

Regarding a single high safety, I think you and I view that differently. I think having a mostly in the box guy like Landon Collins means that we aren't going to have interchangeable safeties and that if we want to excel in coverage, we need a guy up top with a lot of range and that makes good range. Seattle got away with Kam Chancellor at SS because they had a guy that could compensate at FS. I know you don't value safety as much as other players on the field, but a true star at FS really changes a defense. Give me Ed Reed or Earl Thomas over Terrell Suggs. 

 

Chauncy Gardner-Johnson would be good here. I enjoyed his tape a few weeks ago. He's very physical and can also cover. 

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/chauncey-gardner-johnson?id=32194741-5221-1068-8e9a-b4c139418bfd

 

[Warhead36]

22 minutes ago, dballer said:

 

Disagree about that being the thinking. Otherwise you would see more turnover on QBs, and less extensions. Currently you get guys like Cousins and Garappolo with big contracts. Foles. Matt Ryan getting extended for life. The thinking still is, franchise QB at all costs. It is near impossible to time up the "loaded team" with the QB that actually works. Yeh, the Rams did it. That's the exception.

The following playoff teams from last year had QBs on rookie contracts:

 

Rams

Bears

Cowboys

Eagles

Chiefs

Texans

Ravens**

 

**-Had Flacco but a rookie replaced him at the midway point

 

7/12 of last years playoff teams had QBs on rookie contracts.

 

Its the hot trend now. Hope to hit on a young QB so you get above average if not elite level play for 4-5 years, then stack up the rest of the team. OF course, you have to make sure the QB you get can play.

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, dballer said:

 

Disagree about that being the thinking. Otherwise you would see more turnover on QBs, and less extensions. Currently you get guys like Cousins and Garappolo with big contracts. Foles. Matt Ryan getting extended for life. The thinking still is, franchise QB at all costs. It is near impossible to time up the "loaded team" with the QB that actually works. Yeh, the Rams did it. That's the exception. 

 

I think you're right about the value of the position.  It's paramount.  Not just because it's tremendously valuable to have a high level passer and the ability to run a high level passing game.  But the chief value of having a quarterback is the leadership and stability they provide.  That's what truly opens up your window and gives you the opportunity to build on something and compete at the highest level.  And it makes everyone's job 100% safer.

 

Several years ago I looked at the SB winners and noticed that the successful QB/HC marriage is the true key to competing at that level.  I found that coaches who'd won a SB going back to beginning of the 2000's had either found or inherited their QB in their first season, and they built upon that stability and leadership foundation to compete at an elite level.  The only exceptions to this have been Bill Cowher, Brian Billick, and Pete Carroll.  Bill Cowher was at least able to get his feet under him with Neil O'Donnell until he eventually got to Roethlisberger, and the Steelers are an unusually stable and patient organization.

 

So what we're trying to do is unique--win a SB with a HC who has failed to find and develop a stable QB marriage as he heads into his sixth season.  Jay does not have another year to spare.  He's absolutely got to find his QB this offseason if he's going to have any chance of survival.

[kingdaddy]

I can't help but wonder, seeing the rumors that the Skins are intrigued with Haskins, if Doug Williams sees a lot of himself in Haskins? Big arm, not mobile, pocket QB? 

[Anselmheifer]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

So what we're trying to do is unique--win a SB with a HC who has failed to find and develop a stable QB marriage as he heads into his sixth season.  Jay does not have another year to spare.  He's absolutely got to find his QB this offseason if he's going to have any chance of survival.

 

Your observation is keen, and emphasizes the importance of getting a QB, but I don't think any of us are dying to save Jay's career. If we could get a solid QB, and look like an upcoming team, I'd love to dump Jay and our DC and upgrade. 

[Going Commando]

26 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

I know you don't value safety as much as other players on the field, but a true star at FS really changes a defense. Give me Ed Reed or Earl Thomas over Terrell Suggs.  

 

That's not a 1:1 comparison though.  Give me JJ Watt or Von Miller over Ed Reed or Earl Thomas.  I also think you're a lot more likely to get a high level of impact from the box safety than you are from the deep safety, and that Kam Chancellor could have been impactful anywhere that uses a box safety.  I don't see the deep safety really affecting their level of play, because the box safety is much closer to the LoS and has much more challenging assignments against the run and against the pass they're either playing man coverage or an underneath zone.  Harrison Phillips, Derwin James, Honey Badger, Jamal Adams, Keanu Neal, etc. are more impactful and more numerous than the few deep safeties out there able to produce similar value--basically just Eddie Jackson and Kevin Byard last year.  And it's also tough not to note the difference in draft range of Jackson and Byard versus the box safeties.

 

That's why I don't completely hate the Landon Collins signing, even though I think we paid way too much for him.  He's a lot more talented than any of the box safeties we've had since LaRon, and if used creatively, the position can be like having an extra linebacker.

 

I think you can get by converting a corner who doesn't have the speed to hold up in single coverage to an effective single high/deep safety so long as he's around 200 pounds and has solid play recognition skills.  That's what Eddie Jackson is.  You can find these guys in the middle rounds.

[Est.1974]

If multiple teams fall for Haskins, picking #3 won't be high enough to get him. The 49ers will trade out of the #2 pick with someone. 

 

Would they go all all the way back to #15, doubtful. My God imagine that trade cost. In my view, still a chance the Giants, maybe even the Raiders, trade into the #2 pick and the Haskins talk becomes irrelevant to us.....

[Going Commando]

52 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

Your observation is keen, and emphasizes the importance of getting a QB, but I don't think any of us are dying to save Jay's career. If we could get a solid QB, and look like an upcoming team, I'd love to dump Jay and our DC and upgrade. 

 

If Jay is truly a lame duck with no hope of competing at a SB level, that is depressing.  It means we've already lost next season, before taking the field, and that we should have already fired Jay and hired a coach we want to commit to.

 

I'm still hoping we can break the streak and salvage his tenure by getting a great prospect this draft.  I like most of this roster and don't want it to be wasted.

[Renegade7]

On 3/20/2019 at 1:15 PM, Andre The Giant said:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2019-nfl-draft-could-redskins-find-trade-partner-in-jets-in-an-attempt-to-land-dwayne-haskins/

10 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

If Jay is truly a lame duck with no hope of competing at a SB level, that is depressing.  It means we've already lost next season, before taking the field, and that we should have already fired Jay and hired a coach we want to commit to.

 

I'm still hoping we can break the streak and salvage his tenure by getting a great prospect this draft.  I like most of this roster and don't want it to be wasted.

 

Only part of me that feels sorry for Jay is that he's never really had a chance to pick HIS guy.  This team is going to win ugly again next year, but I don't want to base how I feel about next year based on if we play the Saints and its like Brees senior day again, one game at a time.

[SemperFi Skins]

Nasir Adderley injured at Pro Day... hamstring issue.

[Anselmheifer]

28 minutes ago, SemperFi Skins said:

Nasir Adderley injured at Pro Day... hamstring issue.

Good. Maybe he will drop. 

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

If Jay is truly a lame duck with no hope of competing at a SB level, that is depressing.  It means we've already lost next season, before taking the field, and that we should have already fired Jay and hired a coach we want to commit to.

 

I'm still hoping we can break the streak and salvage his tenure by getting a great prospect this draft.  I like most of this roster and don't want it to be wasted.

I think Jay is good enough that we can win despite him, but isn't good enough for us to win partially because of him. And our DC's have sucked every year. 

I understand your point about a rusher being more valuable that a FS. The league agrees, given the salaries for the relative positions, and if I think about it, I guess I do too. It's just been so long since we've had decent safety play, and our team was shredded by the pass last year. 

 

Edit: Included in the text below, from ESPN, are Adderly's testing numbers. I'm assuming the 16'9" broad jump is a typo! I hate it when everyone that posts a mediocre time claims they have a hamstring/groin etc. 

 

Delaware safety Nasir Adderley's pro day ended early on Friday because of a pulled hamstring suffered while running the 40-yard dash.

Adderley competed in four events before getting hurt. The top FCS-level prospect didn't compete in the drills at the NFL combine due to a previous ankle injury.

He was the featured attraction at Delaware's pro day, having been projected for the first or second round in the April 25-27 draft in Nashville, Tennessee.

Adderley measured in at 6 feet, 203 pounds. Delaware reported that he posted a time of 4.54 seconds in the 40 despite the injury, had a 39-inch vertical leap and a 16-foot, 9-inch broad jump with 19 reps on the 225-pound bench press.

[dballer]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

The following playoff teams from last year had QBs on rookie contracts:

 

Rams

Bears

Cowboys

Eagles

Chiefs

Texans

Ravens**

 

**-Had Flacco but a rookie replaced him at the midway point

 

7/12 of last years playoff teams had QBs on rookie contracts.

 

Its the hot trend now. Hope to hit on a young QB so you get above average if not elite level play for 4-5 years, then stack up the rest of the team. OF course, you have to make sure the QB you get can play.

 

Ravens and Chiefs both "built" their teams while possessing and paying "franchise QBs". They just happened to draft their successors. 

 

Don't get it twisted. Everyone single one of these teams will pay to extend these QB's if they continue to play well. They aren't going to be like "we have to pay Deshaun Watson now, time to let him go and draft another Rookie". A guy like Dak is about to get PAID. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the point. More money to spend elsewhere. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, Ben, Matt Ryan, etc were all sitting home last year. Personally, I hate the thought of the teams chances riding so heavily on the QB. 

 

But the primary goal is still to find a good QB. A good QB on a rookie deal is just icing on the cake. But a good QB on a rookie deal will become good QB on an expensive deal  when the time comes. 

[Going Commando]

57 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

I think Jay is good enough that we can win despite him, but isn't good enough for us to win partially because of him. And our DC's have sucked every year. 

 

I understand your point, and I think I agree with you.  How incredible would it be for us to get Haskins and break that run of successful first year QB-HC marriages though?  This of all organizations.  I think showing patience with a coach until he finally got the right QB would be a bigger sign for me of the worm having turned for the Redskins than anything else we could do.

 

When it comes down to it, I don't hate Jay and I don't want to watch another wasted season of awful quarterbacking with nothing to build off of.  I just want to watch some excellent football, and I don't really care who the coach is so long as they give me that.

[dballer]

2 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

Your observation is keen, and emphasizes the importance of getting a QB, but I don't think any of us are dying to save Jay's career. If we could get a solid QB, and look like an upcoming team, I'd love to dump Jay and our DC and upgrade. 

 

I am dying to save Jay's career. I would love nothing more than Jay be our coach for the next 10 years. Because that means we figured it out and he was winning. 

 

I am torn about Jay. I think he is better than most. I don't think he is great, but he has something about him. If the roster is as bad as many here say it is, he is a miracle worker. If he is as bad of a coach as many say he is, our roster is STACKED. I think Jay would be better if he had more control. He is probably one of our best talent evaluaters. 

 

[Skin'emAlive]

Haskins is not falling past #6 ( honestly, I can barely see him falling past #3), and we dont have the pieces to move for him. Need to accept that.

 

Jay has changed the team culture for the better, and while he hasnt had amazing success, he also hasnt been terrible either. In two years he took a defensive front that was about last in the league in rushing to one of the best. ( shutting down both Elliott and Barkely until the injuries). Two straight years of devastating injuries have rocked the team, and I just dont think you can put all of that directly on Jay. Perhaps front office moves to secure or extend injury prone players had something to do with that, but thats another topic. If we are able to land a franchise QB in the 2nd or even 3rd round, we would have a fast track to dominance in the NFCE. If we trade the farm to move up for that franchise qb, leaving no picks to provide him with high-end talent, then He's going to end up the next Ramsey. Thats pretty simple.

And if you dont land the clear franchise guy in the 2nd or 3rd this year, you keep him as a backup and develop him. Then reload and try again next year with more talent on the roster.

[Est.1974]

5 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

Haskins is not falling past #6 ( honestly, I can barely see him falling past #3), and we dont have the pieces to move for him. Need to accept that.

 

 

If his visits go well, I don't think he will make it past #2. 

 

Honestly, until Scherff is extended I will continue to think Bruce has got him on the trade block. SF badly needs a RG as well........

[Skin'emAlive]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

If his visits go well, I don't think he will make it past #2. 

 

Honestly, until Scherff is extended I will continue to think Bruce has got him on the trade block. SF badly needs a RG as well........

 

You dont use a top 5 pick on a guard, who happened to live up to that selection, and then trade him. I wouldnt worry about that.

[Est.1974]

Just now, Skin'emAlive said:

 

You dont use a top 5 pick on a guard, who happened to live up to that selection, and then trade him. I wouldnt worry about that.

 

What, with Bruce around...anything is possible, however unlikely, until proven otherwise. 

 

Thing is, aside from Collins, we weren't aggressive in FA. That doesn't make much sense to me if we then trade a whole load of draft picks away.

 

Either way, got an interesting few weeks ahead.

[Skin'emAlive]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

What, with Bruce around...anything is possible, however unlikely, until proven otherwise. 

 

 

Im not sure what that means. We have always extended ( and overpayed) our OL. Samuel, Jansen, Williams, Morgan, etc. Sherff is the youngest, and most talented member of our OL, and we have no one in the pipeline to replace him. He's going nowehere unless he doesnt want to be here.

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, Skin'emAlive said:

 

Im not sure what that means. We have always extended ( and overpayed) our OL. Samuel, Jansen, Williams, Morgan, etc. Sherff is the youngest, and most talented member of our OL, and we have no one in the pipeline to replace him. He's going nowehere unless he doesnt want to be here.

 

My point is that if Bruce/Dan want to jump from #15 to #2 with SF for Haskins then something has to give. Not that I see that jump happening, merely an observation that if it did...

[skinny21]

If I were Scherff, I’m not sure how anxious I’d be to get an extension.  Lame duck HC, an oline with issues, and most importantly, no qb of the future.  Sure, money (and security) trumps everything, but the chance to play for a good organization, to play for a playoff team, to pave the way for rushing titles, etc have to play into it, right? 

[WelshSkinsFan]

Scherff may have reservations about signing here but we do still have 3 years of team control at this point considering the 5th year option that we have already picked up and then a couple of years on the tag should it come to it.  I am still inclined to think a deal will be done by training camp, there is no pressure to get anything done right now, he is under contract and we don't need to clear cap space for a big signing right now.  In all probability this gets done in the quiet period after the draft but of course a late cut like we saw with Norman could spur things along if we need to reduce our cap numbers for the current year.

[Est.1974]

19 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

Scherff may have reservations about signing here but we do still have 3 years of team control at this point considering the 5th year option that we have already picked up and then a couple of years on the tag should it come to it.  I am still inclined to think a deal will be done by training camp, there is no pressure to get anything done right now, he is under contract and we don't need to clear cap space for a big signing right now.  In all probability this gets done in the quiet period after the draft but of course a late cut like we saw with Norman could spur things along if we need to reduce our cap numbers for the current year.

 

We have just given Collins 6/84 and balked at giving Mosley the same. Scherff is nailed on to get Martin type money at least, so same again 85mil plus contract.

 

Yes, without question he's worth it in context of top OG money. Do we commit. Don't know, but something 'could' happen IF we want a top QB prospect in this draft. 

[skinny21]

16 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

We have just given Collins 6/84 and balked at giving Mosley the same. Scherff is nailed on to get Martin type money at least, so same again 85mil plus contract.

 

Yes, without question he's worth it in context of top OG money. Do we commit. Don't know, but something 'could' happen IF we want a top QB prospect in this draft. 

I agree with your premise, or supposition, but my god, it would be a special brand of crazy to trade away our best olineman to get a qb that we then can’t protect.  IMO anyway.  Would be a different story if we had some youngsters on deck, but with essentially no LG, basically no oline depth...