Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Gainst fans feel KW2 will let the Skins....


OURYEAR#56

Recommended Posts

Make the NFC East shake in it's boots. My friend who is a die hard Giants fans has been trying to convince me that Winslow II would be a better fit than Ubeze. He brought something to my attention and I was hoping you guys woulod weigh in and let me know if you agree with it. Right now we arguably have the best set of recievers in the division. Coles was the truth eventhough he suffered from injuries all year long. He can stretch the field, and make the big big plays. I think Gardner will settle into his role, and become the possession reciever Monk was for us. I was set with this senario. I felt Ubeze would give us a pass rush, and a player like Derrick Johnson would give us depth but I've seen the light now. Imagine if we get KW2. It would force the safety to cover him. This would lead to either Coles, Gardner, or Jacobs to be covered one on one.......or maybe not at all. We wouldn't need a feature back because our bread and butter would be the passing game. We would just need to have some effective running to keep the defense honest. I've seen the light. KW2 is 6'4 252 and runs a 4.6. :eaglesuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as best set of receivers in the division, I think you can argue for anyone except the Eagles. At this point we need both a pass rush, a TE, and a RB. I'm going to leave that decision up to coach Joe and back him with whatever decision he makes. But honestly, I don't think we need a playmaker TE to be a force in the division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point we need both a pass rush, a TE, and a RB. I'm going to leave that decision up to coach Joe and back him with whatever decision he makes.

That is one of the most sensible things I've read in the last month.

In terms of drafting Kellen, I think this is the main theory against that: He's good, but so are Troupe, and Watson, who we can get later. Basically, we can get an effective TE in later rounds who can grab attention from the safety as well. However, we can't get a Sean Taylor, or prime time DE in later rounds. Later round S and DEs may develop, but off the top, I think Taylor and Udeze bring more to their positions than KW2 does. MHO only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Year, you have some great points there. It just scares the bejeezus out of me to think we would go back to a pass first type offense. Don't want to see Ramsey take another beating like he did last year. Though I know Gibbs would never put Ramsey out there to get clobbered. If we could get a real bonifide blocking tight end to complement Winslow that would create some nervous days for opposing defenses when we were in a two tight end set. Reality says however that we have more pressing needs. Nice to imagine the possibilities however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sippin2020

But honestly, I don't think we need a playmaker TE to be a force in the division.

I agree with you but I think we all believe that we need a playmaker at #5; regardless if it's a D lineman, TE or RB. I also believe that Joe and Co. will make the right pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a TE is what we need and I agree we do then the question becomes what value do the available TE's offer us?

FA Kleinsasser? asking for 3 million + per Vikings board. Great blocker, smart and ok reciever.

FA Kinny? Don't know much about him. Not sure if viable or not.

Draft 1st- Winslow- top 5 contract. Will do a lot of blocking and must be very smart. Is Winslow very smart and will he like blocking primarily?

Draft 2nd- Watson (Georgia) got rave reviews at senior bowl. 2nd round contract. Seems to have physical requirements we need but does he have the smarts?

Draft 2nd Troupe- I don't think he'll last until our pick in the second but the same smarts question need to be answered with him.

What if we could get Waton in the second and take anyone except Winslow with the 5th, Is that an overall better value?

Tough questions and I can't wait for April to get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cowboykilla

In terms of drafting Kellen, I think this is the main theory against that: He's good, but so are Troupe, and Watson, who we can get later. Basically, we can get an effective TE in later rounds who can grab attention from the safety as well. However, we can't get a Sean Taylor, or prime time DE in later rounds. Later round S and DEs may develop, but off the top, I think Taylor and Udeze bring more to their positions than KW2 does. MHO only.

Great point, CK.

Getting a top-notch TE is not as important as getting a tip-notch DE or S. We can get a serviceable TE with a lower pick who will still get the job done.

The great TE will improve the offense, but a big playmaker at DE or S will improve the D much more. We need the playmaker on the D-line, and we really only need a solid player at TE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you Chris. That is the yway I felt last night. I felt that we needed to protect Ramsey, and employ the same type of scheme that brought Gibbs three rings. I felt that maybe we could pick up a TE like Kleinsasser from the Vikings, and make Sellers play the H-back. I was thinking that trading down to get Ubeze, or maybe using the fifth pick on Sean Taylor was sensible. But talking to my friend I understood what he was saying, and I started thinking about what Gibbs could do. Right now there is no LT or Reggie to worry about. The most dominate defensive player is not known for breaking the legs of QB's or throwing o-linement like a sack of...well you know. Gibbs is going to find this league is not full of Chris Doleman's, or stacked to the teeth defenses that were strong from top to bottom. He can allow his TE to stretch the field, and make the corners play single coverage o the outside. In the free agency era most teams are strong on one side of the ball and not the other. I feel if we do this, we would be strong as steel on the offensive side of the ball (yup even without a back like K. Jones, or S. Jackson). We would not just be a passing team, but we would have an effective running game that woudl keep the defense honest. The o-line will play better next year, nd Gibbs can always employ the single back set with the Te releasing to the flat or up field. We can make Sellers, or even Cartwright the H-back on some plays, to have an extra blocker on the line. For a Giants fan, he knows what he's talking about. He said Winslow would be an instant pro bowler, and you know what eventhough he's a Giants fan (forgive him) he's right. I'm tripping like I'm on acid from the possibilities. This could be a great great year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that who we eventually take in the draft will depend a LOT on who we sign in free agency, which is why if we get some D-line and/or RB help via the free agent route, I can see us getting either Winslow or Sean Taylor if we don't get a free agent RB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno.

I realize that Gibbs is a master at adapting to his talent on hand and could do wondrous things with a stud like Winslow at TE. But I just go back to thinking how great that '91 team was and how effective it was with the deep passing game. A big part of that was the protection Ryp received. Gibbs often used heavy-to-max protection schemes to provide that protection.

Those necessarily involve the TEs staying in and blocking. Obviously, the TEs weren't doing that all the time, but #5 seems pretty high for a guy who is going to be asked to do a lot of blocking (and is not a top-notch OT).

I'm probably slanted in my view. I just don't regard TEs as critical pieces of an offense. They're a complement - augmenting the OL and the receiver corps as a 3rd or 4th option. I can't recall any championship teams that had a TE as a focal point, a straw that stirs the drink. You think of Novacek and Brent Jones and they were super players, but they were 3rd option guys. KW1 was a monster, but again, he was in an offense with a host of other weapons.

If Gibbs thinks that he is the real deal, I'll have no complaints if the team takes him (with visions of Desmond Howard dancing in my head). I just suspect that Gibbs can make effective middle-of-the-field weapons out of McCants and/or Royal, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

Make the NFC East shake in it's boots. My friend who is a die hard Giants fans has been trying to convince me that Winslow II would be a better fit than Ubeze. He brought something to my attention and I was hoping you guys woulod weigh in and let me know if you agree with it. Right now we arguably have the best set of recievers in the division. Coles was the truth eventhough he suffered from injuries all year long. He can stretch the field, and make the big big plays. I think Gardner will settle into his role, and become the possession reciever Monk was for us. I was set with this senario. I felt Ubeze would give us a pass rush, and a player like Derrick Johnson would give us depth but I've seen the light now. Imagine if we get KW2. It would force the safety to cover him. This would lead to either Coles, Gardner, or Jacobs to be covered one on one.......or maybe not at all. We wouldn't need a feature back because our bread and butter would be the passing game. We would just need to have some effective running to keep the defense honest. I've seen the light. KW2 is 6'4 252 and runs a 4.6. :eaglesuck

Best set of receivers in the division? You're right from top to bottom, but unfortunately I think the Cowboys top 3 is better than our top 3. They have 3 guys who are all obviously at least #2s on any team- the only one who might not be a legitimate #1 is Antonio Bryant, and he is probably even a bad team's #1. We have guys across our 5 who would be legitimate #3s. I think we only have 2 guys who could be #2s, and one guy who could be a #1. This may change when TJ gets more PT and hopefully proves himself, but as it stands now I wouldn't really say he could be anything above a #3. He would be a bad team's #2.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OY56,

You make a great point. It never crossed my mind that Gibbs might change how he runs his basic offense. I just figured the two-TE set was a given. But, you're right, he might look at his personnel and think, we need to do this, instead.

Still doesn't change my stance on Winslow. A single TE offense would probably create more blocking demands, especially with max-protect. If you're looking for a blocking TE, I seriously doubt he'll be any better than Kleinsasser or Sellers.

But, again, I'm just not big on having a stud at the TE position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SonnyJ

I dunno.

I realize that Gibbs is a master at adapting to his talent on hand and could do wondrous things with a stud like Winslow at TE. But I just go back to thinking how great that '91 team was and how effective it was with the deep passing game. A big part of that was the protection Ryp received. Gibbs often used heavy-to-max protection schemes to provide that protection.

Those necessarily involve the TEs staying in and blocking. Obviously, the TEs weren't doing that all the time, but #5 seems pretty high for a guy who is going to be asked to do a lot of blocking (and is not a top-notch OT).

I'm probably slanted in my view. I just don't regard TEs as critical pieces of an offense. They're a complement - augmenting the OL and the receiver corps as a 3rd or 4th option. I can't recall any championship teams that had a TE as a focal point, a straw that stirs the drink. You think of Novacek and Brent Jones and they were super players, but they were 3rd option guys. KW1 was a monster, but again, he was in an offense with a host of other weapons.

If Gibbs thinks that he is the real deal, I'll have no complaints if the team takes him (with visions of Desmond Howard dancing in my head). I just suspect that Gibbs can make effective middle-of-the-field weapons out of McCants and/or Royal, too.

The Howard comment brought to mind a paragraph in the Post Redskins Book... even Gibbs makes mistakes...

Two months after the Super Bowl, Casserly took the biggest gamble of his career. He traded a pair of first-round draft choices to move into position to take wide receiver Desmond Howard, who had just won the Heisman Trophy after a dazzling season at Michigan. Casserly and Gibbs gushed over Howard on draft day, calling him an explosive playmaker, someone who should have a big impact for the next decade. "I've never seen a receiver who reacts as well to the ball when it's in the air," Gibbs said on draft day. "The guy makes plays."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

Best set of receivers in the division? You're right from top to bottom, but unfortunately I think the Cowboys top 3 is better than our top 3. They have 3 guys who are all obviously at least #2s on any team- the only one who might not be a legitimate #1 is Antonio Bryant, and he is probably even a bad team's #1. We have guys across our 5 who would be legitimate #3s. I think we only have 2 guys who could be #2s, and one guy who could be a #1. This may change when TJ gets more PT and hopefully proves himself, but as it stands now I wouldn't really say he could be anything above a #3. He would be a bad team's #2.

Just my opinion.

I disagree about the Cowboys WRs. W/O making any comment on how they compare to the Skins' WRs, I think you're wrong in your evaulation of them.

Galloway and Glenn, at this point in their careers, are no better than #2 guys on most NFL teams outside of Dallas and Philly. The only guy who might be #1 material IS Bryant. But he seemed to be relegated to second-tier status under Parcells. Maybe it was their offensive problems as a whole, or maybe Parcells is trying to break him. Dunno.

Anyway, it seems to me that Dallas is littered with #2 WRs. They have no one who can touch Coles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can think of several Super Bowl winners where the TE played a feature role.

The Broncos and the Ravens probably wouldn't have been nearly as effective on offensive if it wasn't for Shannon Sharpe.

In Super Bowl V, John Mackey caught a 75-yard TD pass. You can't tell me that Mackey, a Hall of Famer, wasn't a featured player in that offense.

How 'bout Dave Casper with the Raiders? Not a featured player???? He led the Raiders in receptions in '76 and caught a TD pass during their victory in Super Bowl XI. It might raise your eyebrows to know that the Raiders, who had made the conference championship game 6 of the previous 8 years, didn't win the big one until Casper became a featured player in their offense.

Mark Bavaro LED the Giants in receptions and was 2nd in TD catches on their Super Bowl champion team in '86. On the '90 championship team, he was second in receptions, and led the team in TD catches.

The Packers had Keith Jackson, who was in the twilight of his career, but played a very important role in their Super Bowl run in '96. He was second on the team in receptions and led them in TDs. Without him the next season, they lost in the Super Bowl.

So don't tell me that the TE hasn't been a featured player in the passing game for champions.

Gibbs won Super Bowl XXVI without a star at TE and defensive line consisting of one fading Pro Bowl player (Charles Mann) and a bunch of role players.

So sorry if I don't cry if we get only one of those players in the '04 draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought about Mackey, but he was a few years ahead of my time, and I didn't have enough info about him. Didn't he play with Berry and Moore? Not a bad set, there.

I forgot about Casper and Bavaro. Bavaro may be the best case for a TE. Casper still had Branch and Biletnikoff around him. Bavaro had what, Ingram, Baker, and McConkey (who gave Green fits, BTW).

Sharpe was surrounded by Smith and McCaffery, plus Davis running the ball in Denver. He was part of a low-risk offense in Baltimore.

I don't buy that Jackson was the difference between winning and losing the Super Bowl for the Packers.

You mention a couple who would be considered to be FEATURED. All were important parts of the team. Nothing to persuade me from my original stance.

I still regard TE as a cog in the machine. I've no doubt that Winslow is a rare talent at the position. I wouldn't scream and holler about it if they did take him. I just don't see it as a position where a superstar will make that big a difference over a simply SOLID (above-average) player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, Sonny, EVERYONE'S a cog in the machine.

That's the very essense of a Gibbs-coached team.

Yeah, it's a stretch to say Jackson was the difference between winning and losing the Super Bowl. But he WAS a featured player in that offense. He led the team in TDs, including running backs. And he was second in receptions. That's a featured role, in my opinion.

I cited these particular tight ends because they were ALL featured players in their teams' passing games. The fact that several of them played with talented WRs and RBs simply UNDERSCORES my point, because they were STILL a (or THE, in several cases) primary target for their QBs.

None of these offenses would have been nearly as effective if they were simply "solid" tight ends. Just because Gibbs won with "solid" tight ends, that shouldn't diminish the accomplishment and importance, and recognition of these other tight ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jbooma

The one thing KW2 can do the others can't is line up as a WR. He is also one heck of blocker.

EXACTLY.

He is TOO good of an athlete to pass up.....he offers that other THREAT that teams must worry about.....

DE, DT, Safety, TE.....w/e Coach Joe goes with....it is for the good of the team. We will all support his decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this time, I'm leaning towards Taylor. I'm sure that St. Joe's selections will be better than mine anyway so no matter which way he goes, until proven wrong, I'd support those choices.

1. There are options that do not include KW2 that will improve our TE corps significantly although KW2 will create the most improvement. I would not object to KW2 but this is not my choice.

2. There are non-draft options to fix our d-line. There are, however, a couple of guys who might turn out to be steals.

3. We have NO significant need at RB (at least, its the least pressing need we have) although I wouldn't object to going after a vet if we can get him cheaply (both in terms of $ and any trade) or if someone like Greg Jones falls into our laps, I'd have a hard time not taking him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...