OG in Round 1

[Awesome]

depending on what DT's are left, i think we should go OG in Round 1. gurode would be my first choice. with a pick like 18, you need to go after the best player available. since OG is one of our most glaring needs, a stud OG would be a great way to kick off the draft. gurode would give davis the power blocker inside that he needs. with jansen and samuels at the corners, and a young stud inside, i think we could resign either coleman or szott to a small deal then pick up a moderately priced center in fa, or go with brandt at center. with that lineup, we could have the potential for one of the best o-lines in the league for quite some time. thoughts?

[bulldog]

unfortunately, because the Redskins have not been able to land an impact receiver in free agency, I think the odds are that Spurrier is going to use either the #1 or #2 pick on a wideout.<br /><br />that limits our other options. I too would like to see DT/DE addressed at the top of the draft order.<br /><br />in fact in a perfect scenario, we get the chance to select one of the top 4 or 5 DT's that slip at #18 and then use the #2 pick to select a guy who can come in and play guard and also backup at tackle.<br /><br />once again, though, all we have been hearing about is moving up to take Harrington, staying where we are and drafting a WR at #18 or moving down and then selecting a WR and perhaps Patrick Ramsey in the early second round.<br /><br />now, teams aren't going to tip their hand. so, maybe a lot of that is just blow and the Skins indeed have a different draft strategy that doesn't involve moving up for Harrington, drafting a WR at #18 or moving down. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />but, I remember the past three years I have been looking for a DE/DT to appear somewhere on the board between rounds 1-4 and have been disappointed on each occasion.<br /><br />we have taken everything from project quarterbacks like Rosenfels to reach picks like Nate Stimson and Lloyd Harrison.<br /><br />and what is funny is that at the time of those picks we already had players set at those positions on the team.<br /><br />meanwhile we were still finishing #25-30 in run defense.<br /><br />you don't stop the run with linebackers. you stop the run with the ability of the front four to hold the point of attack and prevent the offensive linemen from getting movement.<br /><br />when are the Redskins going to learn? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

[TennesseeCarl]

I'm o.k. with taking an OG, but there's little reason to take one at #18. If that's what we want, I'm for trading down with someone in the late 20s and see if we can't leverage a late 3rd rounder along with our first rounder.<br /><br /> I think Garoude will be there. Foniotu might be gone, but I'll live if he's not there. The kid from Auburn is moving up some draft charts as well. <br /><br /> The nice thing about getting beef for the offensive line is that I don't know that I feel passionately about any particular guy. I just want someone who's been injury free or relatively so and plays at a high level. All that stuff about how many pancake blocks a kid has doesn't impress me that much. <br /><br /> Does Michigan have any more Jansens up that way?

[Ernie5]

Actually you stop the run with your front 7, which includes linebackers, esp. runstopping linebackers like Jesse Armstead. no doubt, we also need DTs, but Arrington played a huge role in us stopping the run last year. I'm also not sure -- in a very good G year -- why you'd draft a G in the first. I'm not dead-set against it, but Gs are not generally first round fodder. I say DT, DE or QB.

[NavyDave]

Michigans line was very young this past year and should be impressive for 2k2.<br /><br />I would love to get a D lineman first and a OG in the second round and if went this route I'd be in the we're not worthy mode because S Double and Marv would show that they know that it all starts up front on both lines.<br /><br />And I dismiss the nonsense of having too much money tied into the O line if we draft a lineman in the first. If they are bluechippers and produce its a great move because a solid wall gives decent receivers time to get open and RBs holes to run thru.

[Fitz]

I like Gurode a lot, and his ability to play center is a big plus. However, this is a particularly good draft for guards, and starter-quality players should be easily available in the third and fourth rounds. With our DL needs, we really don't need to spend the 18th pick on a guard. Many draft gurus think that Gurode could last to the early second round, with Nebraska's Fonoti and Kendall Simmons from Auburn rated as better pure guards and going in the first. Guys like Terrence Metcalf (Mississippi), Eric Heitman (Stanford) and Frank Romero (Sooners) are great prospects who should slide to the mid second round and beyond.

[Rat_Boy]

So, what do we do at 18 if Gurode and Fontoni (sp) are there, but the top 4 DT's are already gone? Take the 5th DT in the draft because OG's "are usually not 1st round fodder."???<br /><br />I would lean more towards taking one of the top two guards over the #5 DT in the draft. Just IMHO.

[Awesome]

i just don't see how taking a wr in the first round is a good idea. we have too many young prospects, plus gardner, to waste a number 1. it is time that we give thompson, mcCants and scaggs a shot, plus we have anthony. i think trading down would be a great idea, assuring us an OG and Patrick Ramsey, plus getting ourselves a third rounder.

[bulldog]

the wrestling match comes down to whether Spurrier is going to commit the draft to depth at the skill positions on the offensive side of the ball.<br /><br />what hasn't been mentioned is the possibility you could see the Redskins draft Caldwell or Gaffney AND draft Patrick Ramsey as well.<br /><br />then we are left to draft for the OL/DL with our #4 and any other supplemental mid round picks we get from the NFL, and of course post June 1 free agency.<br /><br />that may not be the most probable scenario, but it is one that is plausible if Reidel Anthony and the quarterbacks don't show well in the minicamps.

[inmate running the asylum]

Im with you TennesseeCarl. Well sorta. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br />Here's my ideal draft now, assuming a DT and Harrington are gone by the #18 pick. We trade to the low 20's in the 1st round and pick up another 2nd and 3rd round pick, and then draft:<br /><br />1 - QB Patrick Ramsey<br />2 - G Terrance Metcalf<br />3 - here im not sure, i dont know enough <br /> players yet. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ March 12, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: inmate running the asylum ]</small>

[Awesome]

well, i'm glad i'm not the only one who sees that we need Patrick Ramsey. the question is, how and where do we get him. no way do you waste your Round 1 on him. maybe trade down and get him, or hope he's there with our number 2 pick. but however it's done, it had better get done.

[Terry]

I'm not sure about the #18 pick, I don't think I'd take a guard with that.<br /><br />But if Kendall Simmons fell to my 2nd round pick then I'd take him in a heartbeat and see if he can win the left guard slot in camp.<br /><br />And if Fred Weary of Martin Bibla fell to the 4th round, then I'd have to give each serious consideration.

[fansince62]

the key....in my humble opinion.....remains signing a proven FA DT. let's forget about cost for a moment. we do this and a whole lot of attractive options open up for the draft. some advocate waiting until june 1. well...that's betting on the come - and landed up screwing us last year when marty miscalculated his QB needs.

[bigchuck]

The Redskins absolutely have to draft a DT in the 1st round. The last few draft has had some stud Dt's in them. That dont happen very often. We aaa I mean they have to take one if a good one drops down to them. Sign Blake and draft Rohan Davey. release Sage. There are also some decent Rbs that can be had to back Stephen in the mid rounds.

[GURU]

Ernie is correct. You stop the run with your front seven, not just your front four. If you're going to draft a defensive lineman, especially a defensive tackle, in the first round, he better be a complete, athletic player who can rush the passer. There's a definate possibility that one of those guys might be sitting there at #18. It shouldn't be an automatic pick, though. But drafting a runstuffer in the first round is a waste. <br /><br />Drafting a guard in the first round is a luxury. You had better have plenty of playmakers before you consider that. The old cliche, and it's definately getting old, that it starts up front has validity. But you don't have to stock both lines with first round picks. Even our beloved Hogs weren't a collection of high picks. Mark May, and later Jim Lachey, were first round picks. Russ Grimm was a 3rd round pick. The rest were low round picks and free agents. The key is to find a group of players that play well together. Hey, the Lions were playing with 4 first round draft picks on their offensive line at the beginning of the season. See where that got them?<br /><br />The Skins need to look at some playmakers with that first pick. They were sorely lacking those type of player last year, especially on the offensive side of the ball. The potential DTs have been mentioned. A DE like Kalimba Edwards might be available at that slot. He would give an instant pass rush while getting a season to bulk up and learn behind Smith and Coleman. <br /><br />I think you look at a safety like Miami's Ed Reed before you look at one of the guards in the first round. I actually like the safety play we got last season, more than a lot of posters here. But Reed would give the Skins a potential playmaker at the safety position, either safety position, like no one I can remember since Kenny Houston.<br /><br />Harrington would be obvious if he drops, however unlikely. But any number of receivers would have to be considered. Hey, I'd like to see what McCants, and Skaggs, and Thompson can do as much as the next guy. But come on. None of those guys have the upside that, say, Ashley Lelie or Donte Stallworth has, or the natural receiving skills of Reche Caldwell or Jabar Gaffney.<br /><br />Also, Patrick Ramsey is too much of a reach in the first round. He's got talent, but not first round talent. He's just as likely to be another Todd Husak as he is another Tom Brady. I'd rather wait and see if he's still around in the second. If he's gone, so be it. I'd rather take the chance on a later round QB than reaching for Ramsey in the first.

[Rat_Boy]

Well, IMHO, we have playmakers, except for at QB. I don't think a QB taken at 18 is going to start for us, unless we are willing to tank the season.<br /><br />But our playmakers can't make plays if the QB is on his back all the time.<br /><br />I still see no reason in trading down or taking a G at 18. If the pick was higher, I would agree. But at 18, the really good DT's, the ones that can do both, will probably be gone. And a run stuffer is not worth the 18th pick.

[bulldog]

We don't have a #1 receiver. Flemister is still largely unproven as a starting tight end. What Anthony does here is going to be a question mark based upon his decline the past 2 years. There is no backup to Davis signed. Bryan Johnson is still largely unproven as a starting fullback in the NFL.<br /><br />That to me is an offense with a lot of question marks beyond just the quarterback position, and I didn't even get into the line because of that topic being exhausted already on other threads <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />These question marks may be answered along the way and Spurrier may mold this group into a top flight unit with some help from the draft, but that is conjecture at this point.<br /><br />What is known is that we have a proven performer at tailback, left tackle, right tackle and a still-developing younger talent in Gardner as the #2 outside.

[Rat_Boy]

Well, this thread is about the OL BullDog.<br /><br />And all the #1 receivers in the world are useless without a QB who can get them the ball because he is on his butt most of the game.<br /><br />Not only that, but WR is one of the positions that is hardest for a rookie to make instant #1 type contributions. Gardner didn't, that's for sure. So, if it's a #1 receiver that Spurrier is looking for, then that is even more reason to draft a Guard in the first round and get the WR via FA.<br /><br />Guard, on the other hand, is a MUCH easier position to play as a rookie IMHO.

[Cskin]

1st off, you draft guard in the first when you feel as if the team has both playmakers and depth at other crucial positions. We don't have that, considering we have holes at DT, DE, #1 WR, and young QB to groom (other than Sage)<br /><br />-Although I like Ramsey's strong arm and intelligence, you don't draft him based solely on his combine work. He slots somewhere in the second, a QB with potential yet question marks.<br /><br />-IF quality DT & DE's are found mostly in the first, and it's a need pick for us, then we take one or the other in the first. We shouldn't reach for them, instead holding to our evaluation of their talent and taking one of the top three or four DT's (Haynesworth, Simms, Henderson, Bryant) or one of the DE's (Peppers, Edwards, or Grant). <br /><br />If the above are gone, then it's time to trade down for more picks in the second and third, not to reach for someone who clearly graded lower than the first round. <br /><br />NO GUARD in the 1st takes us to the Superbowl! A solid defense will!

[GURU]

Well, even a solid defense isn't enough to take you to the Super Bowl. It wasn't last year, even though the Skins defense was playing as one of the better units in the league the second half of the season.<br /><br />The 18th pick in the draft won't be based strickly on need. There are enough need positions on this team where you can pick the best player.<br /><br />Still, drafting a guard in the first round, especially in the top 20 is an iffy proposition. Is that guy going to be demonstrably better than a Dave Szott or Ben Coleman, especially his rookie season? When Seattle drafted Hutchinson last year, part of the reason is because they had two first round draft picks. Koren Robinson was their first pick. They already got what they thought would be their impact player when they drafted Hutch. Hutch was better as a rookie, but you better believe, that if they only owned one 1st rounder, they would have stayed with Robinson over Hutch.<br /><br />I don't buy this arguement about drafting players who can start right away. That's short sighted in my opinion. You draft players who you hope will keep your team competitive over a period of time, not just help you win a Super Bowl right away.<br /><br />You don't need an offensive line with Pro Bowlers straight across to win a Super Bowl, either. The Patriots' offensive line is one of the least talented ones I've ever seen to win it all. The Ravens had a Pro Bowler at left tackle and a bunch of no-names when they won. Same with the Rams.<br /><br />If you are looking for trends, clearly studly offensive lines isn't one of them. Like I said before, Detroit started out the season with 4 recent first round picks on their offensive line. But they were completely lacking in playmakers, especially on defense. Detroit actually has pretty talented lines on both sides of the ball. (Robert Porche, and Shaun Rogers, Luther Ellis, and Tracy Scroggins make up a pretty darn talented D-line, too) But they were one of the worst teams in the league.<br /><br />Does the O-line need to be addressed. Of course! But resigning Coleman and/or Szott and drafting a Terrence Metcalf in the second round or a Martin Bibla in the 4th round constitutes much more value than drafting Gurode or Fonoti in the 1st.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 12, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: GURU ]</small>

[Rat_Boy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"1st off, you draft guard in the first when you feel as if the team has both playmakers and depth at other crucial positions. We don't have that, considering we have holes at DT, DE, #1 WR, and young QB to groom (other than Sage)"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, we currently have ALL YOUNG QB's that we can groom till our hearts content. They have less than 10 NFL starts COMBINED, and they are all fairly young. How about a starter instead? We won't get an instant starter at 18.<br /><br />At 18, the very good DT's and DE's will be gone more than likely. But the best guard in the draft could still be there. You are going to pass on the best guard in the draft for the 3rd DE or 5th DT? Why?<br /><br />If we need a #1 receiver, why would we draft one? Rookie wideouts RARELY put up #1 numbers. Gardner shure didn't. Again, the FA is where you go for this, NOT the draft.<br />-------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Disclaimer: I was primarily talking about if we did not trade down. This would be my first choice, unless a really good DE or DT prospect drops which isn't likely. Now, if we are willing to count next season as a building year, and not really want to make a serious playoff run, then by all means, draft a WR or QB to groom in the 1st. But my interest in winning does not wait until 2003. It's 2002 right now. You said it your self. A very good defense could get us to the Super Bowl. BUT, I truly think that the DL guys that will be there at 18 will not make our defense VERY good. We are not one DL guy away.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 12, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Rat_Boy ]</small>

[GURU]

I think it's a bit foolhardy to think drafting a guard at #18 is going to win more games than drafting a WR or QB.<br /><br />If you are drafting a receiver, it wouldn't be as the #1, go-to guy, anyway. At least not his rookie season. Yeah, Rod Gardner didn't put up #1 numbers his rookie season. But he's not a rookie anymore. He's got a year under his belt to adjust to the speed of the NFL game, and a coach who knows how to draw up plays to get receivers open. Rod Gardner has the ability to be a #1 receiver, and I expect him to be one.<br /><br />But he needs help. Not just a guy who's fast and can run down the field. You need another receiver who can make tough catches and be a legitimate thread, not an implied one. When the Rams drafted Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce was coming off a career year. It certainly wasn't a need pick. But now, you can't simply double one of those guys.<br /><br />When you want to get an idea of how a Spurrier offense will work in the NFL, think RAMS. While the offenses differ in many of the mechanics, the philosophy is similar--spread the field, put constant pressure on the defense, exploit certain matchups, etc. That "no mercy" approach requires a bevy of speedy, skilled players. You can line up 5 All-Pros along the offensive line, and the offense won't work without those skill players.<br /><br />The offensive line will be addressed. But don't expect an offensive guard to be chosen with that first round pick.<br /><br />I think many of us are getting stuck in this "traditional" NFL mindset. My advice, now, would be to forget about the "rules." Remember who the coach is.

[Cskin]

well.... I'm of the opinion that guards should never be drafted in the first round, although teams do when they feel they have the depth to do it. Although Hutch was a great guard for the Seahawks, might they have been better served to draft a DT to stop the run or a DE to pass rush? Did Hutch do so well that his choice made sense in the first? <br /><br />In the event the best DT's & DE's are taken, and the ones I mentioned are the only ones I consider, then I'd draft a talented receiver... linebacker....or safety. I just think the most crucial elements of the OL are tackles, and that serviceable guards can ALWAYS be found with later picks.

[Carlito Sway]

I'd love for us to get a skill position, be it Harrington (yeah, right) or a receiver to make SS'a system more formidable . . . but we have to think about the years to come. This will almost certainly be #78's last year, and while Marco has a few left, I am doubtful the 'Skins would be able to mine two positions successfully so quickly. Given that we've had a scary inability to stuff the run for a few seasons now, why not suck it up and take an ungamorous DT now, so that we're not cavity-ridden two seasons from now? <br /><br />It's not sexy or anything, but consider: we have probably the best CB tandem; a monster speed LB in Arrington, and an aggressive D Coordinator. Wouldn't it stand to reason that teams will attack the middle? I'm not sure if the rumbling about switching to a 3-4 would change that . . . and so how much of a bummer would it be to get run on every game right up the gut? Then, not only would they move the chains, but control the clock, too. I'd think it'd be savvier to plug the hole as best as we can, get a D lineman (one of the scarcer positions, right?) and hope that Steve can make Skaggs, Rod and Anthony into the Posse 2002. <br /><br />But are there many D lineman to go around, anyway? If #18 would end up being wasteful on the DL talent available, I'd choose to to shore up the OL with a guard, because with Jansen and Samuels, we have a good thing going. A little tougher in the middle could allow SS to Fun-n-Gun while knowing he can turn to Stephen for first downs when necessary.

[Jimbo]

If Szott does indeed bolt for the Giants then I think a guard should be considered at #18. Good pass blocking will be a must in Spurrier's offense and the guard depth is thin.<br /><br />I'm all for taking one of the top 4 DT's or Harrington at #18 but if all are gone, I'd lean towards Fonoti or Gurode or even safety Ed Reed before taking a WR. I'd definitely look at the guard spot in the 2nd round if we get a DT or Harrington in the 1st round. The likelihood of getting a WR after June 1st is better than getting linemen.