PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Redskins OUTLOOK(pre-draft)


COUNCILMAN
02-13-2005, 11:01 AM
I have been a strong proponent of the Skins drafting a defensive end with our number 1 pick, but have been criticized by some of you when you state that the Skins don't need defense because we had the number 3 RANKED defense. That is why I found Rich Tandler's article interesting. You should read it. Rich agrees with me. The Skins had the #3 RANKED defense he says, but NOT the 3rd BEST defense.

There were about 20 other teams that ranked higher than the Skins in turnovers and big plays. This is where the Skins are WEAK. The Skins put very little pressure on the passer, and it is QB pressure which causes most turnovers, whether it be interceptions or QB fumbles or poor handoffs, or just bad decisions.

I know the Redskins passing game was weak, and just for the record, if the Skins do NOT take a defensive player, then I would hope the Skins would take Troy Williamson with the number 9 pick, because Troy is a blazing fast wideout who can catch. He would give the offense what we lacked, which is a threat to go 80 yards every play. The day of safeties crowding the line of scrimmage would be long gone. Troy would make an excellent deep threat to go along with Coles who has simply become an excellent possession receiver.

However, I still would hope the Skins will attempt to get an impact pass rusher who can pressure the QB consistently. I believe Erasmus James or Dan Cody are the 2 best possibilities right now for the kind of speed rush we need. But the "combine" could bring out other names.

Also, I would hope the Skins keep Washington, Pierce, and Marshall as their 3 linebackers, and use Arrington stricktly as a pass rusher. Lavar is a true Superstar, with speed and power, and could easily become a double digit sack master. Thats 1 way to keep our defense intact and still add a pure speed rusher without changing anything. Lavar could replace Wynn on 2nd or 3rd down passing situations, a simple idea that would only add to, not change our defense.

Currently Marcus Washington is the only feared blitzer/pass rusher we have, but he was limited because he does not line up on the line of scrimmage and running backs can see him coming. The same with Sean Taylor. What we need is a DEFENSIVE END....who can take over the game and force running backs to double up on him....allowing our blitzers to have a free shot.

Who this will be is anybody's guess. Maybe LAvar is the answer. Maybe Clemons, or Evans can become that pass rusher. Maybe Warner. But I wouldn't count on it. I would draft Erasmus James with the number 9 pick and be done with it.

Its just the smart thing to do....to make a good defense even better.

Swift
02-13-2005, 11:15 AM
I agree. The cowboys sat on their hands on the defensive side of the ball last year and we got murdered. You should always look to improve both sides of the ball. I can only imagine what could have been had we signed one of the corners...

truant
02-13-2005, 11:19 AM
Hmm... I can see your point but I don't really agree.

1) The DEs aren't all that impressive this year, but there is good depth (the difference btw Tuck and James isn't very significant IMO). So taking any at #9 isn't good value.

2) The defense did its job last year. The ineptness of our offense mitigated the effectiveness of the defense. We were without our primary 'big play' guy (Arrington) practically all year.

3) Converting LA to a full-time DE has more negatives than positives. He'll likely get injured more, dealing with offensive linemen more regularly. His weight would have to go up, then his speed down. He wouldn't be happy and it's easier for the defense to key on where he is when he's not playing in space thus, less big plays.

4) Jacobs, Coles, and Thrash fall under speed WRs. I'm not sure if a Jacobs clone is what we need with Williamson. Gardner is as good as gone and who knows what'll happen with DMac. Somehow, someway, the Skins need to add some size to the WR position. If (big if) Coles returns to his healthy 2003 form, our wideouts will be plenty fast as is.

So my ideas would boil down to this: try to trade down to the 20s where players like Justin Tuck, David Pollack, Matt Roth, Marlin Jackson, Shawn Cody, ect. may fall. We'd get good value on players that grade out just slightly lower than the players who will be taken in the 8-15 range; and we'd save a ton of cash in terms of a contract.

If we have no takers on the trade down, it'll depend on what happens during FA. If we pick up a Hayward, Burgess, Porter, Givens or Lucas... that'll obviously alter the draft plan. I wouldn't mind taking Antrelle Rolle (if Smoot leaves and no viable option is signed) or Mike Williams (if no bigger WR is signed during FA).

champisachump
02-13-2005, 11:20 AM
if mike williams is not there at 9, (which he wont be), trade down, draft pollack and with the picks you have from trading draft ben wilkerson in the 2nd round.

SkinsGuru
02-13-2005, 11:27 AM
I don't think anyone would argue that we could use a pass rushing DE. But most of us agree we have more pressing needs such as WR, OL, and possibly CB.

guinness4health
02-13-2005, 11:32 AM
i dissagree with your assestment of the linebacker situation...
washington and pierce are outstanding but we were lucky that marshall paled as well as he did, but he is limited in his ablities (he maximized his play by playing within his skill set, playing intelligent and only doing his job).....
using arrington as a situational pass rusher is fine, he can be effective in that role...at those times he marshall could set in (if we can afford to resign him)....but right now arrington is a one dimensional rushing from a three point stance, he doesn't have a real countermove....
don't forget how incredibly disruptive arrington can be in the passing game....he has the athletic ability to get in the passing lanes, he has the strength to disrupt routes and flatten running backs and tightends before they can get 5 yds downfield....having him standing up is williams system is just plane frightening particularly with pierce, washington, taylor, bowen, springs, clemons, etc. who are capable of blitzing at any moment.....
all that being said williams' first priorities for a defensive linemen is someone that excell at multiple roles...his defensive lineman must be able to push the pocket...be stout against the run...hold-up blockers to free-up blitzers....and he has those types of guys....
of course yes it would be a great luxury to pick-up some young guys that could just pin there ears back and rush the passer, but the chance that you are going to be able to draft a guy that could step-in and be a starter in williams system as a defensive end is not very good....i think that with clemons, evans and warner we have some fine depth along the defensive line....
i would look to draft a defensive lineman in the third round, maybe a guy that doesn't have the greatest speed numbers but played well in a big time system like oklahama or LSU, or get one of those guys that has huge combine numbers but played small time ball and needs refinement....

i think that a healthy lavar will increase our ability to pressure the quarterback and add a young lineman that can come in during certain situations and just peel his ears back and get after it....

until we upgrade the wide receiver position and the center position we need to think about drafting offense in the first rounder (even if we trade down)

that might change if we address these needs in free agency...but until then draft O.

Redskin006
02-13-2005, 11:36 AM
one thing i dont want to see the skins do is upgrade tremendously on offense and leave the defense alone. if you look at dallas they were the 1st ranked defense a year ago and this year ended up number 27 or so. you cant assume that a defense will play with the same heart and same fire as they did last year. wherever we have a weakness we need to address it. and we can always add depth. offensively we need a ton of help. i, too, like troy williamson. he could make a huge difference in our offense. and then we could sign a FA veteran center and then also draft a center. if we could somehow get two first round picks, i would draft erasmus james and williamson or clayton. they would help the skins tremendously.

COUNCILMAN
02-13-2005, 11:41 AM
Whenever I hear people talk about why we need to <a href="http://websearch01.mcclient.com/search.php?s=nfl+draft+info+2005&rnd=bnwzua" onmouseover="window.status='http://www.hailredskins.com/info.php?draft'; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='Done'; return true;">Draft</a> Mike Williams I have to smile if not laugh. Its ALWAYS in the same breath as "IF Coles can get his speed back...then we'll have our speed guy...." and " we have to replace Rod Gardner".

First....Gardner isn't a factor so he doesn't have to be replaced. Second, you don't bet your season on IF's. It took about 4 years of "If Ryan Leaf matures, boy will he be good". I'm not going there. If Coles ever gets healthy, thats great. But my friend, don't count on it because Coles is injured AND injury prone. Thats not my opinion. Thats a fact. So lets not IF the subject again.

You mention Lavar would be unhappy if we switched him to D.E. And your point is? Lavar seems to complain all the time and doesn't produce. He misses tackles and overruns plays. Quite frankly, this is NOT about what Lavar wants. He gets paid to play where Greg Williams puts him. When Marvin Lewis put him at D.E. for most of the season, LAvar was unhappy. But he responded with double digit sacks. RIGHT NOW...the Redskins need double digit sacks....more than they need Lavar to be happy. Let Lavar come in for 15 plays a game...keep him fresh....run him at the QB on passing plays...and I will guarantee he will give us double digit sacks and QB's will suddenly start running away from him or hearing his footsteps. THATS what we need.



David Pollack is a quality young man. Will probably never get caught drunk driving. HOWEVER...in no assessment anywhere have I read where he is capable of taking over a game. THATS what we need. Erasmus James can take over a game and at least has the POTENTIAL to become another Bruce Smith type player. Dan Cody has the potential and the build of Michael Strahan when he came out of college. Pollack, A GREAT YOUNG MAN...but will not likely ever become more than a good player with a great workout reputation. Out team needs an IMPACT player...and James and Cody have been mentioned in the same sentence with that word. Pollack hasn't.

While I enjoy everyone's opinion, quite frankly I have heard enough of these "IF" statments. If LAVAR is healthy or IF Lavar can spot the run or the pass in time or IF Lavar can stop freelancing, etc.etc. Stick LAVAR at defensive end for 15 plays per game and let him speed rush and you won't be saying IF anymore. Lavar will not get injured if he is just speed rushing and not taking on defensive tackles for 40 plays per game. Just let Wynn do the dirty work because he is great at that. Then on passing downs, bring in Lavar to clean up the field by mopping up with the QB.

truant
02-13-2005, 11:59 AM
For a person who hates "if", you use a lot of them, LOL.

Jacobs is a speed guy. No if's there. Coles is as well. He's even more of a threat should he be 100%, but everyone in our offense was regulated to possession roles last year.

What we need, my friend, is a better offense. Start there. I'm not sure why you're so concerned with a defense that kept us in every game this year even with a horrible offense.

Your draft assessment is pretty funny. What word is linked to potential? That's right, "if". lol! Justin Tuck has been talked about as perhaps the best speed rusher in the draft. Out of all the names I mentioned, you take Pollack and rip on him for being a quality guy? I'm talking about value. At #9 you invest a large signing bonus. If we move down to the 20s the signing bonus is significally less (allowing the team to improve in many areas) and you'd aquire additional picks (to insert youth and cap relief in the future.)

Lavar was more of a threat under Marty than under Lewis. Maybe you just look at stats and forgot how he was utilized. Lavar's best asset is playing in space. Surely Williams will put him in a three-point stance on certain passing situations, but your inital post talks about coverting Lavar to "stricktly as a pass rusher", yet your most recent says "Stick LAVAR at defensive end for 15 plays per game". Should we regulate Lavar to N.D. Kalu duty as a 3rd down pass rushing specialist because you said, "I would hope the Skins keep Washington, Pierce, and Marshall as their 3 linebackers"? I think that would be a mistake.

LadyNRedskinsfan
02-13-2005, 12:00 PM
councilman, you werent really criticized because you wanted us to draft a DE, you were criticized more because you said that drafting DL would put us over the top. the consensus is lets fix whats really broken first. we need to make sure that we address the offensive line and wide receiver position. i agree that we need to add a pass rushing DE and ive said it for a while now. i would love if the skins could trade down and pick up a DE and a WR/OL in the first two rounds.

portis2endzone
02-13-2005, 01:02 PM
well gibbs already said that WR was high priority first through FA then through the draft. if he cant get who we wants through FA then look for us to draft a WR. in the end it all depends on what we do in FA.

bgforever
02-13-2005, 01:37 PM
if mike williams is not there at 9, (which he wont be), trade down, draft pollack and with the picks you have from trading draft ben wilkerson in the 2nd round.

I had a discussion about pollack with a Colts fan and there's buzz about him, but I think that is as far as it will go. Like the pick chance if going lower to get him. We seem to be headed in a direction that may be more Dan/Vinny induced this time around (adamant about NOT trading down is a good indicator). However, it too is my guess work, because Joe Gibss' "intentions" is one thing, what he may have to do is another and eventually trading down would win out. If that's the case, "how far" low we go depends on the wackiness of the draft after the first 5 picks, if that.

We're still mixing drinks at this point, but we don't know what's the best one. They all have a good taste and flavor, but only a few will be a knockout punch.

The best bet is trade down anyway, because we sign Givens by March 3.

garedskin
02-13-2005, 01:53 PM
I have been a strong proponent of the Skins drafting a defensive end with our number 1 pick, but have been criticized by some of you when you state that the Skins don't need defense because we had the number 3 RANKED defense. That is why I found Rich Tandler's article interesting. You should read it. Rich agrees with me. The Skins had the #3 RANKED defense he says, but NOT the 3rd BEST defense.

There were about 20 other teams that ranked higher than the Skins in turnovers and big plays. This is where the Skins are WEAK. The Skins put very little pressure on the passer, and it is QB pressure which causes most turnovers, whether it be interceptions or QB fumbles or poor handoffs, or just bad decisions.

I know the Redskins passing game was weak, and just for the record, if the Skins do NOT take a defensive player, then I would hope the Skins would take Troy Williamson with the number 9 pick, because Troy is a blazing fast wideout who can catch. He would give the offense what we lacked, which is a threat to go 80 yards every play. The day of safeties crowding the line of scrimmage would be long gone. Troy would make an excellent deep threat to go along with Coles who has simply become an excellent possession receiver.

However, I still would hope the Skins will attempt to get an impact pass rusher who can pressure the QB consistently. I believe Erasmus James or Dan Cody are the 2 best possibilities right now for the kind of speed rush we need. But the "combine" could bring out other names.

Also, I would hope the Skins keep Washington, Pierce, and Marshall as their 3 linebackers, and use Arrington stricktly as a pass rusher. Lavar is a true Superstar, with speed and power, and could easily become a double digit sack master. Thats 1 way to keep our defense intact and still add a pure speed rusher without changing anything. Lavar could replace Wynn on 2nd or 3rd down passing situations, a simple idea that would only add to, not change our defense.

Currently Marcus Washington is the only feared blitzer/pass rusher we have, but he was limited because he does not line up on the line of scrimmage and running backs can see him coming. The same with Sean Taylor. What we need is a DEFENSIVE END....who can take over the game and force running backs to double up on him....allowing our blitzers to have a free shot.

Who this will be is anybody's guess. Maybe LAvar is the answer. Maybe Clemons, or Evans can become that pass rusher. Maybe Warner. But I wouldn't count on it. I would draft Erasmus James with the number 9 pick and be done with it.

Its just the smart thing to do....to make a good defense even better.


I disagree with both of you.Simple fact is that the team was credited with giving up 265 total points,but the defence actually gave up only 223,42 of the points where given up by the offense/special teams.
The Baltimore game the defence held there offense to just 3 pts but the offense and st gave up a td each.Giants defence scored(1st game) and that became the differance in the final outcome.We ended up winning against Tampabay,Chicago,and Detroit whose only TD of the day came against our Offense.The second Giants game the only score they managed that day was against the ST.
The defense is young and resigning there own FAs from that unit should be the highest of priorities this offseason.The offence needs a couple of players(a possession type WR and a couple of good blocking TEs) to turn it around.
The defence especially the D-line played very well last year.The Defence did not get as many sacks/turnovers as some would like but for the most part got the other teams offense off the field with out scoring.They ranked high in almost every defensive category there is,the main one is points given up and that is why they are one of the best units in the league.. :Peace:

inevitable
02-13-2005, 02:19 PM
well gibbs already said that WR was high priority first through FA then through the draft. if he cant get who we wants through FA then look for us to draft a WR. in the end it all depends on what we do in FA.

If councilman says we need to draft a DE, obviously Gibbs is wrong :rolleyes:

Kope65
02-13-2005, 02:43 PM
I have been a strong proponent of the Skins drafting a defensive end with our number 1 pick, but have been criticized by some of you when you state that the Skins don't need defense because we had the number 3 RANKED defense. That is why I found Rich Tandler's article interesting. You should read it. Rich agrees with me. The Skins had the #3 RANKED defense he says, but NOT the 3rd BEST defense.

With how bad our offense played this year I think it was amazing our d was in the top 10. When you look at how many bad spots our defense was put in...I think they rate as the most EFFECTIVE D in the league.
Sacks and turn overs come when you are up by 20 late in the third, and not when the other team has a field goal lead late in the third (tends to make teams play conservative).

Shenadoah
02-13-2005, 02:49 PM
What good is a number one Defense going to do when your offense can't put 14 points on the scoreboard? It's nice to be able to stop the other teams offense but the goal is for your team to score touchdowns to win. I'll settle for a number three defense and a offense that can consistantly put at least 18 points a game on the scoreboard.

COUNCILMAN
02-13-2005, 03:49 PM
Well, its obvious that their are some folks who are going to disagree on this thread. Thats fine, but we don't need the trolls, snipers, and negatives like "inevitable" that claims that Gibbs is wrong simply because I have an opinion.

Inevitable, its not about who is right or wrong. Thats hard to say in team sports because there are too many factors to consider. However, how do YOU know what Gibbs wants? For all you know, Coach Gibbs is planning on drafting a defensive end. Would that make me right AND him right. Hardly. It would just mean the team went in a certain direction.

We can all agree to disagree but at least I back up my points with facts. The Skins simply put no pressure on the QB. FACT. The Skins simply were not able to stop teams when the pass had to be made. FACT. The Skins defense, although very good against the run, because they committed 8-9 men around the line of scrimmage to stopping the run......still isn't..I say

STILL isn't all that good. Keep this in mind. Yes we kept that Steamroller offense in Baltimore from amassing 100 points. Yes we kept that Juggernaught offense in Dallas from scoring 60 points on us. Yes, we seemed to have played a great game against that fantastic Chicago Bears offensive machine, and we sure did well against the Detroit Lion juggernaught.

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, San Fran, Eli Manning and the Giants...wow..we sure were playing some Hall of Fame QB's there. The reality is that this is exactly the kind of defense the Cowboys had 2 years ago. They played around the line of scrimmage and stopped the run, and won a lot of close games. Then, last season, teams started passing on them more and attempting to run a bit less. Results.....the Cowboys suddenly can't seem to stop anybody. Anybody except the Redskins. Take away the Redskins games and suddenly the Cowboys would have the worst defense in the league and be drafting in the top 3.

Thats not what I want to happen to the Skins. The Redskins simply cannot stop the pass. Its a fact. Teams just didn't throw that much because they were too busy trying to run out the clock and play field position.....BECAUSE THEY WERE LEADING. If the Skins get into a lead, as they did this season, they might find that they really can't hold that lead or the other team can come from behind to win or nearly win as happend in the Dallas game and the Detroit games....as well as several others.

If you can't stop the pass in a passing league, you are doomed to lose. FACT. The Redskins were 5-11 and had no pass rush. FACT. Even if they draft Mike Williams or trade for T.O. they will still have no pass rush. FACT. And once again, if you can't stop the pass, you will lose. Notice the Colts can't stop the run, but they at least have a pass rush. That helps them when they get the lead.

Stuffing the run is great, but if you have the lead, teams are more likely to PASS than to run from behind. FACT. The Skins can stuff the run, but can't stop the pass....therefore, just getting more offense doesn't solve the problem. Its just my opinion who we should draft, but quit saying that our defense is great or we will be able to stop the pass if we have a 20 point lead. We won't have a 20 point lead because we can't stop the pass. FACT.

techskinsfan
02-13-2005, 04:07 PM
Hmm... I can see your point but I don't really agree.

1) The DEs aren't all that impressive this year, but there is good depth (the difference btw Tuck and James isn't very significant IMO). So taking any at #9 isn't good value.

2) The defense did its job last year. The ineptness of our offense mitigated the effectiveness of the defense. We were without our primary 'big play' guy (Arrington) practically all year.

3) Converting LA to a full-time DE has more negatives than positives. He'll likely get injured more, dealing with offensive linemen more regularly. His weight would have to go up, then his speed down. He wouldn't be happy and it's easier for the defense to key on where he is when he's not playing in space thus, less big plays.

4) Jacobs, Coles, and Thrash fall under speed WRs. I'm not sure if a Jacobs clone is what we need with Williamson. Gardner is as good as gone and who knows what'll happen with DMac. Somehow, someway, the Skins need to add some size to the WR position. If (big if) Coles returns to his healthy 2003 form, our wideouts will be plenty fast as is.

So my ideas would boil down to this: try to trade down to the 20s where players like Justin Tuck, David Pollack, Matt Roth, Marlin Jackson, Shawn Cody, ect. may fall. We'd get good value on players that grade out just slightly lower than the players who will be taken in the 8-15 range; and we'd save a ton of cash in terms of a contract.

If we have no takers on the trade down, it'll depend on what happens during FA. If we pick up a Hayward, Burgess, Porter, Givens or Lucas... that'll obviously alter the draft plan. I wouldn't mind taking Antrelle Rolle (if Smoot leaves and no viable option is signed) or Mike Williams (if no bigger WR is signed during FA).
i agree with you...the defense was dominant last year...ok they didnt take the ball away a ton...but i can remember several big plays that they made to keep us in games so that arguement is out hte window...and moving lavar to permant de...why wuold u draft a de we have solid des already...but we could use a good passrusher that can play the run too...DAVID POLLACK...hes the only de i would want...maybe cody cuz hes similar...and troy williamson i dont think is the answer at wr...we are gettin rid of our possession reciever...williams or vincent jackson are who id target...if we dont get porter

chrisbcbu
02-13-2005, 04:08 PM
Anyone can make an arguement over our needs. Yes we need a WR, OL and other needs as well. Gibbs flat out said WR is a priority thats a FACT.

Our defense was 2nd against the run and 7th against the pass. So to say the Skins cant stop the pass is odd. Your arguement would be better if you had said couldnt stop the pass when needing to(i.e. end of the game). But that could also fall under bad offense in not giving our defense sufficent time to rest( too many 3 and outs). Yes we lacked a pass rush i dont think anyone has said otherwise. But if you cant score 20 points until WEEK 13 then something HAS to be done to the offense first. Heck i even think the offense and special teams gave up more TDs then our defense did(not sure just saying).

Noone is saying that we dont need a better pass rush, we just have more pressing needs that either need to be taken care of via FA or draft.

Dexter72
02-13-2005, 04:11 PM
We can all agree to disagree but at least I back up my points with facts. The Skins simply put no pressure on the QB. FACT.

Would you say Baltimore can't rush the passer? The Skins finished 11th in the league in sacks...tied w/Baltimore. Even if NE, Philly, and Baltimore are better defenses than the Skins, they're what, the 6th best defense in the league?? They certainly are in the top 10. Sure they played against some weak offenses, but they did well against good offenses in Minn, Philly twice, GB. We could use a nice pass rushing DE...but then again, NE could use better corners. It would be nice to have, but its not what's holding this team back. Pass Protection is. They get good pressure up the middle from Griff, from the scheme with LBs and the secondary, and got good pressure from their reserves (Warner and Clemons). We didn't lose 10 games because of our defense.

techskinsfan
02-13-2005, 04:11 PM
u dont know that we cant stop the pass...we did a good job on that this year i think many would say...i wish i had some stats but im kinda busy on some school stuff...and its not a fact that we put no pressure on teh qb...witha 4 man rush we dont do a good job...i can remember clemons and evans and warner doing good coming off the end spot and gettin sacks...not consistant but they did the job...we had 40 sacks last year...i believe that was in the top 10 if nto top 15 in the league

chrisbcbu
02-13-2005, 04:17 PM
u dont know that we cant stop the pass...we did a good job on that this year i think many would say...i wish i had some stats but im kinda busy on some school stuff...and its not a fact that we put no pressure on teh qb...witha 4 man rush we dont do a good job...i can remember clemons and evans and warner doing good coming off the end spot and gettin sacks...not consistant but they did the job...we had 40 sacks last year...i believe that was in the top 10 if nto top 15 in the league

We were tied for 9th in sacks.

We also gave up 38 sacks. Which is not good.

CNYSkinFan
02-13-2005, 04:25 PM
You mention Lavar would be unhappy if we switched him to D.E. And your point is? Lavar seems to complain all the time and doesn't produce. He misses tackles and overruns plays. Quite frankly, this is NOT about what Lavar wants. He gets paid to play where Greg Williams puts him. When Marvin Lewis put him at D.E. for most of the season, LAvar was unhappy. But he responded with double digit sacks. RIGHT NOW...the Redskins need double digit sacks....more than they need Lavar to be happy. Let Lavar come in for 15 plays a game...keep him fresh....run him at the QB on passing plays...and I will guarantee he will give us double digit sacks and QB's will suddenly start running away from him or hearing his footsteps. THATS what we need.



For one Lavar does alot of damage when he is roaming around the secondary disrupting the passing game. Secondly as a 3rd Down DE Lavar is pretty good because he can pin his ears back and rush the passser. But an every down linebacker he isn't. We acquired Marcus Washington for the express purpose of freeing up Lavar on the weak side so opposing defense can't occupy him with a TE. However you wish to put him over a tackle every down. What sense does that make?

You also make fun of posters who us "If's" to make their argument but your argument itself is the biggest If of all. You want to use a top draft choice to solve what you see as our biggest need. Well draft choices are the biggest if of all, including defensive ends. For every Jevon Kearse there is a Courtney Brown. Of course my argument is the same for those of us who want to draft a WR there as well.

When it comes to improving our team you have to look at the biggest need. And no one doesn't see that the biggest need is on offense, namely WR, C, and possibly TE. Yes the defense can be better, but Lavar's return, Bowen's return, and the whole units maturity into Williams system, most importantly Taylor, will improve the defense.

The comparison to our team and the Cowboys last year is ridiculous. The Cowboys were all about the system. Once people figured out the system they did not have the talent to adjust. We have more talent to a man then they do. They were also comparably older then the Redskins, sometime one offseason is enough for all of them to get a step slower. Our defense is relatively young and burgeoning with superstars.

So would I love a pas rushing DE. Yes. But it is a luxury we can not afford at present.

NamVet4
02-13-2005, 04:47 PM
I have been a strong proponent of the Skins drafting a defensive end with our number 1 pick, but have been criticized by some of you when you state that the Skins don't need defense because we had the number 3 RANKED defense.
Councilman, you are certainly entitled to your well thought out and well-defined opinion, with the facts you stated. However, the offense, I think you will agree is more responsible for our 6 -10 season than the defense. That is the area that should be addressed first and foremost.

I know the Redskins passing game was weak, and just for the record, if the Skins do NOT take a defensive player, then I would hope the Skins would take Troy Williamson with the number 9 pick, because Troy is a blazing fast wideout who can catch. He would give the offense what we lacked, which is a threat to go 80 yards every play. The day of safeties crowding the line of scrimmage would be long gone. Troy would make an excellent deep threat to go along with Coles who has simply become an excellent possession receiver..
And you make a convincing argument to spend the # 9 draft pick on a WR as opposed to trading it away.

Also, I would hope the Skins keep Washington, Pierce, and Marshall as their 3 linebackers, and use Arrington strictly as a pass rusher. LaVar is a true Superstar, with speed and power, and could easily become a double-digit sack master. Thatís 1 way to keep our defense intact and still add a pure speed rusher without changing anything. LaVar could replace Wynn on 2nd or 3rd down passing situations, a simple idea that would only add to, not change our defense..

Here you and I will agree to disagree. I certainly can substantiate that LaVar Arrington is capable of producing QB sacks as he did under the tutelage of Marvin Lewis. This past yearís injury was devastating to our defense. So we put aside the: woulda, shoulda, coulda's. LaVar comes back healthy next season and because of the performance put in this year by Antonio Pierce and Marcus Washington, Coach Williamís has the luxury of putting together a defensive scheme that capitalizes on the aforementioned ability of LaVar Arrington.

Currently Marcus Washington is the only feared blitzer/pass rusher we have, but he was limited because he does not line up on the line of scrimmage and running backs can see him coming. The same with Sean Taylor. What we need is a DEFENSIVE END.... Who can take over the game and force running backs to double up on him.... Allowing our blitzers to have a free shot.

Who this will be is anybody's guess. Maybe LaVar is the answer. Maybe Clemons, or Evans can become that pass rusher. Maybe Warner. But I wouldn't count on it. I would draft Erasmus James with the number 9 pick and be done with it. .

As much as you suspect that Arrington, Clemons or Evans can become a pass rusher extraordinaire, but doubt your conclusions; there are many fans that suspect that a rookie at DE can not provide an immediate impact.
Itís just the smart thing to do.... To make a good defense even better.
Good Coaches, like Coach Gibbs, and the Front Office, will not argue your point. It is just a matter of setting the priority.
Bottom Line for me at least, is that the Team needs to address the offense first.

chrisbcbu
02-13-2005, 04:53 PM
Councilman, you are certainly entitled to your well thought out and well-defined opinion, with the facts you stated. However, the offense, I think you will agree is more responsible for our 5 - 11 season than the defense. That is the area that should be addressed first and foremost.


OOPS i thought we were better than 5-11. :banghead:

2Cooley
02-13-2005, 04:54 PM
Well, its obvious that their are some folks who are going to disagree on this thread. Thats fine, but we don't need the trolls, snipers, and negatives like "inevitable" that claims that Gibbs is wrong simply because I have an opinion.

Inevitable, its not about who is right or wrong. Thats hard to say in team sports because there are too many factors to consider. However, how do YOU know what Gibbs wants? For all you know, Coach Gibbs is planning on drafting a defensive end. Would that make me right AND him right. Hardly. It would just mean the team went in a certain direction.

We can all agree to disagree but at least I back up my points with facts. The Skins simply put no pressure on the QB. FACT. The Skins simply were not able to stop teams when the pass had to be made. FACT. The Skins defense, although very good against the run, because they committed 8-9 men around the line of scrimmage to stopping the run......still isn't..I say

STILL isn't all that good. Keep this in mind. Yes we kept that Steamroller offense in Baltimore from amassing 100 points. Yes we kept that Juggernaught offense in Dallas from scoring 60 points on us. Yes, we seemed to have played a great game against that fantastic Chicago Bears offensive machine, and we sure did well against the Detroit Lion juggernaught.

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, San Fran, Eli Manning and the Giants...wow..we sure were playing some Hall of Fame QB's there. The reality is that this is exactly the kind of defense the Cowboys had 2 years ago. They played around the line of scrimmage and stopped the run, and won a lot of close games. Then, last season, teams started passing on them more and attempting to run a bit less. Results.....the Cowboys suddenly can't seem to stop anybody. Anybody except the Redskins. Take away the Redskins games and suddenly the Cowboys would have the worst defense in the league and be drafting in the top 3.

Thats not what I want to happen to the Skins. The Redskins simply cannot stop the pass. Its a fact. Teams just didn't throw that much because they were too busy trying to run out the clock and play field position.....BECAUSE THEY WERE LEADING. If the Skins get into a lead, as they did this season, they might find that they really can't hold that lead or the other team can come from behind to win or nearly win as happend in the Dallas game and the Detroit games....as well as several others.

If you can't stop the pass in a passing league, you are doomed to lose. FACT. The Redskins were 5-11 and had no pass rush. FACT. Even if they draft Mike Williams or trade for T.O. they will still have no pass rush. FACT. And once again, if you can't stop the pass, you will lose. Notice the Colts can't stop the run, but they at least have a pass rush. That helps them when they get the lead.

Stuffing the run is great, but if you have the lead, teams are more likely to PASS than to run from behind. FACT. The Skins can stuff the run, but can't stop the pass....therefore, just getting more offense doesn't solve the problem. Its just my opinion who we should draft, but quit saying that our defense is great or we will be able to stop the pass if we have a 20 point lead. We won't have a 20 point lead because we can't stop the pass. FACT.


Well if we get them in a situation where they have to pass i am pretty sure our coaches are smart enough to play pass and not try and stop the run, and give me a time where we could not stop the past. And we will never have a 20 point lead if we cant score 20 points. If you can stop the run and make any team one dimensional you will have a good shot at winning. If we draft a D we will still have and bad O fact. Why diddnt the Vikings tourch no smoot or springs # 1 O in the NFC

CNYSkinFan
02-13-2005, 04:55 PM
Listen Councilman you stand on your soapbox and talk about Facts but refuse to actually use the statistics to back up your claims. Is it because the statistics do not bear out your arguments? Well lets see:

According to the NFL the Washington Redskins rushing defense was second in the NFL in rushing yardage allowed (1304) and 1st in in yards per carry (3.1). They were also 8th least in rushing attempts per game (26.2).

According to the NFL the Washington Redskins passing defense was seventh in the NFL in passing yardage allowed (2977) and 9th in completion percentage (57.1%). They were also 17th least in passing attempts per game (32.2).

Looks like we did pretty good stopping both. We did better against the run because that is and always has been the strength of a 4-3 base defense. Stopping the run and forcing the pass. It is a time honored tradition amoung good defenses. The reason our past defenses blew chunks was that we could NEVER stop the run.

So if teams were trying to run out the clock then why did we rank in the middle of the league in passing attempts against but near the least in the league in rushing attempts? If we could not stop the run why did we lead the league in average per carry. If we were so bad in sacks why did we rank ninth in the league?

I appreciate your passion for wanting a DE. However you sir are ignoring the very facts you claim to be upholding. But like a sidewalk preacher you are shouting your faith and wishes but refusing to read the very bible you are holding up. Facts my friend can be quantified. Not just attested to. Otherwise it is pure conjecture like everyone else. So get off the cross. We need the wood.

NamVet4
02-13-2005, 04:57 PM
OOPS i thought we were better than 5-11. :banghead:
My error, we are 6- 10 - :doh: I apologize!

inevitable
02-13-2005, 05:23 PM
CNY stats don't bring silly stats in here, you are only right if you use caps and exclamation points. Remember, being emotional makes you right. :rolleyes:

skinswin
02-13-2005, 05:50 PM
I"ve laid back and listened to both sides of this discussion and both sides have good, solid points. And I wish we could address both the offense and defense in the draft and free agency the way we want to but I fear we won't be able to address one side properly without the other suffering.

Right off the top I want to say that the idea that the defense is going to be fine next season is flawed. You have to remember that in the NFL, the league as a whole makes an adjustment to defenses based on schemes and little talent. And our defense got by on the new schemes that Williams brought and NO ONE in the NFL (including us) knew that players would adapt so fast to them. With that said, we got little to no turnovers and no pressure on the opposing QB because to be truthful, other then Griffin, there is no real talent on the D-line.

Look at how the league made an adjustment to the #1 defense of the Cowboys. Cowboys defense was # 1 and it too was # 1 because of the new schemes that Parcells and co. brought that first year. The talent on defense (other then Glover and Williams) was poor. They didn't really address the defense in the draft and boom...they went to # 27 in defense last year. Marcus Spears could really be a wonderful selection for us at # 9. Spears is the type of guy who's a warrior, high motor,quick and he could line up anywhere on the D-line.



Let's talk about the offense. Coles has not proven that he is worth the money of a #1 WR since he's been here. 90 catches, no TD's. catching a whole bunch of 5 yard passes. He's a possession receiver period. Rod Gardner is gone and Jacobs and Mccants are unproven to say the least. Mike Williams could take the opposing teams #1 CB off of Coles and upgrade the WR corpse as a whole. I personally am on the Troy Williamson bandwagon. He's big, fast and allready runs great routes. And if we swapped picks with the Texans we could pick up a 2nd round pick and get Williamson. I'm scared of Mike Williams in that he's not fast and he reminds me so much of Keyshawn Johnson and Keyshawn has more mouth then game IMO.


These are the question that have to be answered:

1. Is Coles going to continue to be the featured "#1" WR on this team? Will he ever be the same because of the toe injury that is still bothering him and he refuses to have surgery?

2. Can Plexico Burress be the upgrade at WR we need to make our WR corps what we want it to be?

3. Do we want to solve the OT position and Center position in free agency or the draft?


It's really a tough call. Offense or defense.

bishop56
02-13-2005, 06:15 PM
I think making Lavar a DE is absolutely ridiculous! You want to take a Pro Bowl premier LB and make him play in a position where he will be considered undersized and in a position to let an OT get his hands on him right from the start of the play. DL have a job and that is to keep a OL off the backers and if you get double teamed you make a pile and stuff the hole. You are willing to point out that Lavar overruns alot of plays. Think about this how many times would you have seen Sean Taylor or Pierce or Washington, totally clean someones clock when they hesitated when Lavar overruns the play. Picture this Lavar is cruising along and Julius Jones makes a cut upfield as he watches Lavar reach for him as he goes by, he thinks see ya big b"""BANG""" as he is getting a whiff of smelling salts and he looks at his trainer who he can't understand because all the ringing in his head he is informed that Sean Taylor just impaled him and the ball bounced across the turf like his helmet did. Then Lavar picked it up and ran to the endzone as he is celibrating the touchdown that Springs scored on the fumble you see him waving JJ's helmet. Now I'm just trying to make the point that over-running or over-persuing isn't a bad thing when you've got several missiles coming behind you.

sniksog
02-13-2005, 06:28 PM
You mention Lavar would be unhappy if we switched him to D.E. And your point is? Lavar seems to complain all the time and doesn't produce. He misses tackles and overruns plays. Quite frankly, this is NOT about what Lavar wants. He gets paid to play where Greg Williams puts him. When Marvin Lewis put him at D.E. for most of the season, LAvar was unhappy. But he responded with double digit sacks. RIGHT NOW...the Redskins need double digit sacks....more than they need Lavar to be happy. Let Lavar come in for 15 plays a game...keep him fresh....run him at the QB on passing plays...and I will guarantee he will give us double digit sacks and QB's will suddenly start running away from him or hearing his footsteps. THATS what we need.

We are not paying the man 68 million over 8 years to rush the passer 15 plays a game. We are paying him to play LB every play on defense, and to make plays at LB (which he will do).

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 06:31 PM
CNY stats don't bring silly stats in here, you are only right if you use caps and exclamation points. Remember, being emotional makes you right. :rolleyes:


Yeah, bringing up the Skins defensive stats from last year have NO place in discussing whether the Skins should draft a DE. LMAO..

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 06:37 PM
Facts still elude you COUNCIL. So we have a good defense and a terrible Offense; but we should upgrade the DE position.

The Skins were in the upper third of teams at rushing the passes]r. That fact eludes you.

Drafting a DE when we need a WR or oline, even with your argument that Coles is a stiff; makes ZERO sense.

"Its just the smart thing to do....to make a good defense even better."
And let an offense still drift into nothingness. Good plan.

"Erasmus James can take over a game and at least has the POTENTIAL to become another Bruce Smith type player. Dan Cody has the potential and the build of Michael Strahan when he came out of college."
James is interesting, but has serious questions: injury and he disappeared from Games. Cody will play OLB in a 3-4, he's not thick enough to play DE.

You dont ask enough Ifs, you just assume.

redskin_rich
02-13-2005, 07:33 PM
The way I see it, we should trade down to get a late 1st and 2nd or maybe a package as in our #9 and Gardner for a mid 1st rounder and a 2nd rd pick. Either or another way, we could use those 2 early picks on a WR and DE. On O-line we can use free agency for a starting C and possibly LT. And Lavar should play weakside LB in our base 4-3.
Just my 2 cents.

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 07:35 PM
The way I see it, we should trade down to get a late 1st and 2nd or maybe a package as in our #9 and Gardner for a mid 1st rounder and a 2nd rd pick. Either or another way, we could use those 2 early picks on a WR and DE. On O-line we can use free agency for a starting C and possibly LT. And Lavar should play weakside LB in our base 4-3.
Just my 2 cents.

Yeah, I dont know why all the D-Coordinators played Lavar on the strong-side. Williams moved Lavar to the weak side. Too bad we didnt get to see a season worth of results. I dont think DE is a priority over OL and WR because getting Lavar back will make a fearsome LB blitz duo. Washington and Arrington blitzing will free up the DEs.

redskin_rich
02-13-2005, 07:39 PM
Yeah, I dont know why all the D-Coordinators played Lavar on the strong-side. Williams moved Lavar to the weak side. Too bad we didnt get to see a season worth of results. I dont think DE is a priority over OL and WR because getting Lavar back will make a fearsome LB blitz duo. Washington and Arrington blitzing will free up the DEs.
Which are we more likely to land a starter with one of our hypothetical first 50 picks, O-line or D-line?

Jimreaper007
02-13-2005, 07:41 PM
The facts elude you......

That was funny :D

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 07:42 PM
Which are we more likely to land a starter with one of our hypothetical first 50 picks, O-line or D-line?

Oline. Almost certainly if Samuels is traded.

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 07:44 PM
Which are we more likely to land a starter with one of our hypothetical first 50 picks, O-line or D-line?

Also: Wynn will be gone, more than likely. Demertrius Evans, Ron Warner, Phil Daniels, Nic Clemons and a free agent or other draft pick would be fine by me.

Also, there is not a dominate DE in this draft. Especially in the first round. There's talent throughout, but not in the high first. There isnt a Julius Peppers in the draft.

redskin_rich
02-13-2005, 07:47 PM
Oline. Almost certainly if Samuels is traded.
You know the talent coming out this year better than me, is there a rookie we could draft that could start in Samuels spot? I don't know if Gibbs would start a rookie at such a vital spot.

akhhorus
02-13-2005, 07:48 PM
You know the talent coming out this year better than me, is there a rookie we could draft that could start in Samuels spot? I don't know if Gibbs would start a rookie at such a vital spot.

I'm high on Chris Colmer. Out of NC State. He's big, fast talented and mean. However, he has a rare condition that weakens his arms. If he's medically cleared, he'd be a steal. I think Gibbs would rather not draft and start a LT, but he will if he has to.

Python
02-13-2005, 11:50 PM
If memory serves me correctly, I recall alot of people saying we needed to draft DL last year. that Taylor would not make as big of an impact as Udeze or some other DL. Last time i checked none of the DL that got drafted last year made any game changing impacts consistanly. Taylor did. I'm not claiming to know alot about college players but i think last year's draft was deeper at DL than this year's draft. It is harder to come into the NFL and be a great DL right from the start because the OL are a little bigger and more experienced.
This is just my opinion, I may be wrong.

Skins3
02-14-2005, 06:31 AM
I think you should draft on best available player in the top 10 pick or in the 1st round for that matter dont draft on need now this does take common sense but at the #9 spot I would like to see a WR CB or DE which ever has the best player for those three positions take that person example

Williams
Rolle
James

if williams is gone you take rolle if willams and rolle are gone you take james if all three are left you take Mike Williams if all three are gone target troy willamson and trade down and add picks

I hear one person say da Bears wont draft Edwards because of David Terrell will we shouldn't draft Edwards because of Desmond Howard

techskinsfan
02-14-2005, 08:32 AM
i agree with you ahk that the line intact i would be fine with...i disagree that there is no dominant de in the draft...there are no projected de in the draft but no one knows...gibbs and gw may see someone like cooley lurking around in rd 2 or 3 or they may be high on someone like pollack or roth or tuck...someone they know they cant take at 9 but want...personally if williams is not at 9 and sam isnt gone i say we go that direction...im not sold on williamson so my next pick would be clayton or miller...maybe we draft someone to push dockery or someone to groom behind sam and just cut him or trade him next year cuz this is gonna be an every year thing...but i dont dismiss that there wont be a real good de this year...and i think pollack will be grant winstrom or bettter...imo

akhhorus
02-14-2005, 09:19 AM
i agree with you ahk that the line intact i would be fine with...i disagree that there is no dominant de in the draft...there are no projected de in the draft but no one knows...gibbs and gw may see someone like cooley lurking around in rd 2 or 3 or they may be high on someone like pollack or roth or tuck...someone they know they cant take at 9 but want...personally if williams is not at 9 and sam isnt gone i say we go that direction...im not sold on williamson so my next pick would be clayton or miller...maybe we draft someone to push dockery or someone to groom behind sam and just cut him or trade him next year cuz this is gonna be an every year thing...but i dont dismiss that there wont be a real good de this year...and i think pollack will be grant winstrom or bettter...imo

But every DE prospect in this draft has a major question about him. They could all be good: but there is no DE prospect with ZERO major questions about him. There is no Julius Peppers is this draft.

chrisbcbu
02-14-2005, 09:25 AM
You know the talent coming out this year better than me, is there a rookie we could draft that could start in Samuels spot? I don't know if Gibbs would start a rookie at such a vital spot.

I really like 2 guys Khalif Barnes out of Washington and Wesley Britt out of Alabama. I think both will be studs in the NFL. But then again these are my 2 favorite college teams so i could be considered biased. :)

MoeRedskins
02-14-2005, 09:35 AM
Although a solid D end would be nice, a little more depth would be better. The defense was #3 in yards, but never made any big plays outside of the SF game. Next year you get a healthy Matt Bowen back with an experienced Sean Taylor. Recievers running routes through the middle will go down and anybody that does will get crunched. You add Lavar to the LBs and they get better with a fierce player that will disrupite every play and Mike Barrow will be back from injury (whether he will be back at camp is another thing). The D line will get Phillip Daniels healthly (hopefully for more than a week). So we have the right players on the Defensive side, they just need to stay healthly. With these players back, big plays will occur. Now, if Smoot goes though big plays happen against up instead of for. Walt Harris is capable, but that is not reassuraing. We need a DB if smoot goes before we need a DE.

techskinsfan
02-14-2005, 12:34 PM
But every DE prospect in this draft has a major question about him. They could all be good: but there is no DE prospect with ZERO major questions about him. There is no Julius Peppers is this draft.
true...i agree there are many with questions...i just think if we trade down that the value at that pick will probably be at de...it just depends on who falls where and how trading turns out...i dislike the de class too but i just think pollack is a gw and gibbs type guy

BIGSEF3
02-14-2005, 03:52 PM
my main worry for this offseason is that we will do what we have done the past couple years and jump at the first FA's available.

i mean, we practically had mark brunell locked up before march 1st. if we had been a little more patient, guys like kerry collins, jeff garcia, and kurt warner would have been available. while its debatable whether any or all of those would have been better prospects at the time, we excecised no patience.

perhaps gibbs would have gone for kurt warner. he would certainly have come cheaper. and the money we saved could have allowed us to go after jevon kearse.

i sincerely hope we wait a little bit before jumping into bed with a WR, center, LT, orwhatever esle we might get in FA. our philosophy of late seems to be lock up guys before a bidding war can start, but really, might we save money if we see no one else is offering as much as us?

BIGSEF3
02-16-2005, 12:30 PM
pete crisco has us ranked 22nd in his first power ranking.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8195805

ahead of us are the ravens, jags, saints, bills, bengals, chiefs, titans, and TEXANS. yes, all these grubby 2004 teams are suggested to be better than joe gibbs second year, and greg williams no doubt to be improved #3 overall defense.

the mere idea that ANY of those teams (possible exception of the ravens) are suggested as being better than us are absolutely ludicrous.

the only thing i agree with there, is that he has the giants and cowgirls as being below us on the depth chart.

i think i speak for everyone here when i say, pete prisco, you can kiss ** ***** ***** ***.

you can substitue whatever you want for the astrices.

candeeman
02-16-2005, 12:34 PM
pete crisco has us ranked 22nd in his first power ranking.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8195805

ahead of us are the ravens, jags, saints, bills, bengals, chiefs, titans, and TEXANS. yes, all these grubby 2004 teams are suggested to be better than joe gibbs second year, and greg williams no doubt to be improved #3 overall defense.

the mere idea that ANY of those teams (possible exception of the ravens) are suggested as being better than us are absolutely ludicrous.

the only thing i agree with there, is that he has the giants and cowgirls as being below us on the depth chart.

i think i speak for everyone here when i say, pete prisco, you can kiss ** ***** ***** ***.

you can substitue whatever you want for the astrices.
I actually want the skins to be ranked low. The underdog always does better.

JoeJacksonTaylor28
02-16-2005, 02:26 PM
Hey akhh, I would like to have your position a little clearer, sometimes it seems that you just like to prove why people could be wrong, but you have taken several different positions about what we should do. Which would be your complete offseason plan? Now, different question, if we get Porter/Muhammad/Burress/etc. in FA, AND Samuels restructures, what would you do with OL and what would you do in draft day?

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 02:31 PM
Hey akhh, I would like to have your position a little clearer, sometimes it seems that you just like to prove why people could be wrong, but you have taken several different positions about what we should do. Which would be your complete offseason plan? Now, different question, if we get Porter/Muhammad/Burress/etc. in FA, AND Samuels restructures, what would you do with OL and what would you do in draft day?

I have a general plan: Upgrade the following positions: WR, LT, OC, DE, CB, TE. Through the draft or free agency. It's still too early to see how it will shake out. Ask me after the first week of FAgency.

Now if we got one of the stud WRs in FA, and extended Samuels. I would still trade down. That means you still have TE, CB, DE and OC to deal with. I would deal down to the 15-20 range and draft either Pollack or Heath Miller. And then draft to fill the other needs later on in the draft.

techskinsfan
02-16-2005, 02:40 PM
I actually want the skins to be ranked low. The underdog always does better.
i dunno how u can do a power ranking right now with all the uncertainty...the skins could lose pierce smoot salvea and marshall...and not sign ne one...or resign all them and sign porter...i mena i think its kinda ridiculous...as he said hes just filling the void for emails...cuz noone emails him to complain bout how stupid his polls are...philly isnt number 2 either...that makes no sense they got all but trott coming back...i dunno i just think that poll was a cry for attention...wait til after the fa comes together to get a somewhat meaningful poll and probably after the draft for a real good one

CNYSkinFan
02-16-2005, 02:42 PM
i dunno how u can do a power ranking right now with all the uncertainty...the skins could lose pierce smoot salvea and marshall...and not sign ne one...or resign all them and sign porter...i mena i think its kinda ridiculous...as he said hes just filling the void for emails...cuz noone emails him to complain bout how stupid his polls are...philly isnt number 2 either...that makes no sense they got all but trott coming back...i dunno i just think that poll was a cry for attention...wait til after the fa comes together to get a somewhat meaningful poll and probably after the draft for a real good one

It may be an end of the year power ranking and if it is then it is about right. We had a rough year, we will come back.

BIGSEF3
02-16-2005, 03:49 PM
it just pisses me off that it is ASSUMED that we will do bad next year. the last time gibbs had a bad year, it wasnt as bad as this year, but the team went to the superbowl the next year.

i dont care what defensive players we have, i really dont. greg williams will give us a top 5 defense, no matter what.

joe gibbs is an offensive genious. sure, he had a very rough 1st year. but to say next year wont be better is an insult to a coach who won 3 superbowls and only had one other losing season in his entire career.

and how in the world the texans make it anywhere above 20 is beyond me.

chrisbcbu
02-16-2005, 04:17 PM
Where did you expect them to rank us? We have basically the same player we had last year and we still didnt prove anything to the critics! So why should they rank us higher than they did?

Im not denying that we dont have talent and have underacheived for the last decade it seems. But we have not really proved anything to the critics. We have to prove it on the field. Thats the only time it counts.

Let them rank us that low, we deserve it as of now. But once week five comes and we will no longer be looked upon as the bottom feeders in the league.

MoeRedskins
02-16-2005, 04:26 PM
Also, there is not a dominate DE in this draft. Especially in the first round. There's talent throughout, but not in the high first. There isnt a Julius Peppers in the draft.

If there was a Julius Peppers in the draft, do you really think he would fall to number 9.

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 04:31 PM
If there was a Julius Peppers in the draft, do you really think he would fall to number 9.

If...he lost a leg at the combine...

smoak
02-16-2005, 04:36 PM
But every DE prospect in this draft has a major question about him. They could all be good: but there is no DE prospect with ZERO major questions about him. There is no Julius Peppers is this draft.

Actually some people had major questions about Peppers and even in camp the coaching staff was worried he wouldn't get the job done.

Also, that was the year I went to NYC and Peppers (along with a large group of people) walked right by me. Its good to see Tar Heels succeed at the pro level.

skins111111
02-16-2005, 04:39 PM
#1-LT- restructure Samuels, FA is questionable if we have $$$$for the quality we will need, Draft 9th hopefully Barron or trade down and snag the best LT we can get
#2-CB- if Smoot goes we must draft Pac Man or Rolle to be stud CB of the future or snag a decent FA to patch us up for the year (we can only do that so long with Springs age)
#3-WR- best ceneriao restructure Samuels and resign Smoot then we have a fair shot at Williams or Edwards. If not pick up debth
#4-C we can still afford a decent C after we take care of #1 #2 #3
#5- DE a luxury that would be so sweet with our D healthy and intact

BIGSEF3
02-16-2005, 04:44 PM
Where did you expect them to rank us? We have basically the same player we had last year and we still didnt prove anything to the critics! So why should they rank us higher than they did?

Im not denying that we dont have talent and have underacheived for the last decade it seems. But we have not really proved anything to the critics. We have to prove it on the field. Thats the only time it counts.

Let them rank us that low, we deserve it as of now. But once week five comes and we will no longer be looked upon as the bottom feeders in the league.

my feeling is that there were other underperforming teams that were ranked higher than us, and there is no evidence to beleive those teams will be that much better, either. this was gibbs 1st year coaching in the "new nfl." you cant argue the second half of our year was much stronger than our 1st. and even though our record was 6-10, all of those games were close for 3-1/2 quarters.

not to rehash old crap, but if our team had scored 21 pts per game, we would have been a 12-4 or 13-3 team, if i remember. to say that joe gibbs wont do that in his second year is foolish. we may not be 12-4 next year, but we certainly will be in the better half of the teams in the nfl. placing us less than 16 is idiotic.

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 04:56 PM
Actually some people had major questions about Peppers and even in camp the coaching staff was worried he wouldn't get the job done.

Also, that was the year I went to NYC and Peppers (along with a large group of people) walked right by me. Its good to see Tar Heels succeed at the pro level.

If I recollect right; the questions were based on his intelligence. Not on his ability. Peppers aint the sharpest knife in the drawer. But there is no player out there at DE with a similar level of talent and physical ability.

joethefan
02-16-2005, 05:07 PM
I'm getting dizzy :twak:

MONK_in_HOF
02-16-2005, 05:08 PM
if mike williams is not there at 9, (which he wont be), trade down, draft pollack and with the picks you have from trading draft ben wilkerson in the 2nd round.
I couldn't agree more. Except is it a lock that Wilkerson is the best C in the draft? I know initially he was but since Chris Spencer C/ole miss declared I have heard and read often that he is a better prospect. Haven't personally watched enough of either of them. With the depth of DE/DB in this draft I think we could get a solid player at one of those Pos if we trade down and then go for a C Buges can mold in the 3rd.

Skinz4lyfe
02-16-2005, 05:52 PM
IMO, I we're stuck at #9. Its gonna be difficult to trade down because we're probably gonna get the similar talent at the #9 position then we are w/a late 1st rounder. Its a watered down draft this year and everybody knows it. That's why I believe we won't be able to trade down.

COUNCILMAN
02-16-2005, 06:46 PM
I was going to post this but since skinz4life beat me to it.....but this is the point. All these folks coming in here and saying "yea, we need to trade down to number 18(or whatever) and pick up a 2nd round pick"...well apparently you people think that the Redskins have some sort of power over other teams.

You just don't decide to trade down a few slots and pick up WHAT YOU WANT....and then still get a great player. That would be nice...but it doesn't work that way. Thats pure fantasy....at least for right now.

Nobody even knows if anybody will want to trade down to number 9 until the 9th pick gets here because NOBODY knows what will be available. And then again, if somebody is available at number 8, maybe a team trades up to number 8 and picks up that player and then doesn't need to trade to number 9. Its just absurd for some of you to post that we just need to trade down and pick up this or that. Right now I am not hearing a buzz on ANY player in the draft that would force a team to even want to trade up for the number 1 pick....much less the number 9 pick.

I believe we are going to pick at the number 9 slot unless one of the top 4 or 5 players slides down to 9 and then somebody offers us a fortune for that pick. I'm also tired of hearing we can't draft this guy or that guy at number 9 because it isn't a good value. Listen...you rate your players the way you want and you draft for need. If MEL's big board has a guy ranked 22 and we work him out and feel he is the answer to solve a problem, screw the rankings or "value". If a guy starts and contributes for you it doesn't matter if you draft him at number 9 and he scores 10 TD's or if you draft him at number 27 and he scores 10 TD's. You GRAB players when you can....if you think they can start.

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 06:48 PM
I was going to post this but since skinz4life beat me to it.....but this is the point. All these folks coming in here and saying "yea, we need to trade down to number 18(or whatever) and pick up a 2nd round pick"...well apparently you people think that the Redskins have some sort of power over other teams.

You just don't decide to trade down a few slots and pick up WHAT YOU WANT....and then still get a great player. That would be nice...but it doesn't work that way. Thats pure fantasy....at least for right now.

Nobody even knows if anybody will want to trade down to number 9 until the 9th pick gets here because NOBODY knows what will be available. And then again, if somebody is available at number 8, maybe a team trades down to number 8 and picks up that player and then doesn't need to trade to number 9. Its just absurd for some of you to post that we just need to trade down and pick up this or that. Right now I am not hearing a buzz on ANY player in the draft that would force a team to even want to trade up for the number 1 pick....much less the number 9 pick.

I believe we are going to pick at the number 9 slot unless one of the top 4 or 5 players slides down to 9 and then somebody offers us a fortune for that pick. I'm also tired of hearing we can't draft this guy or that guy at number 9 because it isn't a good value. Listen...you rate your players the way you want and you draft for need. If MEL's big board has a guy ranked 22 and we work him out and feel he is the answer to solve a problem, screw the rankings or "value". If a guy starts and contributes for you it doesn't matter if you draft him at number 9 and he scores 10 TD's or if you draft him at number 27 and he scores 10 TD's. You GRAB players when you can....if you think they can start.

Bravo, still continuing with the condescension.

whitskins
02-16-2005, 07:23 PM
Bravo, still continuing with the condescension.

This reminds me of that thread in the Off Topic thread about ignoring members.

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 07:25 PM
This reminds me of that thread in the Off Topic thread about ignoring members.

He's not worth ignore listing.

Beast56Redskin
02-16-2005, 07:28 PM
I have been a strong proponent of the Skins drafting a defensive end with our number 1 pick, but have been criticized by some of you when you state that the Skins don't need defense because we had the number 3 RANKED defense. That is why I found Rich Tandler's article interesting. You should read it. Rich agrees with me. The Skins had the #3 RANKED defense he says, but NOT the 3rd BEST defense.

There were about 20 other teams that ranked higher than the Skins in turnovers and big plays. This is where the Skins are WEAK. The Skins put very little pressure on the passer, and it is QB pressure which causes most turnovers, whether it be interceptions or QB fumbles or poor handoffs, or just bad decisions.

I know the Redskins passing game was weak, and just for the record, if the Skins do NOT take a defensive player, then I would hope the Skins would take Troy Williamson with the number 9 pick, because Troy is a blazing fast wideout who can catch. He would give the offense what we lacked, which is a threat to go 80 yards every play. The day of safeties crowding the line of scrimmage would be long gone. Troy would make an excellent deep threat to go along with Coles who has simply become an excellent possession receiver.

However, I still would hope the Skins will attempt to get an impact pass rusher who can pressure the QB consistently. I believe Erasmus James or Dan Cody are the 2 best possibilities right now for the kind of speed rush we need. But the "combine" could bring out other names.

Also, I would hope the Skins keep Washington, Pierce, and Marshall as their 3 linebackers, and use Arrington stricktly as a pass rusher. Lavar is a true Superstar, with speed and power, and could easily become a double digit sack master. Thats 1 way to keep our defense intact and still add a pure speed rusher without changing anything. Lavar could replace Wynn on 2nd or 3rd down passing situations, a simple idea that would only add to, not change our defense.

Currently Marcus Washington is the only feared blitzer/pass rusher we have, but he was limited because he does not line up on the line of scrimmage and running backs can see him coming. The same with Sean Taylor. What we need is a DEFENSIVE END....who can take over the game and force running backs to double up on him....allowing our blitzers to have a free shot.

Who this will be is anybody's guess. Maybe LAvar is the answer. Maybe Clemons, or Evans can become that pass rusher. Maybe Warner. But I wouldn't count on it. I would draft Erasmus James with the number 9 pick and be done with it.

Its just the smart thing to do....to make a good defense even better.

totally agree, though i think pollack is the best option, over injury james and crackhead cody.

whitskins
02-16-2005, 07:30 PM
I believe we are going to pick at the number 9 slot unless one of the top 4 or 5 players slides down to 9 and then somebody offers us a fortune for that pick. I'm also tired of hearing we can't draft this guy or that guy at number 9 because it isn't a good value. Listen...you rate your players the way you want and you draft for need. If MEL's big board has a guy ranked 22 and we work him out and feel he is the answer to solve a problem, screw the rankings or "value". If a guy starts and contributes for you it doesn't matter if you draft him at number 9 and he scores 10 TD's or if you draft him at number 27 and he scores 10 TD's. You GRAB players when you can....if you think they can start.

Are you kidding? We rate a guy in the bottom third of the first round and draft him at #9 because he can start for us? Um, no.

You do realize that we'll have to pay him #9 dollars don't you? But what difference does that make b/c the salary cap doesn't mean much to you since we need to go out and get an elite receiver like TO or Moss, right?

Just b/c there is not a #1 player that teams want to trade up for does not mean we can't trade down, you're just wrong. The Browns were ready to trade up for Sean Taylor and then Kellen Winslow last year, but nobody wanted to trade to #1 for those guys. One of the big 3 RBs could fall, teams could be falling over each other to get Heath Miller, or Mike Williams if we sign a FA WR. Antrell Rolle, Pac Man Jones, plenty of teams like Kansas City or Green Bay could be jumping to move up for these guys, or Alex Smith, ok I've made my point.

Hate to break it to you but your cystal ball isn't any less fuzzy than the rest of ours, you don't know what's going to happen and trading down is not out of the question. What should be is drafting a player at #9 who deserves to go closer to 25, that's just insane.

akhhorus
02-16-2005, 07:30 PM
totally agree, though i think pollack is the best option, over injury james and crackhead cody.

Only if we upgrade the WR position in FA. We need a WR far more than a DE.

colkurtz
02-16-2005, 09:21 PM
Our defense is a system. with the return of Arrington, Bowen and Daniels we will still be a very good defense even if we lose Smoot and Pierce. It will also be a defense which has continuity and the same def coach for two years in a row. I have few worries here.

WR is our weakest area. Coles may be back to full speed or at a lesser level. We need a big, high threat replacement for Gardner.

The OL will be fixed with FA.

I'd love to draft the best DE at the #9 - but without a very big upgrade in WR we're still going to be a 'one trick pony' on offense [Portis].

MONK_in_HOF
02-16-2005, 09:41 PM
I sure hope that all the teams before us are dumb enough to follow kiper and the rest of the pre draft rankings I have seen instead of using their own. If so mike williams falls right in our lap. There is always hope.

Skinz4lyfe
02-16-2005, 09:50 PM
councilman, i agree w/your assertion that we shouldn't stand pat on defense and not look to improve. however, while i believe we ran a similar scheme to the cowgirls, we will be better considering how many people we lost to injury last year. of course it is speculation but consider we lost bowen, arrington, daniels for most of the season w/injuries. also we have a 2nd year starter in pierce and some solid back ups in marshall, clemons, clark, wilds, and lott that gained valuable experience last year. so that's why i feel our situation is slightly different than the cowboys the previous year. i have faith GW won't let Gibbs forget that.

PennSkinsFan
02-17-2005, 02:17 PM
councilman, i agree w/your assertion that we shouldn't stand pat on defense and not look to improve. however, while i believe we ran a similar scheme to the cowgirls, we will be better considering how many people we lost to injury last year. of course it is speculation but consider we lost bowen, arrington, daniels for most of the season w/injuries. also we have a 2nd year starter in pierce and some solid back ups in marshall, clemons, clark, wilds, and lott that gained valuable experience last year. so that's why i feel our situation is slightly different than the cowboys the previous year. i have faith GW won't let Gibbs forget that.


Yup, and furthermore, standing pat on defense won't hapopen considering were losing Smoot. Changes will be made, some vets wikll be brought in and we may even draft some. BUT, the focus has to be on the unit that failed the team in 2004 and that was offense. You can stack up defense all you want, but if your offense is inept, your staying inthe cellar.

Meatsnack
02-17-2005, 03:15 PM
I believe we are going to pick at the number 9 slot unless one of the top 4 or 5 players slides down to 9 and then somebody offers us a fortune for that pick. I'm also tired of hearing we can't draft this guy or that guy at number 9 because it isn't a good value. Listen...you rate your players the way you want and you draft for need. If MEL's big board has a guy ranked 22 and we work him out and feel he is the answer to solve a problem, screw the rankings or "value". If a guy starts and contributes for you it doesn't matter if you draft him at number 9 and he scores 10 TD's or if you draft him at number 27 and he scores 10 TD's. You GRAB players when you can....if you think they can start.

I think you have made the counter-point. There are any number of scenarios that could result in the #9 being worth quite a bit and no one knows what will happen. Every team has its own draft value board and pretty much follows it down. As players come off the list, you take the highest one still remaining when you pick.

Teams that draft for need tend to rank certain positions higher and so they "reach" on a pick and have more chance than usual to get burned. Gibbs has stated explicitly that he wants to solve known problems in FA whenever possible so that we can enter the draft in a BPA position.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that Derrick Johnson falls to us #9. As a practical matter, we have no place to put the guy. But, it gives us options. We can trade the pick or the player if a team offers enough to tempt us. We can groom him for a season or two and trade an older player he replaces (Washington/Pierce) for additional picks or a player at a position of need. At 6'3", 230# with freakish speed we can try him at SS.

I wouldn't necessarily fail to draft a player I had at #9 on my board just because Mel Kiper thought he was the 22nd best player. I also wouldn't draft a player who was #22 on my board at #9 just because #22 played a position of need. This is classic Arizona Cardinals drafting and a sure recipe for extended failure.