PDA

View Full Version : D or O - search your memory


Hr fan
05-02-2007, 09:48 AM
I can't really remember a year that I wouldn't have favored taking D over O high. Give me pass rush! Give me run stuff! WRs? OK, you need them but can get them later. QB? More busts than franchises in round 1. I do make an occasional exception for LOT, but for no other OL. TEs come later, like Cooley.

Reading the posts up to and after the draft, or during for that matter, I see a real preference for D over O. So search your memory - over the years you have been following the Redskins have you favored D, O, or BPA?

Brokenstriker
05-02-2007, 09:51 AM
I can't really remember a year that I wouldn't have favored taking D over O high. Give me pass rush! Give me run stuff! WRs? OK, you need them but can get them later. QB? More busts than franchises in round 1. I do make an occasional exception for LOT, but for no other OL. TEs come later, like Cooley.

Reading the posts up to and after the draft, or during for that matter, I see a real preference for D over O. So search your memory - over the years you have been following the Redskins have you favored D, O, or BPA?

You always want what you don't have ... football, life ... its just one of those things

Red Bear
05-02-2007, 09:53 AM
it all depends on the prior season, my preference changes from year to year

redskin_rich
05-02-2007, 09:55 AM
If memory serves, a majority here wanted Mike Williams over Carlos in '05 and I believe the ST/KWII debates of '04 were almost even.

openallnight
05-02-2007, 10:01 AM
I can't really remember a year that I wouldn't have favored taking D over O high. Give me pass rush! Give me run stuff! WRs? OK, you need them but can get them later. QB? More busts than franchises in round 1. I do make an occasional exception for LOT, but for no other OL. TEs come later, like Cooley.

Reading the posts up to and after the draft, or during for that matter, I see a real preference for D over O. So search your memory - over the years you have been following the Redskins have you favored D, O, or BPA?

1) The best football players play on the D side of the ball.
2) The best athletes play on the D side of the ball.
3) Players make a defense great; Offense is more about running a system with guys you can trust to do their job.
4) I much more enjoy watching sacks, 4th down stuffs and safeties rather than offensive TDs.

So, I'd go with defense early an often. The only offensive position I'd even consider in the first round would be LT.

smoak
05-02-2007, 10:39 AM
I am a defense first guy in general, but OTs and franchise QBs are an exception. Also, throw it all out the window if you aren't top 10 b/c your draft is dictated by what was taken prior to your selection. I always try to target one player each draft and this year it was tough. I wanted Anderson, but really my first choice was to trade back and take best available. I just didn't like the linemen up there this year.

shally
05-02-2007, 10:48 AM
I can't really remember a year that I wouldn't have favored taking D over O high. Give me pass rush! Give me run stuff! WRs? OK, you need them but can get them later. QB? More busts than franchises in round 1. I do make an occasional exception for LOT, but for no other OL. TEs come later, like Cooley.

Reading the posts up to and after the draft, or during for that matter, I see a real preference for D over O. So search your memory - over the years you have been following the Redskins have you favored D, O, or BPA?

really depends what is needed..

Brokenstriker
05-02-2007, 11:26 AM
There is a school of thought where in "Defense wins championships" ... not positive it survives a historical test, but in general it feels like its a good rule of thumb

culpeper
05-02-2007, 11:26 AM
the year we took heath shuler and gus? and weve been hunting for a good wideout for a number of years ie. rod gardner:banghead: , micheal westbrook:inkston: , and taylor jacobs. really depends on need and best player available....

culpeper
05-02-2007, 11:28 AM
im sorry i meant GUS:banghead:

Return of 202/301
05-02-2007, 11:40 AM
I am addicted to skill positions so offense is where my mind is at.

candeeman
05-02-2007, 11:48 AM
Whether or not D or O. The line is the key to both. Skill positions will help hide line play but when you have great line play the other positions look better and the play more consisitant. Just look at NE and the Gibbs I.

openallnight
05-02-2007, 11:54 AM
There is a school of thought where in "Defense wins championships" ... not positive it survives a historical test, but in general it feels like its a good rule of thumb
While I'd like to think this to be true. I think the key to winning championships is "clutch" play. Be it driving down the field w/ 1 min for the game winning score or stopping the other team from doing the same. Although, I do think that more often than not "clutch" defenses stop the "clutch" offenses.

Meatsnack
05-02-2007, 04:11 PM
I favor "game changers" in the top of the draft. If you draft in the top 5 or 10 (depending on the strength of the draft class), draft the most explosive, match-up nightmare, keep coordinators awake nights player you can get, regardless of position.

Otherwise, unless you are a loaded roster like SD, I think you basically have to matrix need vs. best available and see how well it aligns with your roster. That is, if I need a TE and CB and I can get the best CB now and the third best TE a round later, even if my need for TE is greater I would probably get the CB.

On day two, I tend to favor taking chances on good players who have fallen due to injury or freakishly athletic developmental guys. Getting starters on Day 2 is a good, good thing.

D or O doesn't really enter into it.

skins111111
05-02-2007, 09:50 PM
I was wanting CB last year the rest is a blurrrr

colkurtz
05-02-2007, 09:56 PM
The QB is the critical position on the team. Got to use your best pick to get that one right.

you get someone like Peyton Manning, Big Ben or Tom Brady and your team will be a contender for a decade. I'm really excited to see JC play this season with a seasoned offense and Clinton Portis because he could be such a player.

X-Factor13
05-02-2007, 09:59 PM
For the most part I want D. Not DE though, because it's got to be the position most likely to bust, no matter how good they look. I think I prefer to solidify the middle of the defense (DT, LBs) before anything, and then get through the secondary...

bgforever
05-02-2007, 10:40 PM
Defense. Why?

O is juiced a lot these days with rules and some plays allowed to keep fans in the stands. To be honest, a lot of "great" defensive plays have been wiped out because marketing gurus in the league office noticed folks who have money, but know little about Pro Football on the field, favor TD's being scored, the ball in the air.

why of course, you know they wouldn't enjoy SMASH MOUTH! RB's crunching or getting crunched, DE's decimating their 'sniff, sniff.....QB's, and DT's stuffing the run, play after play, Safeties turning WR's and TE's into hamburger and watching a sweep get that all important 2 yds for a first down. Big OL manhandling piddly little CB's and the pit loaded with muddy tons of fun in the rain or snow. Oh God, I miss it!

redskin_rich
05-02-2007, 11:04 PM
1) The best football players play on the D side of the ball.
2) The best athletes play on the D side of the ball.
3) Players make a defense great; Offense is more about running a system with guys you can trust to do their job.
4) I much more enjoy watching sacks, 4th down stuffs and safeties rather than offensive TDs.

So, I'd go with defense early an often. The only offensive position I'd even consider in the first round would be LT.
You are obviously a fan of defensive football. I like balance myself and I don't think either side has an advantage talent-wise. My own personal experience is that the offense is much more reliant on being mistake free and precise, whereas one defensive player can totally disrupt a play. I played both sides and far preferred playing defense, for that simple fact.

As to your last point, I think it is situational. A garbage TD is no better or worse than a sack in a lost game. A game winning TD is the best feeling there is as is a game preserving stop on 4th. But if I had to weigh them, I'd take the TD.
Go back to the Skins in Dallas game in '05. Which was more of a rush? Santana's 1st or 2 TD, or Sean Taylor's game ending hit on Crayton?

The two TD's were for me. The stop at the end had me in full prayer mode. I didn't care how it was done, just as long as we held.

joethefan
05-03-2007, 04:16 AM
If memory serves, a majority here wanted Mike Williams over Carlos in '05 and I believe the ST/KWII debates of '04 were almost even.

Yea you're right

ChiefPowhatan17
05-03-2007, 07:41 AM
I always prefer taking a Defensive player over any Offensive player. Maybe because I played D and love the big time hitters. I like it when we groom young players to play D, but sometimes they don't make the 53 man roster and then other teams get them off of our practice squad.

RedskinRyan
05-03-2007, 08:54 AM
If memory serves, a majority here wanted Mike Williams over Carlos in '05 and I believe the ST/KWII debates of '04 were almost even.

i will admit i wanted mike williams over carlos rogers. but i wanted either tommie harris or vince wilfork as opposed to sean taylor/kellen. eventually i became a sean taylor fan though.

Hr fan
05-03-2007, 09:04 AM
I favor "game changers" in the top of the draft. If you draft in the top 5 or 10 (depending on the strength of the draft class), draft the most explosive, match-up nightmare, keep coordinators awake nights player you can get, regardless of position.

Otherwise, unless you are a loaded roster like SD, I think you basically have to matrix need vs. best available and see how well it aligns with your roster. That is, if I need a TE and CB and I can get the best CB now and the third best TE a round later, even if my need for TE is greater I would probably get the CB.

On day two, I tend to favor taking chances on good players who have fallen due to injury or freakishly athletic developmental guys. Getting starters on Day 2 is a good, good thing.

D or O doesn't really enter into it.

A good WR will touch the ball maybe 10-15 times a game. Game breaking WR speed is maybe 5 TDs a year. A QB touches every offensive play, and passes about 40% the time. The RB rotation also 30-40% the time, WRs/TEs maybe 20%-30%. In addition the best offensive skill is totally dependent on the OL. An example this year is Ted Ginn, who profited from the Hester factor - the vision of return TDs overcame what scouts say is raw receiving talent.

An impact D at LB will maybe be in on 1 play each 3 down series, and the best make 130 or so tackles a year. A good PR will impact a game enuf to cause hurries to become a statistic. Deion or Champ take away 1/2 the field, an impact that doesn't show up in statistics. Not arguing for D over O as much as for preference.

The actual choice comes down to who you think can make it (character/ability), fit for scheme (eg, few 3-4 DEs fit a 4-3 DE profile), impact potential (I totally agree with you), and a ton of other factors (need at position - eg Millen has dynamite receivers with substandard ability to use them, injury history, upside, etc.). This is the province of GMs, scouts, position coaches, etc. We can't possibly know even in raw data all they have going into any evaluation.

To an extent my question asks for your feelings on memory examination of any preference in what you think is needed most by the team, most of the time. What is the weakest spot on the team where impact players are needed most often with high picks, D, O or BPA (neither D or O)?

BurgundyNGold
05-03-2007, 10:20 AM
If memory serves, a majority here wanted Mike Williams over Carlos in '05 and I believe the ST/KWII debates of '04 were almost even.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here, lol.

openallnight
05-03-2007, 10:35 AM
As to your last point, I think it is situational. A garbage TD is no better or worse than a sack in a lost game. A game winning TD is the best feeling there is as is a game preserving stop on 4th. But if I had to weigh them, I'd take the TD.
Go back to the Skins in Dallas game in '05. Which was more of a rush? Santana's 1st or 2 TD, or Sean Taylor's game ending hit on Crayton?

The two TD's were for me. The stop at the end had me in full prayer mode. I didn't care how it was done, just as long as we held.
The best feeling in the world is a game clinching defensive TD :)
Ala, the Daryl Grant TD in the '82 championship. Moss' 2nd TD down in dallas was right up there w/ all-time great moments. I was jumping up and down so much I don't even think I saw the ST game preserving stop. And now that I think about it Vincent's blocked FG against Dallas last year was about as exciting as any moment ever. Maybe a ST play trumps both the defensive stop or offensive score?

smoak
05-03-2007, 11:31 AM
I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference here, lol.

I don't know.... I'd still rather have Mike Williams (http://www.christiancomedian.com/).

HogFan
05-31-2007, 02:48 PM
Always defence, which isn't to say offence isn't important. In my opinion any team sport is won by defence.

shally
05-31-2007, 02:59 PM
defense.. as long as the qb situation is settled

skinfanjon
05-31-2007, 03:09 PM
defense.. as long as the qb situation is settled

It stinks when you want to post in something but its late May and there are no threads, lol. Gotta dig up the old ones to get your fix.:D

chicago_skinz_fan
05-31-2007, 04:05 PM
Call me old school but I have always believe you build your offensive line first. A great offensive line makes everyone look better and a crappy one makes everyone look worse.

Same with defense. You need a defensive line to generate your pass rush, get pressure on the qb and force him into bad situations.

Once both are set then everything else falls into place. Skill position players are a dime a dozen, granted your superstars aren't, however if you have good lines, mid tier skill position players can get it done.

Battle Cat
05-31-2007, 05:05 PM
I beleive in balance. I think the best team wins the combination of offense and defense. I think if you are real good in one area then you draft in the other ala Colts and Bengals choosing defense almost exclusively the past few drafts. So I am basicly saying I always like best player available. The only thing is you have to stick to best player available. You cant pick best player available one year and then for need or o or d the next year. If you go with bpa you have to stick with it.

redskin_rich
05-31-2007, 10:55 PM
I beleive in balance. I think the best team wins the combination of offense and defense. I think if you are real good in one area then you draft in the other ala Colts and Bengals choosing defense almost exclusively the past few drafts. So I am basicly saying I always like best player available. The only thing is you have to stick to best player available. You cant pick best player available one year and then for need or o or d the next year. If you go with bpa you have to stick with it.

I totally agree with you on balance and almost every great team had it. There are exceptions, but in those cases the teams were among the best ever on one side of the ball and they only won it all once.

As far as the rest of your post about drafting the BPA, I disagree and it totally depends on the situation and where you are drafting. IMO, the only teams that can draft the BPA are the teams that are horrible everywhere and are drafting in the top 5 and the teams that have no holes and are drafting at the end of the round.

LATrueRedskin
05-31-2007, 10:59 PM
I have usually always wanted defense. I admit that I wanted Mike Williams, and was pretty mad that we didn't get him, but I'm pretty sure I favored Sean Taylor over Winslow. I'm a defensive kind of person, so I always have a mind on the defense. I've been thrilled with the past couple years, but devastated last year.

urobm
05-31-2007, 11:04 PM
I am a defense first guy in general, but OTs and franchise QBs are an exception. Also, throw it all out the window if you aren't top 10 b/c your draft is dictated by what was taken prior to your selection. I always try to target one player each draft and this year it was tough. I wanted Anderson, but really my first choice was to trade back and take best available. I just didn't like the linemen up there this year.

I agree with you. I usually go defense first as well too, and Anderson was my choice but there were no sure hit as far as DL.

bgforever
06-01-2007, 01:02 AM
If memory serves, a majority here wanted Mike Williams over Carlos in '05 and I believe the ST/KWII debates of '04 were almost even.

Ditto. I wanted Betts in a lower round and we got him, I wanted Samuels AND LaVar, we did that too, I wanted Ramsey, we got him, and I wanted Cooley and even put some stats and information on him, his availability, and we took him too.

I wanted Sean Taylor, and we got him. Overall, I had a lean to offense, and I also had other picks taken by other teams, and they were offensive players, about 3-4 of them, but my choices for defense weren't that far apart. Just that I saw players that were the best available at the time. I surely wanted a defensive player to go with the Rogers pick, once we took Rogers, but since its JC, I can live with it.

joethefan
06-01-2007, 05:25 AM
I would rather have my defesne better than my offense anyway....I have always said my theory for and nfl sqaud...


If you're offense is clearly better than your defense, you're gonna have issues. If your defense is better than the offense, because it should. if it's
50-50, than that's cool too, Defense is basically read and react....


There are too many things that can go wrong with an offense to mess a play up....

these are the things i look or in any team

skinsfan36
06-01-2007, 12:16 PM
Ditto. I wanted Betts in a lower round and we got him, I wanted Samuels AND LaVar, we did that too, I wanted Ramsey, we got him, and I wanted Cooley and even put some stats and information on him, his availability, and we took him too.

I wanted Sean Taylor, and we got him. Overall, I had a lean to offense, and I also had other picks taken by other teams, and they were offensive players, about 3-4 of them, but my choices for defense weren't that far apart. Just that I saw players that were the best available at the time. I surely wanted a defensive player to go with the Rogers pick, once we took Rogers, but since its JC, I can live with it.

i think everyone wanted a dlinemen at 25 but we are all happy jc in that spot now