Scuttlebutt????

[Keino]

So last night my father calls me and he says he heard the following on the John Thompson show on 980 yesterday:

The Eagles are hot for Eric Berry and would like to move up to #4 so that they can take him. They would trade us their 17th overall plus their 2nd rounder and return to us the 2nd rounder we gave up for McNabb.

Essentially, The Eagles would be, in two trades giving us McNabb for a swap of firsts and their 2nd plus the condtional pick from next year we gave up as a part of the McNabb trade.

Would be a dream come true for many, including myself. My question is why the hell would the Eagles do this?

I'd love for it to happen, as we could address 2 O line positions and either LB/NT/FS with picks high enough to be immediate contributors.

Anyone else hear this?

[skins4life24]

So last night my father calls me and he says he heard the following on the John Thompson show on 980 yesterday:

The Eagles are hot for Eric Berry and would like to move up to #4 so that they can take him. They would trade us their 17th overall plus their 2nd rounder and return to us the 2nd rounder we gave up for McNabb.

Essentially, The Eagles would be, in two trades giving us McNabb for a swap of firsts and their 2nd plus the condtional pick from next year we gave up as a part of the McNabb trade.

Would be a dream come true for many, including myself. My question is why the hell would the Eagles do this?

I'd love for it to happen, as we could address 2 O line positions and either LB/NT/FS with picks high enough to be immediate contributors.

Anyone else hear this?

Keino get on the phone with Andy Reid immediately and start broker that deal!

[Hr fan]

No, and most drafts show Berry available up to 8, so another partner may be cheaper for Filthy. But the McNabb trade was a shocker, and it would not surprise me if other options on a broader range hadn't been discussed. That said, I wonder at Thompson's football source, and tend to discount this on that basis.

[cal_junior]

No, and most drafts show Berry available up to 8, so another partner may be cheaper for Filthy.

I'd be stunned if Berry made it past Cleveland at 7.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

i hope they do exactly that!basically they are giving us 3 players for barry?that sounds great to me.

[Hr fan]

I'd be stunned if Berry made it past Cleveland at 7.

Is cleveland going to be 7 or 1? If they are 7 I agree. But KC at 5, if BPA, could take Berry so maybe there is some reasoning - wearing burgundy glasses.

[akhhorus]

So last night my father calls me and he says he heard the following on the John Thompson show on 980 yesterday:

The Eagles are hot for Eric Berry and would like to move up to #4 so that they can take him. They would trade us their 17th overall plus their 2nd rounder and return to us the 2nd rounder we gave up for McNabb.

Essentially, The Eagles would be, in two trades giving us McNabb for a swap of firsts and their 2nd plus the condtional pick from next year we gave up as a part of the McNabb trade.

Would be a dream come true for many, including myself. My question is why the hell would the Eagles do this?

I'd love for it to happen, as we could address 2 O line positions and either LB/NT/FS with picks high enough to be immediate contributors.

Anyone else hear this?

Peter King confirms a lot of that rumor. If they would be willing to give up their 1st+the 2 2nds, I'd do that deal. As much as I like Williams and Bulaga, turning that pick into Anthony Davis or Iupati+an OT with our old 2nd+a defensive player with the other 2nd would be much better for the skins.

As for why the Eagles would do it, they don't want to draft or shell out for a starting Cb, so they would just move newly signed Marlin Jackson to CB and draft his replacement at FS.

For the record, I'm more in favor of:
#4 to New Orleans(so that they can take Berry) for Jamal Brown+32+future first.

[LATrueRedskin]

I would do this deal in a heartbeat, but I haven't heard anything about it.

[Keino]

I'd be stunned if Berry made it past Cleveland at 7.

I'd be stunned if he made it past the Chiefs at #5.

[Keino]

By the way, the name of the thread comes from the name of the segment on the JT show.

I looked for the audio archive at espn980.com but had no luck.

I think I would much rather have 1.17, 2.5 & 2.17 than Jamal Brown 1.32 and a future 1st. Either would make me happy though.

[BigCountry]

The 49ers have the 17th overall. Philly has the 24th I believe unless something happened that I am not aware of.

[Keino]

The 49ers have the 17th overall. Philly has the 24th I believe unless something happened that I am not aware of.

Okay well 24th then.....

[lorimike]

So last night my father calls me and he says he heard the following on the John Thompson show on 980 yesterday:

The Eagles are hot for Eric Berry and would like to move up to #4 so that they can take him. They would trade us their 17th overall plus their 2nd rounder and return to us the 2nd rounder we gave up for McNabb.

Essentially, The Eagles would be, in two trades giving us McNabb for a swap of firsts and their 2nd plus the condtional pick from next year we gave up as a part of the McNabb trade.

Would be a dream come true for many, including myself. My question is why the hell would the Eagles do this?

I'd love for it to happen, as we could address 2 O line positions and either LB/NT/FS with picks high enough to be immediate contributors.

Anyone else hear this?


I am for accumulating picks by moving down but the problem can be that you moved yourself so far down that you no long get an impact player. I think Okung is the real deal and would start immediately. At pick 17, we're left with less of a sure thing. If it is a tackle we want it would be Bruce Campbell from Maryland or USC's Charles Brown.

[Keino]

I am for accumulating picks by moving down but the problem can be that you moved yourself so far down that you no long get an impact player. I think Okung is the real deal and would start immediately. At pick 17, we're left with less of a sure thing. If it is a tackle we want it would be Bruce Campbell from Maryland or USC's Charles Brown.

I am pretty much okay if that's who we land at Tackle. But I don't share your belief in Okung as the real deal, so that's really why I would like to trade down....besides the obvious multiple holes to fill angle.

[shally]

I am pretty much okay if that's who we land at Tackle. But I don't share your belief in Okung as the real deal, so that's really why I would like to trade down....besides the obvious multiple holes to fill angle.

+1 on all you say

i think philly has come to realize just how important dawkins was to their overall defense. they simply havent been the same without him.. whether berry is the same quality of player is open to discussion, but the need is clearly there

i dont know that Okung is better than Trent Williams, Bulaga right now.. who knows whether he will be better than them, plus a couple of others in 1 year ???

[CapitalDefense]

Every year there are 4 or 5 can't miss prospects, if you trade down to 24 you are taking your team out of the mix for a pro bowler. Not saying you can't get one at 24, but its alot harder. The only way I go from 4 to 24 is a first next year and our 2nd back from the McNabb trade.

[skin4ever]

By the way, the name of the thread comes from the name of the segment on the JT show.

I looked for the audio archive at espn980.com but had no luck.

I think I would much rather have 1.17, 2.5 & 2.17 than Jamal Brown 1.32 and a future 1st. Either would make me happy though.

I agree we know this is a deep draft class, especially at OL, and we dont know what the class would look like next year. That future first could end up being like pick 2.17 in this one. Plus the saints future first is not likely to be a low one. IF we were talking lions i might have a different opinion.

[lorimike]

+1 on all you say

i think philly has come to realize just how important dawkins was to their overall defense. they simply havent been the same without him.. whether berry is the same quality of player is open to discussion, but the need is clearly there

i dont know that Okung is better than Trent Williams, Bulaga right now.. who knows whether he will be better than them, plus a couple of others in 1 year ???

When you move from 4 to 24th we can forget about debating who is better among Okung, Bulaga, and Williams. They will all be gone by then. At pick 24 even Campbell and Anthony Davis might be gone. Charles Brown might still be there. It would be nice to get some extra picks but for a move like that it would have to be 2 seconds and phillys 1st next year. .

[Oregonian]

Every year there are 4 or 5 can't miss prospects, if you trade down to 24 you are taking your team out of the mix for a pro bowler.]

You mean like Laron Landry?

[Keino]

You mean like Laron Landry?

Word!

For me I am happy to pass on 1 pro-bowler for 3 Legit Starters. We don't have 3 legit starters on our offensive line right this second. Nor do we have a starter quality FS plus we are lacking LBs both Outside and Inside.

We have enough potential pro-bowlers as far as I am concerned. Now we need to surround them with quality starters so that we don't continue to waste the talents of our studs.

None of it is guaranteed. We aren't guaranteed a probowler by staying at #4. We aren't guaranteed 3 starters by dropping to 24 and picking up 2 2nd rounders. If we didn't have so many holes, I would want us to stay at #4 and take Berry or McCoy. Those are luxuries I have been convinced that we cannot afford.

[GoDannyBoy]

Word!

For me I am happy to pass on 1 pro-bowler for 3 Legit Starters. We don't have 3 legit starters on our offensive line right this second. Nor do we have a starter quality FS plus we are lacking LBs both Outside and Inside.

We have enough potential pro-bowlers as far as I am concerned. Now we need to surround them with quality starters so that we don't continue to waste the talents of our studs.

None of it is guaranteed. We aren't guaranteed a probowler by staying at #4. We aren't guaranteed 3 starters by dropping to 24 and picking up 2 2nd rounders. If we didn't have so many holes, I would want us to stay at #4 and take Berry or McCoy. Those are luxuries I have been convinced that we cannot afford.

+1 Well Stated.

[BurgundyNGold]

If this deal actually came to fruition as is being described (our #4 overall for the Iggles #24 and two 2nd rounders) I would be very, very pleased. It would make the McNabb deal totally worth it and would give me confidence that I have not had in this FO since Danny bought the team.

[Keino]

If this deal actually came to fruition as is being described (our #4 overall for the Iggles #24 and two 2nd rounders) I would be very, very pleased. It would make the McNabb deal totally worth it and would give me confidence that I have not had in this FO since Danny bought the team.

I would add one caveat to that new found confidence. The picks have to make sense. They cannot resemble the Vinny "lets throw 3 pieces of crap at the wall and see which one sticks" sort of picks.

[Oregonian]

If this deal actually came to fruition as is being described (our #4 overall for the Iggles #24 and two 2nd rounders) I would be very, very pleased. It would make the McNabb deal totally worth it and would give me confidence that I have not had in this FO since Danny bought the team.

I am all for it.

I just have a hard time believing the Eagles would make that deal.

[BurgundyNGold]

I am all for it.

I just have a hard time believing the Eagles would make that deal.
Me too, but if it happens, I'd be really happy. Until we picked 3 FBs lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

I would add one caveat to that new found confidence. The picks have to make sense. They cannot resemble the Vinny "lets throw 3 pieces of crap at the wall and see which one sticks" sort of picks.
Yeah, there is another shoe that would have to drop, but just pulling off that deal would make me feel a whole lot better about this FO.

[cal_junior]

Me too, but if it happens, I'd be really happy. Until we picked 3 FBs lol.

Or a NT. Don't we have like 8 of them right now?

[BurgundyNGold]

Or a NT. Don't we have like 8 of them right now?
LMAO. That's true, but I don't foresee any of the top NT prospects falling to 24. We might be saved from ourselves by circumstance.

[akhhorus]

Every year there are 4 or 5 can't miss prospects, if you trade down to 24 you are taking your team out of the mix for a pro bowler. Not saying you can't get one at 24, but its alot harder. The only way I go from 4 to 24 is a first next year and our 2nd back from the McNabb trade.

Last 10 drafts(Pro bowlers in bold):
#4:
Aaron Curry
Darren McFadden
Gaines Adams
D'Brickashaw Ferguson
Cedric Benson
Philip Rivers
Dewayne Robertson
Mike Williams(the OT)
Justin Smith
Peter Warrick

#24:
Peria Jerry
Chris Johnson
Brandon Meriweather
Johnathan Joseph
Aaron Rodgers
Steven Jackson
Dallas Clark
Ed Reed
Willie Middlebrooks
Ahmed Plummer

[VegasSkinsFan]

Me too, but if it happens, I'd be really happy. Until we picked 3 FBs lol.

Not sure if you saw...but we turned one of our young lb's into a fb atthe minicamp yesterday.

[Shubacca]

Last 10 drafts(Pro bowlers in bold):
#4:
Aaron Curry
Darren McFadden
Gaines Adams
D'Brickashaw Ferguson
Cedric Benson
Philip Rivers
Dewayne Robertson
Mike Williams(the OT)
Justin Smith
Peter Warrick

#24:
Peria Jerry
Chris Johnson
Brandon Meriweather
Johnathan Joseph
Aaron Rodgers
Steven Jackson
Dallas Clark
Ed Reed
Willie Middlebrooks
Ahmed Plummer

Well stated. And you don't have to mortgage the farm in order to get the 24's into camp.
I've read plenty that Berry is a 'can't miss', but essentially the Eagles would not only be paying us in picks to the rights to select this kid, but then they'd have to give him the contract commisserate to his selection slot.
He'd have to Jesus in cleats for that type of compensation.........
All that being said, I think it would be a major coup if we were to pull that off.

[Keino]

Last 10 drafts(Pro bowlers in bold):
#4:
Aaron Curry
Darren McFadden
Gaines Adams
D'Brickashaw Ferguson
Cedric Benson
Philip Rivers
Dewayne Robertson
Mike Williams(the OT)
Justin Smith
Peter Warrick

#24:
Peria Jerry
Chris Johnson
Brandon Meriweather
Johnathan Joseph
Aaron Rodgers
Steven Jackson
Dallas Clark
Ed Reed
Willie Middlebrooks
Ahmed Plummer

Wow.

I was all set to argue that you get more value from 13-28 that you do from the top 10, but with this post, there is no need for that.

[Keino]

Not sure if you saw...but we turned one of our young lb's into a fb atthe minicamp yesterday.

Really? Which one?

[akhhorus]

Wow.

I was all set to argue that you get more value from 13-28 that you do from the top 10, but with this post, there is no need for that.

I'll work on something for DFA averaging out the pro bowl appearances per pick divided by the number of different teams picking at that spot since 1999, this is intriguing to me.

Well stated. And you don't have to mortgage the farm in order to get the 24's into camp.
I've read plenty that Berry is a 'can't miss', but essentially the Eagles would not only be paying us in picks to the rights to select this kid, but then they'd have to give him the contract commisserate to his selection slot.
He'd have to Jesus in cleats for that type of compensation.........
All that being said, I think it would be a major coup if we were to pull that off.

I think its realistic, but it won't happen until draft day if it does. The Eagles also want Earl Thomas also, but I think we can talk them into Berry, especially with KC at 5.

[Keino]

I'll work on something for DFA averaging out the pro bowl appearances per pick divided by the number of different teams picking at that spot since 1999, this is intriguing to me.


Do you have a hypothesis you are attempting to prove or disprove with this?

[akhhorus]

Do you have a hypothesis you are attempting to prove or disprove with this?

No, just looking for a pattern in the chaos.

[VegasSkinsFan]

Really? Which one?


Darrrel Young #36 now. He came in as a lb. On the team site there was a pick and a little caption...might have been from Terl. The kid is 5'11 and 245#...who knows, maybe he played FB in college or hs. Seems like we are trying to see how much versatility some of these guys have.

update : he actually moved from LB to Safety in 2008 ( Villanova ) ...doesnt say anything about playing rb/fb, but he earned 4 varsity hs letters in track...who knows.

[BigCountry]

Okay well 24th then.....

Is it worth getting someone who might be able to start as opposed to two elite prospects in Williams and Okung in a position of dire and desperate need? I'd think seriously about it but I'd see how much the Bills and Browns want Clausen first. 17 sounds much better to me because of the possibility of Dan Williams being around along with two additional second round picks but the 24th doesn't make me feel as comfortable with giving up an elite OT prospect while handing arguably the best safety to come out since Sean Taylor to a division rival.

[Emmanouel8]

Last 10 drafts(Pro bowlers in bold):
#4:
Aaron Curry
Darren McFadden
Gaines Adams
D'Brickashaw Ferguson
Cedric Benson
Philip Rivers
Dewayne Robertson
Mike Williams(the OT)
Justin Smith
Peter Warrick

#24:
Peria Jerry
Chris Johnson
Brandon Meriweather
Johnathan Joseph
Aaron Rodgers
Steven Jackson
Dallas Clark
Ed Reed
Willie Middlebrooks
Ahmed Plummer

I'm all for trading down and getting more picks but I'd caution everyone not to look to far into comparing the 4 and 24 without considering the 24 pick is usually going to a club that has a good supporting cast already. You could also break down the players even further and see some slipped maybe because of position and at least one other was groomed for a while before hitting the field.

Nonetheless what this does show you is a trade down doesn't mean your not getting a pro bowler. I'd jump on a trade down like that and I have a feeling we may be able to do even better.

[warpaint]

So last night my father calls me and he says he heard the following on the John Thompson show on 980 yesterday:

The Eagles are hot for Eric Berry and would like to move up to #4 so that they can take him. They would trade us their 17th overall plus their 2nd rounder and return to us the 2nd rounder we gave up for McNabb.

Essentially, The Eagles would be, in two trades giving us McNabb for a swap of firsts and their 2nd plus the condtional pick from next year we gave up as a part of the McNabb trade.

Would be a dream come true for many, including myself. My question is why the hell would the Eagles do this?

I'd love for it to happen, as we could address 2 O line positions and either LB/NT/FS with picks high enough to be immediate contributors.

Anyone else hear this?

as it stands now i wouldnt make this trade with number 24 being our first selection, with what the are offering per this rumor, the 24th, 37th,and 55th selections this only totals 1,600 points on the value chart while our 4th pck is worth 1,800, think would ask them for their 3rd round pick number 70 which carries 240 points to even consider this trade, for once would like to feel as though maybe we got the best of the trade.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

i'd switch with them if they agreed to give us our 2nd rounder this year back.

[Skins7ny]

I have been a big proponent of us trading down for years because of our usual lack of draft choices and the lack of depth on our roster. I have felt for years that we have had one of the weaker 53-man rosters in the league for several years now.

Despite that, I think this year it would be a mistake to trade down. We need a left tackle desperately, and none of the guys available in the 2nd half of the first round will be sure things. If we are convinced that Okung is a 10-year Pro-Bowl caliber left tackle, we have to take him. It is not worth playing russian roulette with the position by trading down and hoping somebody good falls to us. After we draft a left tackle, with QB settled for the next 3-4 years (assuming no injury and a contract extension for McNabb), then I think Allehan are free to wheel and deal to their hearts content in Round 2 and every draft subsequent to this one. But we have GOT to get a left tackle before we do anything else. Then we can go nuts with the trades.

If we think Bulaga and Trent Williams are equally sure things and all three are available at 4, then I have no quarrel with trading down to 6 to pick up some extra choices while still guaranteeing we get a premiere left tackle in this draft. If a trade for Jamaal Brown or Bushrod is in the works, then trading down makes sense as well.

Left tackle. We gotta have it. We can take chances once a left tackle is in place.

[panamaMike]

as it stands now i wouldnt make this trade with number 24 being our first selection, with what the are offering per this rumor, the 24th, 37th,and 55th selections this only totals 1,600 points on the value chart while our 4th pck is worth 1,800, think would ask them for their 3rd round pick number 70 which carries 240 points to even consider this trade, for once would like to feel as though maybe we got the best of the trade.

I would be OK with this trade if there is a deal in place with the ravens for Gaither for one of the twos. Thinking that there is a LT at 24 is not worth talking about. Brown is too small and has no upside. Sanford, Ducasse and and Black are projected as guards. Fox. Calaway and the rest are Rts at best. I don't care fast Campbell runs, he is soft as pudding. I like more picks but you know the trade off for quantity is quality.

[NCskinsfanatic]

I really like this scenario of trading with the eagles...at 24 we can take OT Charles Brown and then still address 2 holes at picks 37 and 55. There should be starting caliber help at LB, NT, FS and possibly back up QB at those second round spots. In the 4th round we could add another OT (i.e. Fox) and fill out depth and st help with the 5th and 7th picks.

While I agree we desperately need a LT, I'm not sure drafting Okung or Williams and then not drafting again until the 4th round is the best way to go about filling the numerous holes we currently have.

This was the starting OL in mini-camp today...

http://twitter.com/ryanohalloran/status/12346957121

Artis Hicks opened Redskins practice this week as the starting right tackle.

The rest of the line was: LT Stephon Heyer, LG Derrick Dockery, C Casey Rabach, and RG Mike Williams. If the Redskins select a left tackle with the fourth pick, Hicks is expected to move to right guard with Heyer moving to right tackle. This will be a below-average unit regardless.

[Fathead]

I have felt for years that we have had one of the weaker 53-man rosters in the league for several years now.


What? This sentence construction is a big "What?"

[Gravy]

I really like this scenario of trading with the eagles...at 24 we can take OT Charles Brown and then still address 2 holes at picks 37 and 55. There should be starting caliber help at LB, NT, FS and possibly back up QB at those second round spots. In the 4th round we could add another OT (i.e. Fox) and fill out depth and st help with the 5th and 7th picks.

While I agree we desperately need a LT, I'm not sure drafting Okung or Williams and then not drafting again until the 4th round is the best way to go about filling the numerous holes we currently have.

This was the starting OL in mini-camp today...

http://twitter.com/ryanohalloran/status/12346957121

...not a lovely looking O-line

[Arkangiest]

If we trade AH for Jamaal Brown then I am completely in support of this trade.

The idea of turning our #4 pick (Trent Williams) into possibly #24 (Terrence Cody/Sergio Kindle), #37 (Sean Weatherspoon/Jerry Hughes) and #55 (Koa Misi/Jared Veldheer) would be awesome. The stud LT is absolutely necessary, but this draft is so deep with defensive playmakers I couldn't resist if I were Allen.

[gbalzac]

I would love to see us acquire 1.24 2.36 2.55 for 1.4

we could then go ahead and grab something like Witherspoon/Davis in the 1st, cody with the early 2nd and trade #55 for Gaither if the ravens truly are only seeking a 2nd for him.

Imagine turning #4 into McNabb, Witherspoon/Davis(1.24), and Gaither(2.55) and still have 2.36 to turn into someone like Cody...

[BurgundyNGold]

I have been a big proponent of us trading down for years because of our usual lack of draft choices and the lack of depth on our roster. I have felt for years that we have had one of the weaker 53-man rosters in the league for several years now.

Despite that, I think this year it would be a mistake to trade down. We need a left tackle desperately, and none of the guys available in the 2nd half of the first round will be sure things. If we are convinced that Okung is a 10-year Pro-Bowl caliber left tackle, we have to take him. It is not worth playing russian roulette with the position by trading down and hoping somebody good falls to us. After we draft a left tackle, with QB settled for the next 3-4 years (assuming no injury and a contract extension for McNabb), then I think Allehan are free to wheel and deal to their hearts content in Round 2 and every draft subsequent to this one. But we have GOT to get a left tackle before we do anything else. Then we can go nuts with the trades.

If we think Bulaga and Trent Williams are equally sure things and all three are available at 4, then I have no quarrel with trading down to 6 to pick up some extra choices while still guaranteeing we get a premiere left tackle in this draft. If a trade for Jamaal Brown or Bushrod is in the works, then trading down makes sense as well.

Left tackle. We gotta have it. We can take chances once a left tackle is in place.
That's the operative phrase. If Shanny and Allen aren't convinced that Okung is a sure thing and isn't worth the #4 overall pick then trading down is the best option. It would seem that this draft is deep with OT prospects without a whole lot separating the top of the pack from the middle. Trading down to 24 gets you a starting caliber RT for sure and probably a starting caliber LT. Picking up two 2nd can get you a starting RT and one of the top 3 rated OG, as well. Playing the odds this way, I like our chances.

[CapitalDefense]

You mean like Laron Landry?

I did not say the Danny was good at picking them :)

Top offensive tackle that year...can't miss prospect.......Joe Thomas...Pro Bowler

Top linebacker that year...can't miss prospect.......Patrick Willis...Pro Bowler

Top RB...can't miss prospect......Adrian Peterson...Pro Bowler

You get my drift?

I was screaming for Adrian peterson by the way, but we did not "need" a RB. :(

[CapitalDefense]

Word!

For me I am happy to pass on 1 pro-bowler for 3 Legit Starters. We don't have 3 legit starters on our offensive line right this second. Nor do we have a starter quality FS plus we are lacking LBs both Outside and Inside.

We have enough potential pro-bowlers as far as I am concerned. Now we need to surround them with quality starters so that we don't continue to waste the talents of our studs.

None of it is guaranteed. We aren't guaranteed a probowler by staying at #4. We aren't guaranteed 3 starters by dropping to 24 and picking up 2 2nd rounders. If we didn't have so many holes, I would want us to stay at #4 and take Berry or McCoy. Those are luxuries I have been convinced that we cannot afford.


Gotcha, but is it easier to get one pro bowler at #4 vs 3 starters with a late first and 2-2nd's? That is what I am getting at, I know people love the draft and want the Skins to do well. We had 3-2nd round picks not so long ago, how did that turn out so far? Its a crap shoot, no doubt, but quantity is not always better then quality.

[Oregonian]

I did not say the Danny was good at picking them :)

Top offensive tackle that year...can't miss prospect.......Joe Thomas...Pro Bowler

Top linebacker that year...can't miss prospect.......Patrick Willis...Pro Bowler

Top RB...can't miss prospect......Adrian Peterson...Pro Bowler

You get my drift?

I was screaming for Adrian peterson by the way, but we did not "need" a RB. :(

I agree it would have been nice to have grabbed any one of those guys.

But if I recall correctly, Landry was consistently graded ridiculously high by every supposed 'expert' prior to that draft. It wasn't just our front office who thought he was a lock.

Oh well.

[justinskins]

It would be nice if we didn't have ridiculous needs at other positions, then we could take Berry ourselves instead of speculating about the possibility of trading down to other teams who want him.

[Emmanouel8]

Gotcha, but is it easier to get one pro bowler at #4 vs 3 starters with a late first and 2-2nd's? That is what I am getting at, I know people love the draft and want the Skins to do well. We had 3-2nd round picks not so long ago, how did that turn out so far? Its a crap shoot, no doubt, but quantity is not always better then quality.

I don'tthink agree with this. For one, I'm not sure we can really quantify the contributions between a probowler vs 3 starters. You can say a team sport like football benefits more with 3 good players over one exceptional one. Assuming that's what the dilemma is trading one pro bowler for 3 starters which is better for a team that has as many holes as we do?

IMO and looking over some of the old drafts i think its more of a numbers game. If you study the draft long enough you realize the translation of talent into the pro game is not a steady drop of talent that correlates directly with draft position I.e. the 15th pick of the 3rd round is 1/32 better than the 16th pick of the same round. Its more sporadic than that. You can hit a player anywhere on the board and even with an undrafted player.

IMO the more picks the better generally speaking.

I'm not sure I agree with tying in our previous 2nd round draft history to prove that point. Those picks were somewhat squandered but its still early.

[Skins7ny]

I really like this scenario of trading with the eagles...at 24 we can take OT Charles Brown and then still address 2 holes at picks 37 and 55. There should be starting caliber help at LB, NT, FS and possibly back up QB at those second round spots. In the 4th round we could add another OT (i.e. Fox) and fill out depth and st help with the 5th and 7th picks.

While I agree we desperately need a LT, I'm not sure drafting Okung or Williams and then not drafting again until the 4th round is the best way to go about filling the numerous holes we currently have.

This was the starting OL in mini-camp today...

http://twitter.com/ryanohalloran/status/12346957121
I am concerned that Brown is an overrated prospect. Ducasse is still raw and may be better-suited to the right side. I like Fox but he is not considered an elite prospect, and some think he will be a better player at RT. Anthony Davis is a potential underacheiver/head case. Bruce Campbell looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane.
What? This sentence construction is a big "What?" You are right, sir. I meant that I have felt for years that we have had one of the worst rosters in football. No depth at all. Therefore, I advocated trading down to accumulate more draft choices to improve the overall quality and depth of the roster rather than just getting one guy at the top of the draft and then sitting out lower rounds.
That's the operative phrase. If Shanny and Allen aren't convinced that Okung is a sure thing and isn't worth the #4 overall pick then trading down is the best option. It would seem that this draft is deep with OT prospects without a whole lot separating the top of the pack from the middle. Trading down to 24 gets you a starting caliber RT for sure and probably a starting caliber LT. Picking up two 2nd can get you a starting RT and one of the top 3 rated OG, as well. Playing the odds this way, I like our chances.
For the reasons stated above, I disagree. Yes, we can get a right tackle at 24, but any left tackle we draft at 24 is going to be a guy with major bust/position change potential. We need a left tackle with our first-round draft choice, period. We have no one on our roster who is even remotely capable of playing the position, and we have a 34-year old QB we have to protect. 24 guarantees we get a left tackle with questions. If Okung and Bulaga also are risky, then moving down makes sense. Most people seem to think that, while neither may be HOF talents, they are both pretty safe choices. If so, I say let's go with that.
This choice is a make-or-break for the franchise. We cannot afford to miss it. Take the safe choice. After we have QB and LT taken care of, we can play around secure in the knowledge we have the 2 most important positions on the roster taken care of. Then I would be in favor of trading down and trading unwanted players to accumulate more choices, ditto with next year's #1. But this year, if we do nothing else, we need to get LT solved. Our team is going nowhere if McNabb is running for his life the way Campbell was last year.
It would be nice if we didn't have ridiculous needs at other positions, then we could take Berry ourselves instead of speculating about the possibility of trading down to other teams who want him. But that is the whole point of taking over a 4-12 team. You are going to have ridiculous needs at a lot of positions. Allen and Shanahan seemed to recognize this in their comments when they first came to town. Which is why it is odd to me that they made the McNabb trade. It seems to reflect this mentality that we have to win this year, as opposed to building a foundation to be competitive year in and yaer out the way Allen originally talked about in December. Of course, if there is pressure to win now, you might make short-sighted decisions that turn out badly, like trading down for more picks and ignoring a chance to solve the 2nd-most important hole on your team for the next 10 years by drafting Okung or Baluga.

[BurgundyNGold]

For the reasons stated above, I disagree. Yes, we can get a right tackle at 24, but any left tackle we draft at 24 is going to be a guy with major bust/position change potential. We need a left tackle with our first-round draft choice, period. We have no one on our roster who is even remotely capable of playing the position, and we have a 34-year old QB we have to protect. 24 guarantees we get a left tackle with questions. If Okung and Bulaga also are risky, then moving down makes sense. Most people seem to think that, while neither may be HOF talents, they are both pretty safe choices. If so, I say let's go with that.
Unfortunately, Okung is not projected to be a Orlando Pace, Joe Thomas kind of can't miss prospect. He has question marks. So does Baluga. So does every other OT prospect. While trading a pick when an Orlando Pace or Chris Samuels is sitting there is a crime, it's equally a crime to reach for a guy that you don't believe in. If the Redskins trade down, it's because they don't believe in Okung.

Michael Oher went 23 last year. When there is depth at OT, you can get starters, good starters pretty deep into the first. This year, you might even get them into the early 2nd. If a guy who would be elevated to top 10 in a normal year because of scarcity is available at 24, I don't think that's much of gamble at all.

[coffdogg]

Peter King confirms a lot of that rumor. If they would be willing to give up their 1st+the 2 2nds, I'd do that deal. As much as I like Williams and Bulaga, turning that pick into Anthony Davis or Iupati+an OT with our old 2nd+a defensive player with the other 2nd would be much better for the skins.

As for why the Eagles would do it, they don't want to draft or shell out for a starting Cb, so they would just move newly signed Marlin Jackson to CB and draft his replacement at FS.

For the record, I'm more in favor of:
#4 to New Orleans(so that they can take Berry) for Jamal Brown+32+future first.

I think there are actually going to be alot of opportunity to make a deal. Problem is the way I see it it will be a freefall to the lower 1st rd. Then its the age old question......quantity or quality?

[coffdogg]

Unfortunately, Okung is not projected to be a Orlando Pace, Joe Thomas kind of can't miss prospect. He has question marks. So does Baluga. So does every other OT prospect. While trading a pick when an Orlando Pace or Chris Samuels is sitting there is a crime, it's equally a crime to reach for a guy that you don't believe in. If the Redskins trade down, it's because they don't believe in Okung.

Michael Oher went 23 last year. When there is depth at OT, you can get starters, good starters pretty deep into the first. This year, you might even get them into the early 2nd. If a guy who would be elevated to top 10 in a normal year because of scarcity is available at 24, I don't think that's much of gamble at all.


I don't agree with that. If they a deal that recoups a good amount of picks, they might be saying we can get a stop gap LT like Levi or Flozell for a year and then draft a franchise LT next year but we need to fill alot of holes and that won't be possible without trading down unless someone gives us good value for Rocky Al and Jason.

[skinsfan36]

id do this trade i mean okung/williams or 2 olinemen and a lb or DL id go with the latter.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't agree with that. If they a deal that recoups a good amount of picks, they might be saying we can get a stop gap LT like Levi or Flozell for a year and then draft a franchise LT next year but we need to fill alot of holes and that won't be possible without trading down unless someone gives us good value for Rocky Al and Jason.
That doesn't make any sense to me, so let me make sure I understand correctly. You're saying that if we recouped 3 picks in the top 60 and likely got 3 young starters out of them -- one of whom might very well me a LT -- that would be bad? What's wrong with getting a starting LT in the 1st round, only about 20 picks later? Especially if that cam with a starting RT and another starter?

[coffdogg]

That doesn't make any sense to me, so let me make sure I understand correctly. You're saying that if we recouped 3 picks in the top 60 and likely got 3 young starters out of them -- one of whom might very well me a LT -- that would be bad? What's wrong with getting a starting LT in the 1st round, only about 20 picks later? Especially if that cam with a starting RT and another starter? I was unclear in my post. What I was saying was that the Redskins may do a trade to get more picks because of the amount of holes to fill. However what I was not agreeing with was the statment that if they trade it is an inditment on Okung. It could well be a strong desire to fill many holes. That was all I was saying. By all means I want to trade down and fill as many holes with quality as possible. I hope I was clearer this time

[redskin_rich]

The Eagles aren't going to move up to 4th pick to draft a Safety. If anything, it would be a 3 way deal involving another team in the top ten.

Moving back to 24th or whatever would take us out of getting one of the elite Tackles but if we acquired enough draft picks to fill some other needs adequately and still had a some short term possibilities to fix the O-Line, I could live with it.
This is only because I have greater trust in the football minds that are here now.

[justinskins]

But that is the whole point of taking over a 4-12 team. You are going to have ridiculous needs at a lot of positions.
I know. I was just thinking wishfully about how nice it would be to be able to take a potential superstar player at a position of need (FS), instead of having to worry about rebuilding the entire team almost from the ground up. Our defense would be a LOT better with a player like Berry starting for us, but we just can't afford to take him.

Of course, if there is pressure to win now, you might make short-sighted decisions that turn out badly, like trading down for more picks and ignoring a chance to solve the 2nd-most important hole on your team for the next 10 years by drafting Okung or Baluga.
I am inclined to agree, but it is certainly possible to trade down and find that sort of talent. I am skeptical (we took Samuels third overall and that worked out quite well), but then again I also believe that much of the draft process is driven by imperfect conventional wisdom developed by a legion of media pundits (and their sources in front offices around the league). A team with shrewd talent evaluators can get the players it needs later on in the first round. Oher went 23rd overall last year and there is no doubt that he is capable of performing at a high level (at either LT or RT!). On the other hand, Jason Smith hasn't made much of a dent so far for the Rams. The real question isn't whether the team should trade down, it's whether Shanny & Allen will make the right picks if they do trade down.

[skinfanjon]

Man, all these potential trades being thrown around, I'm starting to wonder if Akh is a consultant to Bruce Allen lol.

Seriously, I don't know anymore, they're so many rumors and possibilities out there I'm not gonna get too gased up hoping for one over the other. All I know is we better have at least two brand new offensive lineman come this time next week and two of them better be from rounds one through four. If we can move some players for extra picks, all the better, but if we don't get some lineman to protect McNabb he's gonna be in a bodybag by week 3.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

I wouldn't rule it out, considering the Eagles are our newest trading friend. That would be great to get 2 #2's plus their #17, wow we would gain alot.

But, this might not happen due to the fact that our #4 is worth 1800 points, their 3 pick #17 is 950 plus #37 is 530 plus #49 is 410 which equals 1890. So it's off by 90 points which would mean we would need to give up our 4th at 96 points and get back their 7th rounder which is worth 7.8 points.

So it would work.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

if they do that,it would be like getting mcnabb for free.
as good as berry is,i doubt he's that good!

[CapitalDefense]

I wouldn't rule it out, considering the Eagles are our newest trading friend. That would be great to get 2 #2's plus their #17, wow we would gain alot.

But, this might not happen due to the fact that our #4 is worth 1800 points, their 3 pick #17 is 950 plus #37 is 530 plus #49 is 410 which equals 1890. So it's off by 90 points which would mean we would need to give up our 4th at 96 points and get back their 7th rounder which is worth 7.8 points.

So it would work.

It will not work because the Eagles have the 24th pick, not the 17th.

Okung!!!Okung!!!Okung!!!

:)

[CapitalDefense]

I agree it would have been nice to have grabbed any one of those guys.

But if I recall correctly, Landry was consistently graded ridiculously high by every supposed 'expert' prior to that draft. It wasn't just our front office who thought he was a lock.

Oh well.

Agreed, most had Landry as the top safety, but I do not think he was a lock stud like the others. With that said, I still think he can be a very good SAFETY, that is SAFETY Greg Blatche not a cover corner. I think he was asked to cover one on one way to much and was exposed. He also takes bad angles on run support but that is correctable IMO. I expect our defensive coaches to get him back on course, Nick Saban got the best out of him and we will too.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

Correction::::

Sorry for the misinformation. For the Eagles to get our #4 (1800 points) they will have to give up:

1. #24 overall 740 points
2. #37(from Redskins) 530 points
2. #55 overall 350 points
3. #87 overall 155 points
7. #200 overall 11.4 points
Equals ====

1796.4 points

This deal would be worth it with the depth of the draft we would go from 4 picks to 8 picks.
The eagles would go from 11 picks to 7 picks.

[BurgundyNGold]

I was unclear in my post. What I was saying was that the Redskins may do a trade to get more picks because of the amount of holes to fill. However what I was not agreeing with was the statment that if they trade it is an inditment on Okung. It could well be a strong desire to fill many holes. That was all I was saying. By all means I want to trade down and fill as many holes with quality as possible. I hope I was clearer this time
Ah, I see. So, they might see the need to fill 3 holes as more enticing than filling 1 hole with a surefire starter, regardless their opinion of him. Yeah, I can see that happening, if for no other reason, because we have so many holes.

[Keino]

Ah, I see. So, they might see the need to fill 3 holes as more enticing than filling 1 hole with a surefire starter, regardless their opinion of him. Yeah, I can see that happening, if for no other reason, because we have so many holes.

It's not their opinion of him. It is their opinion of him relative to the other players potentially available if they were to trade down. As you have pointed out, all of the upper tiered OT prospects are viewed as flawed in some way by the people who make these projections as a profession. That tells me that like last year, the potential drop off from Okung to Brown for example isn't as severe as say Orlando Pace to Tarik Glenn (who was a pretty damn good player in his own right). I can live with getting this year's Tarik Glenn if it means filling a few more holes....

[NCskinsfanatic]

Correction::::

Sorry for the misinformation. For the Eagles to get our #4 (1800 points) they will have to give up:

1. #24 overall 740 points
2. #37(from Redskins) 530 points
2. #55 overall 350 points
3. #87 overall 155 points
7. #200 overall 11.4 points
Equals ====

1796.4 points

This deal would be worth it with the depth of the draft we would go from 4 picks to 8 picks.
The eagles would go from 11 picks to 7 picks.

The Eagles are never gonna give us chart value, nor will anyone else imo. If we want to move down we're gonna have to bite the bullet and take the best deal offered. Personally I'm all for trading #4 for 24,37 and 55; 3 starters or one with the holes this team has is a no-brainer for me. If they can get Philly to throw in a conditional 2011 poick that helps with the value then great, if not pull the trigger anyway.


It's not their opinion of him. It is their opinion of him relative to the other players potentially available if they were to trade down. As you have pointed out, all of the upper tiered OT prospects are viewed as flawed in some way by the people who make these projections as a profession. That tells me that like last year, the potential drop off from Okung to Brown for example isn't as severe as say Orlando Pace to Tarik Glenn (who was a pretty damn good player in his own right). I can live with getting this year's Tarik Glenn if it means filling a few more holes....

I agree 100% with this line of thinking. Many scouts think Okung may be a better long term RT than LT anyway and that Williams who has more upside may need to play a year or two at RT. If this is the case then we wouldnt have immediately solved our LT situation by staying at 4 anyway. The next Chris Samuels wont be available this year at #4, so why not trade down and fill 3 starting positions versus overpaying for an OT that may end up as a RT anyway by staying put.

[CapitalDefense]

Agreed, most had Landry as the top safety, but I do not think he was a lock stud like the others. With that said, I still think he can be a very good SAFETY, that is SAFETY Greg Blatche not a cover corner. I think he was asked to cover one on one way to much and was exposed. He also takes bad angles on run support but that is correctable IMO. I expect our defensive coaches to get him back on course, Nick Saban got the best out of him and we will too.


Haslett agrees with me.....

Landry’s problems last season, Haslett said, were in part due to how he was deployed.

“Some of that, you have to put him in the right spot,” Haslett said. “He’s so fast, he didn’t know how to harness his speed.”

[BurgundyNGold]

Haslett agrees with me.....

Landry’s problems last season, Haslett said, were in part due to how he was deployed.

“Some of that, you have to put him in the right spot,” Haslett said. “He’s so fast, he didn’t know how to harness his speed.”
Yeah, but K-Shanny that he likes how the OL looks with Heyer at LT, so I'm not sure how reliable any of these statements are from the coaches at this point. Especially since poor tackling has very little to do with where you line up. Either you're using your arms and wrapping up or you aren't.

I think (and hope) that Landry is fixable. The problem is, he's like the shiny new mower you buy and use a few times and then leave set out under the porch and in the rain for 3 years. He's got some rust on him but, hopefully, with a little elbow grease, he'll be back up and running the way he was meant to.

[HanburgerBum]

I have been a big proponent of us trading down for years because of our usual lack of draft choices and the lack of depth on our roster. I have felt for years that we have had one of the weaker 53-man rosters in the league for several years now.

Despite that, I think this year it would be a mistake to trade down. We need a left tackle desperately, and none of the guys available in the 2nd half of the first round will be sure things. If we are convinced that Okung is a 10-year Pro-Bowl caliber left tackle, we have to take him. It is not worth playing russian roulette with the position by trading down and hoping somebody good falls to us. After we draft a left tackle, with QB settled for the next 3-4 years (assuming no injury and a contract extension for McNabb), then I think Allehan are free to wheel and deal to their hearts content in Round 2 and every draft subsequent to this one. But we have GOT to get a left tackle before we do anything else. Then we can go nuts with the trades.

If we think Bulaga and Trent Williams are equally sure things and all three are available at 4, then I have no quarrel with trading down to 6 to pick up some extra choices while still guaranteeing we get a premiere left tackle in this draft. If a trade for Jamaal Brown or Bushrod is in the works, then trading down makes sense as well.

Left tackle. We gotta have it. We can take chances once a left tackle is in place.


I respectively disagree.

Your analysis would have a lot of merit if the Redskins were just one stud LT tackle away from being a contender. But, let's face it, this team is a long ways from winning and there is a ton of needs. In that situation, the front office has to take the gamble that it can come up with a good LT (e.g. Charles Brown, Rodger Saffold, Jared Veldeer) lower down in the draft (or via a trade or a stopgap FA signing). The two second rounders are desperately needed to add youth to this team.

Having said that, I find it unlikely that the trade would be made. If the Eagles wanted that #4 pick, why didn't they just make that part of the deal for McNabb (McNabb, #24, #55 for #4 plus 2011 No. 3 or 4)? One can make the argument that Philly wanted to be sure Berry would be available at #4 before pulling the trigger, but most mocks have Berry going #5 and below.

[wide_awake]

Haslett agrees with me.....

Landry’s problems last season, Haslett said, were in part due to how he was deployed.

“Some of that, you have to put him in the right spot,” Haslett said. “He’s so fast, he didn’t know how to harness his speed.”

YES! It's a defensive coordinator who doesn't think he is smarter than the rest of the league!

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

who knows about any other skin/eagles trades,but i got this from an article adam scheifter wrote a week or so back.

One of the reasons Philadelphia might have traded Donovan McNabb to Washington has gotten less attention than an undrafted free agent.

Multiple NFL executives said Thursday they firmly believe that part of the Eagles' strategy in trading McNabb to the Redskins was an attempt to block Washington from landing Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford. They are convinced that Philadelphia did not want a Bradford-Mike Shanahan combination in its division for the next decade.

i don't think the eagles think that far ahead,do you guys?

[HanburgerBum]

Correction::::

Sorry for the misinformation. For the Eagles to get our #4 (1800 points) they will have to give up:

1. #24 overall 740 points
2. #37(from Redskins) 530 points
2. #55 overall 350 points
3. #87 overall 155 points
7. #200 overall 11.4 points
Equals ====

1796.4 points

This deal would be worth it with the depth of the draft we would go from 4 picks to 8 picks.
The eagles would go from 11 picks to 7 picks.


Lots of luck on getting compensation according to the value chart, as NCRedskins said. Does any team follow that chart any more--especially when trading up? There seems to be a reluctance to move up into the top 10 (especially the top 5) due to the $$ and cap room involved.

Never mind #87 and #200, if Philly offered #24, 37 and 55 for #4, the Redskins should jump at it. Otherwise, the Eagles may trade with Detroit, Tampa or KC instead.

[Hr fan]

Lots of luck on getting compensation according to the value chart, as NCRedskins said. Does any team follow that chart any more--especially when trading up? There seems to be a reluctance to move up into the top 10 (especially the top 5) due to the $$ and cap room involved.

Never mind #87 and #200, if Philly offered #24, 37 and 55 for #4, the Redskins should jump at it. Otherwise, the Eagles may trade with Detroit, Tampa or KC instead.

It was a stunner when McNabb was traded within the division. Why would Filthy do it again? Love the "tradeup", but IMO this is gas.

[smoak]

I would add one caveat to that new found confidence. The picks have to make sense. They cannot resemble the Vinny "lets throw 3 pieces of crap at the wall and see which one sticks" sort of picks.


So we can't draft three TEs?

[smoak]

No, just looking for a pattern in the chaos.

The challenge is that you have to take into the account the quality of the coaching staff selecting the player. As an example, Orakpo came to a coaching circus, and despite his fraulent Pro Bowl nod, he really struggled... at least at first.

I can't wait to see what the kid can do when he isn't "two stepping" in space.

This is a great thread (I avoided it at first b/c I didn't know the refernce to the JT Show???). I'll add that I think Philly likes all three of the top S prospects, adn even a couple of the other guys. I wouldn't say they feel pressure to move up and get Berry so I don't see this happening.

The Eagles are interesting b/c the one downside to the high tirnover is they have a plethora of needs and "unknown" positions. Clearly S wasn't the only problem on that defense and bringing back the cardboard cutout of Trotter mid season probably means they finish fourth in the division...

I didn't follow the pre draft hype this year so it will be more fun to watch and figure out who goes where... Looking forward to it except double bird to Godell for putting it on Thursday night.

[joethefan]

Never mind #87 and #200, if Philly offered #24, 37 and 55 for #4, the Redskins should jump at it. Otherwise, the Eagles may trade with Detroit, Tampa or KC instead.

I'm sure they can get a future pick as well. Next years picks are only valued to be the pick after them

ie...next years 2nd is only valued as a 3rd in this years draft. So even though you'll be getting a 2nd round pick, the value this year is that of a 3rd rounder.

[Redskinmayhem]

If it seems too good to be true...

[KC625]

Well, Allen is supposed to have a news conference today. Hopefully it is to announce that the scuttlebutt is true because Okung is going to be p/u by the Lions anyway. :eaglesuk:

[462skin]

I think this trade would be an absolute no brainer if we could sign Flozell. The tackle we take at 24 could then play RT for his first season or two and develop into the LT we need.

[tuckahoeskin]

Is it possible that Philly is looking for the next Brian Dawkins?

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

bleacher reports sent me this bit of hypothetical scuttlebutt this am.



Rams get:
Redskins No. 4 pick
Redskins 2011 Second Round Pick
Quarterback Jason Campbell

Redskins get:
Rams No. 1 overall pick to choose Sam Bradford as their future quarterback

Before you say, "This is dumb because the Redskins just got Donovan McNabb," they have also said they do have an interest in acquiring Bradford to the media, according to National Football Post.


i can't ever see this happening cause the offer is not strong enough on the skins side or rams side!

[whiskeytown]

Rams get:
Redskins No. 4 pick
Redskins 2011 Second Round Pick
Quarterback Jason Campbell

Redskins get:
Rams No. 1 overall pick to choose Sam Bradford as their future quarterback

Before you say, "This is dumb because the Redskins just got Donovan McNabb," they have also said they do have an interest in acquiring Bradford to the media, according to National Football Post.


okay Bleacher blogger, after you say that, THEN i'll say it's dumb cuz your basic logic is that you read a story about the redksins telling the media they still have interest in Bradford during Smoke Signals Month.

[Skins7ny]

Unfortunately, Okung is not projected to be a Orlando Pace, Joe Thomas kind of can't miss prospect. He has question marks. So does Baluga. So does every other OT prospect. While trading a pick when an Orlando Pace or Chris Samuels is sitting there is a crime, it's equally a crime to reach for a guy that you don't believe in. If the Redskins trade down, it's because they don't believe in Okung.

Michael Oher went 23 last year. When there is depth at OT, you can get starters, good starters pretty deep into the first. This year, you might even get them into the early 2nd. If a guy who would be elevated to top 10 in a normal year because of scarcity is available at 24, I don't think that's much of gamble at all. Chris Samuels wasn't rated as highly as Orlando Pace coming out of college either, but he did just fine, manning the position at a high level for 11 years. I would be happy with than that from Okung. Okung's questions marks are of the nature of whether he will be an elite, perennial Pro Bowl left tackle. However, no one thinks he is a potential bust. The near-unanimous consenses seems to be that at worst, Okung will be a 10-year starter at left tackle who will be reliable even if he is not spectacular. He has been described as being the safest pick of the entire draft with almost zero bust potential (I suppose every player has some bust potential).

As far as getting Oher at 23, there were reasons Oher slipped that far. Obviously, looking at it in hindsight as you are doing, the answer is easy; one of the left tackles picked in the second half or round one or the first half of round 2 will probably end up being a very good player, so let's just pick him. That is fine if we know who that player or players will be. My whole point is that Okung is a sure thing, the left tackle we get at 24 will not be. This is left tackle, the second most important position on the field: if we have a chance to secure this position for the next 10 years with virtually no risk, we would be foolish to pass that opportunity up. What if we trade the 4th pick for 3 lower choices, and we draft Andre Johnson (our 30th overall choice a few years back, remember him?) Then we are screwed, and we may not be drafting at #4 next year.

My points are that (1) we cannot expect to rebuild this team into a major playoff contender in one year. Allehan seemed to recognize that when they first arrived. (2) This team has too many holes to fill on one year, so the temptation to trade down from #4 for additional picks is strong, especailly with 2 of our picks going for a 34-year old QB. However, we should not let our rush to improve the team for 2010 lead us to a decision that sacrifices the long-term health of the team: left tackle is too important a position to gamble on, so trading down is a bad idea (unless we are for some reason not sold on Okung). By securing LT for the next 10 years, and with QB secured for the next 3-4 (assuming a contract extension for McNabb), we can concentrate on getttng our entire roster back to where it should be, players 1 through 53. Then we can trade down and manuever to our hearts' content. Solving QB and LT gives us the freedom to explore. Not securing LT gives us question marks and raises McNabb's life insurance premium.
I think there are actually going to be alot of opportunity to make a deal. Problem is the way I see it it will be a freefall to the lower 1st rd. Then its the age old question......quantity or quality? We desperately need quantity. It will hurt to sit out rounds 2 and 3, but it will be worth it knowing we have the peace of mind of blind-side tackle resolved for the next 10 years. And, we may be trading unwanted veterans (AH, Campbell, Carter, McIntosh) for picks in rounds 3 through 5.
I know. I was just thinking wishfully about how nice it would be to be able to take a potential superstar player at a position of need (FS), instead of having to worry about rebuilding the entire team almost from the ground up. Our defense would be a LOT better with a player like Berry starting for us, but we just can't afford to take him.


I am inclined to agree, but it is certainly possible to trade down and find that sort of talent. I am skeptical (we took Samuels third overall and that worked out quite well), but then again I also believe that much of the draft process is driven by imperfect conventional wisdom developed by a legion of media pundits (and their sources in front offices around the league). A team with shrewd talent evaluators can get the players it needs later on in the first round. Oher went 23rd overall last year and there is no doubt that he is capable of performing at a high level (at either LT or RT!). On the other hand, Jason Smith hasn't made much of a dent so far for the Rams. The real question isn't whether the team should trade down, it's whether Shanny & Allen will make the right picks if they do trade down.
You mean like the good teams do? This is the promise that Allehan made when they got here, to build the team from the bottom up for long-term, year-in-and-year-out contention. We shall see. You are right about Allehan-I think we all have more confidence in them picking the right players than the previous regime. If they trade out of #4 with Okung still available, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but I hope that they are not acting out of desperation to win now rather than looking long term.
I respectively disagree.

Your analysis would have a lot of merit if the Redskins were just one stud LT tackle away from being a contender. But, let's face it, this team is a long ways from winning and there is a ton of needs. In that situation, the front office has to take the gamble that it can come up with a good LT (e.g. Charles Brown, Rodger Saffold, Jared Veldeer) lower down in the draft (or via a trade or a stopgap FA signing). The two second rounders are desperately needed to add youth to this team.

Having said that, I find it unlikely that the trade would be made. If the Eagles wanted that #4 pick, why didn't they just make that part of the deal for McNabb (McNabb, #24, #55 for #4 plus 2011 No. 3 or 4)? One can make the argument that Philly wanted to be sure Berry would be available at #4 before pulling the trigger, but most mocks have Berry going #5 and below.
I agree with you. And I really like Saffold-if we do trade out, I hope he is the guy we get-I think he can play left tackle for us. But, I don't think we HAVE TO take the gamble, as you say. We only have to do so if we are hell-bent on making the playoffs this year. If we are building for the future, and are willing to accept that it may take a little time, we take the sure thing in Okung.

You cannot solve all your smaller problems until you solve the biggest one first. Not to mention that a stud left tackle gives our offense the best hope for early success, and keeping McNabb upright (and willing to re-sign with us). I have four words for you: Stephon Heyer and Rex Grossman. Remember that if we trade down, the left tackle we are targeting could be snatched up by another team-there are no guarantees. If Okung is there at 4 and we take him, we are not at the mercy of Jerry Jones or somebody else (who has a lot more draft picks/ammunition for trading up) trades into the slot right ahead of us and grabs our LT. If Okung is there at 4, and we take him, that risk is eliminated.

[BurgundyNGold]

Chris Samuels wasn't rated as highly as Orlando Pace coming out of college either, but he did just fine, manning the position at a high level for 11 years. I would be happy with than that from Okung. Okung's questions marks are of the nature of whether he will be an elite, perennial Pro Bowl left tackle. However, no one thinks he is a potential bust. The near-unanimous consenses seems to be that at worst, Okung will be a 10-year starter at left tackle who will be reliable even if he is not spectacular. He has been described as being the safest pick of the entire draft with almost zero bust potential (I suppose every player has some bust potential).
If we stayed at 4 and took Okung, I'd be plenty happy. But understand that the question isn't about Okung at 4, it's about the dropoff from Okung at 4 and a Davis, Brown, Saffold or Campbell at 24 along with 2 other picks in the top 60 that kight help cement that porous OL. LT is only one 1 of 5 spots on the OL. That's 20% coverage. If you could get 60% coverage with the LT being rated an 85 instead of a 95 and fix your OL in one fell swoop, isn't that a better way to get better while getting younger? Add in that Dockery and Rabach (ugh) will stil be there and you've got a pretty good, albeit green, OL for 2010 but that will be seasoned and ready by 2012 when we can truly compete for a ring.

As far as getting Oher at 23, there were reasons Oher slipped that far. Obviously, looking at it in hindsight as you are doing, the answer is easy; one of the left tackles picked in the second half or round one or the first half of round 2 will probably end up being a very good player, so let's just pick him. That is fine if we know who that player or players will be.
Hindsight is a valuable tool in evaluating the future. You just used it for Samuels like 6 sentences ago. Oher dropped to the 2nd half of the 1st round in a draft that was meh for OT. This draft has 3 upper echilon OT prospects and 3 other guys who, just last year, would have been upper echilon prospects.

My whole point is that Okung is a sure thing, the left tackle we get at 24 will not be. This is left tackle, the second most important position on the field: if we have a chance to secure this position for the next 10 years with virtually no risk, we would be foolish to pass that opportunity up. What if we trade the 4th pick for 3 lower choices, and we draft Andre Johnson (our 30th overall choice a few years back, remember him?) Then we are screwed, and we may not be drafting at #4 next year.
You're using hindsight for the second time after admonishing me for the same... and cherry picking 20 years or so back to do so. I understand your point and, as I said, i would not be disappointed if we brought Okung home. However, nothing in the draft is a sure thing, no matter how dominant. Robert Gallery was supposed to be a can't miss prospect too and, as long as we're using hyper-hindsight to cherry pick, how about Tony Mandarich, remember him?

My points are that (1) we cannot expect to rebuild this team into a major playoff contender in one year. Allehan seemed to recognize that when they first arrived. (2) This team has too many holes to fill on one year, so the temptation to trade down from #4 for additional picks is strong, especailly with 2 of our picks going for a 34-year old QB. However, we should not let our rush to improve the team for 2010 lead us to a decision that sacrifices the long-term health of the team: left tackle is too important a position to gamble on, so trading down is a bad idea (unless we are for some reason not sold on Okung). By securing LT for the next 10 years, and with QB secured for the next 3-4 (assuming a contract extension for McNabb), we can concentrate on getttng our entire roster back to where it should be, players 1 through 53. Then we can trade down and manuever to our hearts' content. Solving QB and LT gives us the freedom to explore. Not securing LT gives us question marks and raises McNabb's life insurance premium.
I can see this position, though I don't think trading down and picking up 3 potential starters is as dire a consequence as you present. The positives of trading down is that you can fill more holes and go from one of the oldest, thinnest OL in the league to one of the youngest and deepest. I don't see how that's mortgaging any future, since you should expect the same 8-10 years out of each of the 3 selections. This is effectively what happened in Gibbs' first year with the Hogs. Grimm, Bostic, Jacoby and May (from the year before) all grew together to become a dominant team along the OL. Another thing that you do by selecting 3 players in the top 60 is that you maximize you prospects of getting 3 good players and minimize the risk of a top 5 bust.

Like I said, if we draft Okung, I'm fine with that. No arguments because he's a good player. However, I think it might be better for the youth of this team and for the immediate health of the McNabb to start a Charles Brown and a Bruce Campbell on the edges (sitting Stephon Heyer and Levi Jones) and a Jon Asamoah or a John Jerry at OG (and sit Mike Williams) this year. I don't see how that would be sacrificing our long term health or anything else.

[HanburgerBum]

I'm sure they can get a future pick as well. Next years picks are only valued to be the pick after them

ie...next years 2nd is only valued as a 3rd in this years draft. So even though you'll be getting a 2nd round pick, the value this year is that of a 3rd rounder.


I know there is a "reduction" in value for future picks of one round, although I have trouble understanding why that is the case. It seems to me that a first rounder is a first rounder regardless that it is a year later. Who knows, next year's draft crop may be stronger and deeper than the current draft crop.

My point, though, is that I doubt many teams nowadays are willing to give "full" value according to the value chart when trading up--especially into the top 5. If Wash gets greedy and insists on adding future picks in order to get "full" value pursuant to the chart, I think Philly would look elsewhere (e.g. Detroit, Tampa) to trade.

[HanburgerBum]

It was a stunner when McNabb was traded within the division. Why would Filthy do it again? Love the "tradeup", but IMO this is gas.


I really don't expect the trade to happen either, but this rumored trade (unlike the McNabb deal) actually would make sense for both teams.

Philly is a contending team and Eric Berry would yet fill the void left by Brian Dawkins' departure. Berry is regarded by many experts as "Ed Reed with more speed" and the best player in this draft. Ed Reed is arguably the best defensive player of the last decade. A speedier Reed would be scary. Berry is featured in the current Sports Illustrated issue. Apparently, aside from his immense physical skills (hits like a truck and is quick enough to play corner), Berry also has a superb football mind and is a high character person. For Washington, the trade makes sense because it desperately needs the extra 2nd rounders to get younger.

[HanburgerBum]

Chris Samuels wasn't rated as highly as Orlando Pace coming out of college either, but he did just fine, manning the position at a high level for 11 years. I would be happy with than that from Okung. Okung's questions marks are of the nature of whether he will be an elite, perennial Pro Bowl left tackle. However, no one thinks he is a potential bust. The near-unanimous consenses seems to be that at worst, Okung will be a 10-year starter at left tackle who will be reliable even if he is not spectacular. He has been described as being the safest pick of the entire draft with almost zero bust potential (I suppose every player has some bust potential).

As far as getting Oher at 23, there were reasons Oher slipped that far. Obviously, looking at it in hindsight as you are doing, the answer is easy; one of the left tackles picked in the second half or round one or the first half of round 2 will probably end up being a very good player, so let's just pick him. That is fine if we know who that player or players will be. My whole point is that Okung is a sure thing, the left tackle we get at 24 will not be. This is left tackle, the second most important position on the field: if we have a chance to secure this position for the next 10 years with virtually no risk, we would be foolish to pass that opportunity up. What if we trade the 4th pick for 3 lower choices, and we draft Andre Johnson (our 30th overall choice a few years back, remember him?) Then we are screwed, and we may not be drafting at #4 next year.

My points are that (1) we cannot expect to rebuild this team into a major playoff contender in one year. Allehan seemed to recognize that when they first arrived. (2) This team has too many holes to fill on one year, so the temptation to trade down from #4 for additional picks is strong, especailly with 2 of our picks going for a 34-year old QB. However, we should not let our rush to improve the team for 2010 lead us to a decision that sacrifices the long-term health of the team: left tackle is too important a position to gamble on, so trading down is a bad idea (unless we are for some reason not sold on Okung). By securing LT for the next 10 years, and with QB secured for the next 3-4 (assuming a contract extension for McNabb), we can concentrate on getttng our entire roster back to where it should be, players 1 through 53. Then we can trade down and manuever to our hearts' content. Solving QB and LT gives us the freedom to explore. Not securing LT gives us question marks and raises McNabb's life insurance premium.
We desperately need quantity. It will hurt to sit out rounds 2 and 3, but it will be worth it knowing we have the peace of mind of blind-side tackle resolved for the next 10 years. And, we may be trading unwanted veterans (AH, Campbell, Carter, McIntosh) for picks in rounds 3 through 5.

You mean like the good teams do? This is the promise that Allehan made when they got here, to build the team from the bottom up for long-term, year-in-and-year-out contention. We shall see. You are right about Allehan-I think we all have more confidence in them picking the right players than the previous regime. If they trade out of #4 with Okung still available, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but I hope that they are not acting out of desperation to win now rather than looking long term.

I agree with you. And I really like Saffold-if we do trade out, I hope he is the guy we get-I think he can play left tackle for us. But, I don't think we HAVE TO take the gamble, as you say. We only have to do so if we are hell-bent on making the playoffs this year. If we are building for the future, and are willing to accept that it may take a little time, we take the sure thing in Okung.

You cannot solve all your smaller problems until you solve the biggest one first. Not to mention that a stud left tackle gives our offense the best hope for early success, and keeping McNabb upright (and willing to re-sign with us). I have four words for you: Stephon Heyer and Rex Grossman. Remember that if we trade down, the left tackle we are targeting could be snatched up by another team-there are no guarantees. If Okung is there at 4 and we take him, we are not at the mercy of Jerry Jones or somebody else (who has a lot more draft picks/ammunition for trading up) trades into the slot right ahead of us and grabs our LT. If Okung is there at 4, and we take him, that risk is eliminated.


I like Saffold too, but at RT or RG. I like Charles Brown or Jared Veldheer at LT. If the Skins trade down to get one first rounder and two 2nd rounders, they have a chance to rebuild the offensive line with one draft.

Okung is the consensus top prospect at LT, but I don't think he is regarded to be in the same class as Orland Pace, Walter Jones, etc. It is not even clear he is the best LT prospect for the Shanahan zone-blocking scheme. It wouldn't surprise me if the Skins select Trent Williams at #4, if they stay in place. So, I disagree that Okung should be considered a risk-free "sure thing".

Wash just has too many needs to address. It should jump at a chance to turn #4 into one first rounder and two second rounders.

[Keino]

I like Saffold too, but at RT or RG. I like Charles Brown or Jared Veldheer at LT. If the Skins trade down to get one first rounder and two 2nd rounders, they have a chance to rebuild the offensive line with one draft.

Okung is the consensus top prospect at LT, but I don't think he is regarded to be in the same class as Orland Pace, Walter Jones, etc. It is not even clear he is the best LT prospect for the Shanahan zone-blocking scheme. It wouldn't surprise me if the Skins select Trent Williams at #4, if they stay in place. So, I disagree that Okung should be considered a risk-free "sure thing".

Wash just has too many needs to address. It should jump at a chance to turn #4 into one first rounder and two second rounders.

I don't think you and I have been in such agreement since 2002.

[HanburgerBum]

I don't think you and I have been in such agreement since 2002.


Great minds will eventually find common ground, lol.

[panamaMike]

I like Saffold too, but at RT or RG. I like Charles Brown or Jared Veldheer at LT. If the Skins trade down to get one first rounder and two 2nd rounders, they have a chance to rebuild the offensive line with one draft.

Okung is the consensus top prospect at LT, but I don't think he is regarded to be in the same class as Orland Pace, Walter Jones, etc. It is not even clear he is the best LT prospect for the Shanahan zone-blocking scheme. It wouldn't surprise me if the Skins select Trent Williams at #4, if they stay in place. So, I disagree that Okung should be considered a risk-free "sure thing".

Wash just has too many needs to address. It should jump at a chance to turn #4 into one first rounder and two second rounders.

Guys, I have not seen one scouting service, one draft guru,or one talking head on the sports stations that dosn't rate Okung at one. I think when experts disagree, each GM needs to trust his own eyes. I have seen enough of the other guys you mentioned- Brown, Ducasse, Stafford etc. To know they are not Lt's. We are just hopeing that they are. I give the idea of Williams being a better ZBS tackle some weight but then again ask Bradford's shoulder. What I don't understand is the direction the new front office is taking with the OL. If they want to use the ZBS like kyle said, why keep Rabach, Rhinhart, Williams, and Dockery around? They are about as equipped to be ZBS lineman as Gram Gano. Tell me if I'm missing something.

[BurgundyNGold]

Guys, I have not seen one scouting service, one draft guru,or one talking head on the sports stations that dosn't rate Okung at one. I think when experts disagree, each GM needs to trust his own eyes. I have seen enough of the other guys you mentioned- Brown, Ducasse, Stafford etc. To know they are not Lt's. We are just hopeing that they are. I give the idea of Williams being a better ZBS tackle some weight but then again ask Bradford's shoulder. What I don't understand is the direction the new front office is taking with the OL. If they want to use the ZBS like kyle said, why keep Rabach, Rhinhart, Williams, and Dockery around? They are about as equipped to be ZBS lineman as Gram Gano. Tell me if I'm missing something.
NFL.com's Mike Mayock has Okung ranked 3rd among OT. Not sure I agree with his rankings but there are folks out there who have another OT higher than Okung.

[lorimike]

NFL.com's Mike Mayock has Okung ranked 3rd among OT. Not sure I agree with his rankings but there are folks out there who have another OT higher than Okung.

At this stage the draft pundits are just trying to say something unique. I think Okung is the real deal. We don't need to overthink this. If we move down too far we could move right out of taking a pro bowl player. As for Bulaga I would stay away- he has a thyroid condition. The thinking that Trent Williams is more athletic is pure b.s.- Okung ran a 5.1 and Williams a 5.3. I say take the best left tackle in the draft and move on. Rusell Okung. 36 inch arms. fast, big hands, only allowed 1 sack last year.

[Keino]

At this stage the draft pundits are just trying to say something unique. I think Okung is the real deal. We don't need to overthink this. If we move down too far we could move right out of taking a pro bowl player. As for Bulaga I would stay away- he has a thyroid condition. The thinking that Trent Williams is more athletic is pure b.s.- Okung ran a 5.1 and Williams a 5.3. I say take the best left tackle in the draft and move on. Rusell Okung. 36 inch arms. fast, big hands, only allowed 1 sack last year.

The 40 measures straight-line speed. Not a real good indicator of athleticism in big people. It's the scuttle times that you need to be looking at for O linemen. The 40 is only relevant to the speed/skill positions and even then, it's usefulness is limited. Running fast at the combine or in a workout doesn't always translate into football speed.

[HanburgerBum]

Guys, I have not seen one scouting service, one draft guru,or one talking head on the sports stations that dosn't rate Okung at one. I think when experts disagree, each GM needs to trust his own eyes. I have seen enough of the other guys you mentioned- Brown, Ducasse, Stafford etc. To know they are not Lt's. We are just hopeing that they are. I give the idea of Williams being a better ZBS tackle some weight but then again ask Bradford's shoulder. What I don't understand is the direction the new front office is taking with the OL. If they want to use the ZBS like kyle said, why keep Rabach, Rhinhart, Williams, and Dockery around? They are about as equipped to be ZBS lineman as Gram Gano. Tell me if I'm missing something.


Aside from Mike Mayock of NFL Networks, Yahoo Sports also ranks Trent Williams ahead of Okung (see the thread on the Mohican Draft).

Williams is generally regarded as being more athletic and having a bigger upside than Okung. Plus, Williams would probably fit the ZBS of Shanahan better.

As to why Rabach, Dockery, Rhinhart, etc were kept, my guess would be that the team had very little choice, because there weren't anybody better available.

I was not saying Okung would necessarily be a bad choice at #4. The point I was trying to make in reply to Skiny7 is that Okung is not the risk-free "sure thing" some people may think--especially for this team. So, if the opportunity to trade down occurs, Wash should jump on it.

[lorimike]

The 40 measures straight-line speed. Not a real good indicator of athleticism in big people. It's the scuttle times that you need to be looking at for O linemen. The 40 is only relevant to the speed/skill positions and even then, it's usefulness is limited. Running fast at the combine or in a workout doesn't always translate into football speed.

You are correct. Not a great indicator of sucess at the OT position.

[justinskins]

Guys, I have not seen one scouting service, one draft guru,or one talking head on the sports stations that dosn't rate Okung at one. I think when experts disagree, each GM needs to trust his own eyes.

If the "experts" were never wrong, there would be no busts. It seems to me that the test of a truly great front office is not whether it follows conventional wisdom, but whether it is better than the experts. And I think the Redskins should aspire to have just such an organization.

[shally]

I like Saffold too, but at RT or RG. I like Charles Brown or Jared Veldheer at LT. If the Skins trade down to get one first rounder and two 2nd rounders, they have a chance to rebuild the offensive line with one draft.

Okung is the consensus top prospect at LT, but I don't think he is regarded to be in the same class as Orland Pace, Walter Jones, etc. It is not even clear he is the best LT prospect for the Shanahan zone-blocking scheme. It wouldn't surprise me if the Skins select Trent Williams at #4, if they stay in place. So, I disagree that Okung should be considered a risk-free "sure thing".

Wash just has too many needs to address. It should jump at a chance to turn #4 into one first rounder and two second rounders.

i think Trent Williams will be the pick right now, if we stay at 4.. i also think that Okung will go to Detroit at #2 and that is going to set up a lot of trade scenario's. the question will be how far down the Redskins will be willing to drop because teams like Seattle and KC would probably jump all over Williams
if Okung is already gone at 2..

i can see either McCoy or Suh sliding on draft day because teams have other priorities that DT

[shally]

You are correct. Not a great indicator of sucess at the OT position.

or being a work-out warrior who plays soft, as inthe case with Campbell.. he has a chance of being a bust IMHO

[Keino]

i think Trent Williams will be the pick right now, if we stay at 4.. i also think that Okung will go to Detroit at #2 and that is going to set up a lot of trade scenario's. the question will be how far down the Redskins will be willing to drop because teams like Seattle and KC would probably jump all over Williams
if Okung is already gone at 2..

i can see either McCoy or Suh sliding on draft day because teams have other priorities that DT

I hope you are right. One of the DTs being on the board with Berry is, I think, our key to being able to trade out of the 4 spot.

[akhhorus]

At this stage the draft pundits are just trying to say something unique. I think Okung is the real deal. We don't need to overthink this. If we move down too far we could move right out of taking a pro bowl player. As for Bulaga I would stay away- he has a thyroid condition. The thinking that Trent Williams is more athletic is pure b.s.- Okung ran a 5.1 and Williams a 5.3. I say take the best left tackle in the draft and move on. Rusell Okung. 36 inch arms. fast, big hands, only allowed 1 sack last year.

Williams ran a 4.83 at the combine, not a 5.3. And Williams' short shuttle time was insanely fast(4.6).

I really don't know what you see in Okung. His technique is subpar and his footwork sucks royally.

[lorimike]

Williams ran a 4.83 at the combine, not a 5.3. And Williams' short shuttle time was insanely fast(4.6).

I really don't know what you see in Okung. His technique is subpar and his footwork sucks royally.

I saw that. The resource I was looking had 5.3. I stand corrected So you have Okung as a 5th or 6th rounder then?

[akhhorus]

So you have Okung as a 5th or 6th rounder then?

I would rather have Williams, Bulaga and Charles Brown over him. Maybe Anthony Davis also. I wouldn't take him until the 20s. He just doesn't do anything well and needs a lot of work. He's got a perfect NFL OT body though, and that's why some teams are slobbering over him. Watch the tape on him and you'll see a player who gets caught flat footed too much, especially on run plays.


Really bad attempt at sarcasm btw.

[Gravy]

I would rather have Williams, Bulaga and Charles Brown over him. Maybe Anthony Davis also. I wouldn't take him until the 20s. He just doesn't do anything well and needs a lot of work. He's got a perfect NFL OT body though, and that's why some teams are slobbering over him. Watch the tape on him and you'll see a player who gets caught flat footed too much, especially on run plays.


Really bad attempt at sarcasm btw.

I think that Williams should be a no-brainer at 4

[shally]

I would rather have Williams, Bulaga and Charles Brown over him. Maybe Anthony Davis also. I wouldn't take him until the 20s. He just doesn't do anything well and needs a lot of work. He's got a perfect NFL OT body though, and that's why some teams are slobbering over him. Watch the tape on him and you'll see a player who gets caught flat footed too much, especially on run plays.


Really bad attempt at sarcasm btw.

davis has boom/bust written all over him.. the others i like.. and throw in saffold, if we trade down

[redskin_rich]

davis has boom/bust written all over him.. the others i like.. and throw in saffold, if we trade down

I still like Bulaga the best out of the bunch, wherever we can get him.

[skinsfan36]

I still like Bulaga the best out of the bunch, wherever we can get him.

yeah he is a beast and noone is hardly linking us to him. i smell he could even be the pick. he flat out dominated the best DE in this draft in the orange bowl made me sick but was impressive.

[Oregonian]

FWIW, PFT quoted some unknown source stating that league scouts are calling Bulaga the most overrated player in the entire draft. If it is true that decision makers think that, maybe he will be available later than people are currently projecting.

I personally have no opinion on any of these OL prospects having never watched any of em play.

This draft business is such a crap shoot anyway, it's hard to know what to think, and the conventional wisdom about these players seems to be wrong about half the time by the time the season has gotten going.

[redskin_rich]

FWIW, PFT quoted some unknown source stating that league scouts are calling Bulaga the most overrated player in the entire draft. If it is true that decision makers think that, maybe he will be available later than people are currently projecting.

I personally have no opinion on any of these OL prospects having never watched any of em play.

This draft business is such a crap shoot anyway, it's hard to know what to think, and the conventional wisdom about these players seems to be wrong about half the time by the time the season has gotten going.

Line play, especially O-Line, is the easiest to evaluate of any position. Whether using game tape or personal workouts and one on one situations, it is clear whether or not a guy can be dominant, can adjust, has the necessary athleticism, mentality, strength, physical stature, etc, etc.

[Keino]

Line play, especially O-Line, is the easiest to evaluate of any position. Whether using game tape or personal workouts and one on one situations, it is clear whether or not a guy can be dominant, can adjust, has the necessary athleticism, mentality, strength, physical stature, etc, etc.

Tony Mandarich called while you were typing this. He wants you to give him a call.

[redskin_rich]

Tony Mandarich called while you were typing this. He wants you to give him a call.

Yeah, did he mention what anabolic steroids he was using?

Different time and he was a classic example of teams being caught up in his measurables.

Edit- Also, for every Tony Mandarich, Robert Gallery, there are dozens of WR's, QB's, RB's and defensive skill players that failed.

[Oregonian]

Line play, especially O-Line, is the easiest to evaluate of any position. Whether using game tape or personal workouts and one on one situations, it is clear whether or not a guy can be dominant, can adjust, has the necessary athleticism, mentality, strength, physical stature, etc, etc.
Compared to other positions I would agree that the hit rate for high OL picks is higher, but there are still some big busts.

Robert Gallery and (big) Mike Williams were early first rounders.

[redskin_rich]

Compared to other positions I would agree that the hit rate for high OL picks is higher, but there are still some big busts.

Robert Gallery and (big) Mike Williams were early first rounders.

See my last post and also consider the situations the players were put in and the mentality of the player.
Tony Mandarich was a steroid freak that was acclaimed because of his incredible measurables.
Robert Gallery had the prototypical size and had a promising start but was misused by the ever-changing, dysfunctional Raiders.
Mike Williams was already reputed to be lazy, before the draft.

[Oregonian]

See my last post and also consider the situations the players were put in and the mentality of the player.
Tony Mandarich was a steroid freak that was acclaimed because of his incredible measurables.
Robert Gallery had the prototypical size and had a promising start but was misused by the ever-changing, dysfunctional Raiders.
Mike Williams was already reputed to be lazy, before the draft.
Agree on Mandarich, without the steroids he was about half as strong and mean.

Regarding Gallery, while I will grant he went to a highly dysfunctional organization, I don't think that is sufficient explanation for a guy to go from a number one overall pick at LT to a middle of the road interior lineman. I think he just wasn't as talented as people thought.

Regarding Williams, this kind of makes my point. You can measure a guy's size and speed, even watch tape of them dominating in college, but it can be hard to predict how dedicated and smart they will be as pros.

Or how many helpings of dessert they take.

[smoak]

Line play, especially O-Line, is the easiest to evaluate of any position. Whether using game tape or personal workouts and one on one situations, it is clear whether or not a guy can be dominant, can adjust, has the necessary athleticism, mentality, strength, physical stature, etc, etc.

I completely agree. If you stuck to the top 10-15 picks, my guess is that the number of busts for OL is exponentially less than QB, WR, CB, etc...

[lorimike]

FWIW, PFT quoted some unknown source stating that league scouts are calling Bulaga the most overrated player in the entire draft. If it is true that decision makers think that, maybe he will be available later than people are currently projecting.

I personally have no opinion on any of these OL prospects having never watched any of em play.

This draft business is such a crap shoot anyway, it's hard to know what to think, and the conventional wisdom about these players seems to be wrong about half the time by the time the season has gotten going.

I think Bulaga is a good player but the thyroid condition that kept him out a few games at the beginning of the season has to be of some concern

[Hr fan]

I think Bulaga is a good player but the thyroid condition that kept him out a few games at the beginning of the season has to be of some concern

Plus with short arms he may be a better fit at RT, where he doesn't contend with speed so much. While we need a RT scheme can cover for subpar, but not at LT. I sort of agree with the scout that observed that there were 5 better OT last year than the best this year. On the other hand there is great depth, so I favor the trade down as getting more players while lessening the risk.

[shally]

Plus with short arms he may be a better fit at RT, where he doesn't contend with speed so much. While we need a RT scheme can cover for subpar, but not at LT. I sort of agree with the scout that observed that there were 5 better OT last year than the best this year. On the other hand there is great depth, so I favor the trade down as getting more players while lessening the risk.

i think the real risk with Bulaga is that we get a 10 year Right Tackle, but he cannot play the Left Tackle to the level we need at the position

[akhhorus]

Plus with short arms he may be a better fit at RT, where he doesn't contend with speed so much. While we need a RT scheme can cover for subpar, but not at LT. I sort of agree with the scout that observed that there were 5 better OT last year than the best this year. On the other hand there is great depth, so I favor the trade down as getting more players while lessening the risk.

He has the same arm length roughly as Michael Oher, who was so good filling in for Jared Gaither at LT in Balto that Newsome is trying to dump Gaither. This is an unfair criticism of him.

[HanburgerBum]

i think Trent Williams will be the pick right now, if we stay at 4.. i also think that Okung will go to Detroit at #2 and that is going to set up a lot of trade scenario's. the question will be how far down the Redskins will be willing to drop because teams like Seattle and KC would probably jump all over Williams
if Okung is already gone at 2..

i can see either McCoy or Suh sliding on draft day because teams have other priorities that DT


If the Skins had a normal compliment of picks and didn't have so many needs, my preference would be Eric Berry at #4. But, given the hand Wash is dealt with, my preference would be to trade down (either with Philly or NE) and convert the #4 to one first rounder and two second rounders. If that fails, I would go with Trent Williams.

As for a DT sliding, I am still holding out hope that the Skins can ship Haynesworth to Tampa for a second rounder (Tampa should be interested since it offered Haynesworth a similar or bigger free agent contract last year). If that happens, McCoy would surely slip.

[NCskinsfanatic]

If the Skins had a normal compliment of picks and didn't have so many needs, my preference would be Eric Berry at #4. But, given the hand Wash is dealt with, my preference would be to trade down (either with Philly or NE) and convert the #4 to one first rounder and two second rounders. If that fails, I would go with Trent Williams.

As for a DT sliding, I am still holding out hope that the Skins can ship Haynesworth to Tampa for a second rounder (Tampa should be interested since it offered Haynesworth a similar or bigger free agent contract last year). If that happens, McCoy would surely slip.

I'm for a trade down scenario regardless of who's there at #4, even bradford(who I'd love to draft). I really like Berry and think we need a strong FS almost as much as a LT...almost lol. However I think Tampa will be ruled out as a potential trade partner because they'll take McCoy and are unlikely to need Haynesworth as much; especially with the contract a #3 pick will command.

[lorimike]

I'm for a trade down scenario regardless of who's there at #4, even bradford(who I'd love to draft). I really like Berry and think we need a strong FS almost as much as a LT...almost lol. However I think Tampa will be ruled out as a potential trade partner because they'll take McCoy and are unlikely to need Haynesworth as much; especially with the contract a #3 pick will command.

Oh sheesh, another skinny little defensive back is the last thing this team needs.

[NCskinsfanatic]

Oh sheesh, another skinny little defensive back is the last thing this team needs.

I assume you're reffering to Berry, If so I think he's typical FS size. And I said I liked him not that we needed to draft him. I'm curious... you dont think FS is a need or you think a FS routinely comes in Sean Taylor size lol?

[lorimike]

I assume you're reffering to Berry, If so I think he's typical FS size. And I said I liked him not that we needed to draft him. I'm curious... you dont think FS is a need or you think a FS routinely comes in Sean Taylor size lol?<

we only have 1 pick in the first 3 rounds and we desperatly need a left tackle. Perhaps if we had more pieces in place then it would be fine. How many times are we going to the well with high picks on defensive backs? I think Laron can do a lot better in our new defensive scheme and new coaching staff. Defensively it is what is up front that counts. If you have no pass rush it doesn't matter who you've got back there. How many times have we watched Champ Bailey get burned when he was here ( Amani Toomer vs Champ brings up bad memories)

[Hr fan]

He has the same arm length roughly as Michael Oher, who was so good filling in for Jared Gaither at LT in Balto that Newsome is trying to dump Gaither. This is an unfair criticism of him.

I am on record in other threads that I prefer Bulaga to Okung because he has a warrior's mentality and IMO Okung doesn't, especially on run plays. The arm question is more to RT or LT being his best fit. As I said, we need both, but can scheme around a subpar RT easier than a subpar LT. No disrespect to Mr. Bulaga was intended. I am also on record as thinking Williams is the better LT choice, but a stop gap LT should be obtained (Adams?) while Williams learns the pro game and LT pro ropes while playing RT.

As to Gaither, if his sulking is due to being paid like a 5th rounder and he was a college workout warrior I would explore a swap of 1sts with Balto with Gaither being part of the package. We get a pro LT and a choice(s) to trade down (2 2nds?) and get a Brown or other prospect(s).

[HanburgerBum]

I'm for a trade down scenario regardless of who's there at #4, even bradford(who I'd love to draft). I really like Berry and think we need a strong FS almost as much as a LT...almost lol. However I think Tampa will be ruled out as a potential trade partner because they'll take McCoy and are unlikely to need Haynesworth as much; especially with the contract a #3 pick will command.


If the Bucs were to trade for Haynesworth, presumably they would pass on McCoy or Suh. Tampa would then not be giving #3 pick money to a DT, since the bulk of the Haynesworth contract has already been paid by the Redskins.

The Bucs have a ton of needs too. Freeing up the #3 pick for another position rather than a DT or for trading down would seem like a smart thing for them to do.

[HanburgerBum]

Oh sheesh, another skinny little defensive back is the last thing this team needs.


Berry is not tall (5'11), but I would hardly consider him a "skinny little defensive back" at 211. Not only is he a fierce hitter, he is quick enough to play corner. On top of that, he has a superb football mind and is a high character guy. I think he is the best player in this draft and the closest to being a "sure thing".

A very good safety by the name of Bob Sanders plays for Indy. He isn't tall either.

Also, experts have dubbed Berry as "Ed Reed with more speed". You don't like Ed Reed?

[lorimike]

Berry is not tall (5'11), but I would hardly consider him a "skinny little defensive back" at 211. Not only is he a fierce hitter, he is quick enough to play corner. On top of that, he has a superb football mind and is a high character guy. I think he is the best player in this draft and the closest to being a "sure thing".

A very good safety by the name of Bob Sanders plays for Indy. He isn't tall either.

Also, experts have dubbed Berry as "Ed Reed with more speed". You don't like Ed Reed?

I think we'll get better safety play just with the new coaching staff but with the investment in Donovan McNabb I think we have a much more pressing issue at left tackle. And there are some good tackles there when we pick. 200 lb safeties are a dime a dozen. It's whats up front that really counts. For years we've tried to build this team from the outside in instead of focusing on the lines. Anyone remember the 200 yard game Tiki had against us several years ago. I distinctly remember Sean Taylor not making a lick of difference.

[lorimike]

I was watching the top 10 undrafted players last night on NFL.com Anyone remember Rod Smith's touchdown catch against Darrell Green? My point being is that all these little defensive backs don't make enough of a difference if you don't have a strong line. Same thing goes on offense. Get the offensive tackle tonight! please

[HanburgerBum]

I think we'll get better safety play just with the new coaching staff but with the investment in Donovan McNabb I think we have a much more pressing issue at left tackle. And there are some good tackles there when we pick. 200 lb safeties are a dime a dozen. It's whats up front that really counts. For years we've tried to build this team from the outside in instead of focusing on the lines. Anyone remember the 200 yard game Tiki had against us several years ago. I distinctly remember Sean Taylor not making a lick of difference.


I don't disagree with the theory that teams should be built from inside out (lines first). In fact, I had screamed last year about how old the Redskins offensive line was getting and how little depth it had.

But, that's a generalization. When a team makes a specific choice like Eric Berry or Trent Williams, how good a prospect each player is likely to be regardless of position must be taken into account. If I thought Berry and Williams are both likely to be perennial probowlers or are both likely to be solid starters, I say go with Williams. But, if I thought Berry is going to be a perennial probowler and Williams is going to be just a solid starter, I would go with Berry.

This team is nowhere near the playoffs. They will likely have 4-6 wins this season regardless who plays LT. Therefore, go with the better prospect regardless of position instead of reaching for need.

[smoak]

I don't disagree with the theory that teams should be built from inside out (lines first). In fact, I had screamed last year about how old the Redskins offensive line was getting and how little depth it had.

But, that's a generalization. When a team makes a specific choice like Eric Berry or Trent Williams, how good a prospect each player is likely to be regardless of position must be taken into account. If I thought Berry and Williams are both likely to be perennial probowlers or are both likely to be solid starters, I say go with Williams. But, if I thought Berry is going to be a perennial probowler and Williams is going to be just a solid starter, I would go with Berry.

This team is nowhere near the playoffs. They will likely have 4-6 wins this season regardless who plays LT. Therefore, go with the better prospect regardless of position instead of reaching for need.

I agree that the damned line should have been addressed over the past two years. Same stupid oprganization that devalues picks and wonders why we are desperate at key positions.

Wash-Rinse-Repeat.

Redskins ownership is a cancer, and I hope we can add 2-3 you players on the first couple days to changes the self fullilling cycle of death. :D