Fletcher or Mcintosh replacement

PickSixerTWSS · Post by **PickSixerTWSS** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:06 pm

First off let me say both of these guys r good players and fletcher at 37 is still a top 5 middle linebacker however i believe we will be picking with the 17th pick or so and fletcher is 37 and a free agent next year so 3 great middle line backers we could get in the 2012 draft are vontaze burfict, luke kuechly, and manti te'o. that would be amazing.

HTTR

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:51 pm

At this point in our season it's a little early to forecast our needs for the next draft. But...I'd go on the offensive side of the ball with a QB and then on the defensive side with a CB.

andyjens89 · Post by **andyjens89** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:20 pm

Linebackers can be found all over the draft. Fletcher was undrafted. Unless there is a Patrick Willis or Brian Urlacher type player in the draft, I don't see a reason to take one really high.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:35 pm

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:06 pm

andyjens89 wrote:Linebackers can be found all over the draft. Fletcher was undrafted. Unless there is a Patrick Willis or Brian Urlacher type player in the draft, I don't see a reason to take one really high.

At the end of the 1st quarter of the season Patrick Willis and Brian Urlacher are tied at 28th in tackles with 28 each and no sacks. Patrick Willis is 26 and Brian Urlacher is almost 34. McIntosh is only 28, has 27 tackles and a sack. They already have a "Patrick Willis or Brian Urlacher type" ... and almost let him leave.

PickSixerTWSS · Post by **PickSixerTWSS** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:09 pm

Im just saying its something we could do.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:36 pm

PickSixerTWSS wrote:Im just saying its something we could do.

We could also blow the rest of the season for a shot at Luck.

just sayin...

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:08 pm

Too late

PickSixerTWSS · Post by **PickSixerTWSS** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:00 am

PickSixerTWSS wrote:First off let me say both of these guys r good players and fletcher at 37 is still a top 5 middle linebacker however i believe we will be picking with the 17th pick or so and fletcher is 37 and a free agent next year so 3 great middle line backers we could get in the 2012 draft are vontaze burfict, luke kuechly, and manti te'o. that would be amazing.

HTTR

what i can say now is that McIntosh is doing great and so is fletcher however fletcher is 37 and is a FA next year.

broomboy · Post by **broomboy** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:05 am

GoSkins wrote:At this point in our season it's a little early to forecast our needs for the next draft. But...I'd go on the offensive side of the ball with a QB and then on the defensive side with a CB.

i don't see us grabbing a CB with Hall and Wilson theres not really a need. 1.QB/2.OL or OL/Qb dpendin on draft position.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:33 am

PickSixerTWSS wrote:
PickSixerTWSS wrote:First off let me say both of these guys r good players and fletcher at 37 is still a top 5 middle linebacker however i believe we will be picking with the 17th pick or so and fletcher is 37 and a free agent next year so 3 great middle line backers we could get in the 2012 draft are vontaze burfict, luke kuechly, and manti te'o. that would be amazing.

HTTR
what i can say now is that McIntosh is doing great and so is fletcher however fletcher is 37 and is a FA next year.

Nothing wrong wit looking towards the future, it'll have to be done eventually but I think Fletcher will come back next year. I honestly believe he'll play out his career here and despite his age he still has plenty of gas left in the tank.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:46 am

1niksder wrote:
andyjens89 wrote:Linebackers can be found all over the draft. Fletcher was undrafted. Unless there is a Patrick Willis or Brian Urlacher type player in the draft, I don't see a reason to take one really high.
At the end of the 1st quarter of the season Patrick Willis and Brian Urlacher are tied at 28th in tackles with 28 each and no sacks. Patrick Willis is 26 and Brian Urlacher is almost 34. McIntosh is only 28, has 27 tackles and a sack. They already have a "Patrick Willis or Brian Urlacher type" ... and almost let him leave.

Urlacher also has a couple of picks and a fumble recovery return for a TD.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:05 am

broomboy wrote:
GoSkins wrote:At this point in our season it's a little early to forecast our needs for the next draft. But...I'd go on the offensive side of the ball with a QB and then on the defensive side with a CB.
i don't see us grabbing a CB with Hall and Wilson theres not really a need. 1.QB/2.OL or OL/Qb dpendin on draft position.

Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

My list of priorities, which is completely dependent upon best available:
1. Quarterback of the future
2. O line OR Cornerback who can reliably take away a receiver when needed (such as a true Zero Blitz).

If he'd been willing to accept what he was actually worth, this would have been Carlos Rogers role. Had he been on the field against the Cowboys, he'd have been man up on Bryant... and that pass would probably have fallen to the ground. Say what you want, but he's not peeking into the backfield... and he doesn't bite on that weak headfake. You don't need an interception in that case... just a pass defensed.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:13 am

Countertrey wrote:
broomboy wrote:
GoSkins wrote:At this point in our season it's a little early to forecast our needs for the next draft. But...I'd go on the offensive side of the ball with a QB and then on the defensive side with a CB.
i don't see us grabbing a CB with Hall and Wilson theres not really a need. 1.QB/2.OL or OL/Qb dpendin on draft position.

Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

If he'd been willing to accept what he was actually worth, this would have been Carlos Rogers role. Had he been on the field against the Cowboys, he'd have been man up on Bryant... and that pass would probably have fallen to the ground. Say what you want, but he's not peeking into the backfield... and he doesn't bite on that weak headfake. You don't need an interception in that case... just a pass defensed.

+1

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:42 pm

1niksder wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
broomboy wrote: i don't see us grabbing a CB with Hall and Wilson theres not really a need. 1.QB/2.OL or OL/Qb dpendin on draft position.

Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

If he'd been willing to accept what he was actually worth, this would have been Carlos Rogers role. Had he been on the field against the Cowboys, he'd have been man up on Bryant... and that pass would probably have fallen to the ground. Say what you want, but he's not peeking into the backfield... and he doesn't bite on that weak headfake. You don't need an interception in that case... just a pass defensed.
+1

+2

emoses14 · Post by **emoses14** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:58 pm

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Countertrey wrote:

Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

If he'd been willing to accept what he was actually worth, this would have been Carlos Rogers role. Had he been on the field against the Cowboys, he'd have been man up on Bryant... and that pass would probably have fallen to the ground. Say what you want, but he's not peeking into the backfield... and he doesn't bite on that weak headfake. You don't need an interception in that case... just a pass defensed.
+1
+2

+1(more win if he was)

Carlos Rogers is a moron.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:04 pm

As much as I despised Rogers, I have to agree with that statement. He def. would've played that better and even gotten an INT out of it.

Naw of course not but he would've knocked it down for sure.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:50 pm

Countertrey wrote: Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

I disagree. The reason that I do is because it's longer than 4 seconds. It's 6,7,8 seconds. I'd be willing to bet if we go back and look at the Romo-Dez play, it's in the 5+ second category.

Baltimore overall has secondary vastly inferiror to our own. Their DB's could lay on the ground and WR's would still be covered. Why? Pass-rush.

We had Springs, Smoot, Taylor and Landry and our secondary was getting torched... Why? No pass rush.

You want Hall to look better? Get a better pass rush? Just because we've elevated from an atrocious pass-rush to what we have today does NOT mean we have arrived. Our NT and DE's don't get the pressure they should be getting, although they are AT LEAST occupying blockers.

In short. Improve the pass-rush, you improve the secondary.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Once we get Jenkins back, that will change.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:31 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

In short. Improve the pass-rush, you improve the secondary.

C'mon Man !!!

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:38 pm

1niksder wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:

In short. Improve the pass-rush, you improve the secondary.
C'mon Man !!!

NICE!

Dag, NFC East holding the top 3 down.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:47 pm

langleyparkjoe wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:

In short. Improve the pass-rush, you improve the secondary.
C'mon Man !!!
NICE!

Dag, NFC East holding the top 3 down.

And the G-strings are tied for 5th.

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:24 am

I've clamored for years about not taking a qb because our team isn't good enough to win with one anyway, but man, the time has come, qb is by far the most glaring issue on this team. The only way I see passing one up next draft is if there is a potential star receiver that's big, like in the CJ/Fitz mold. We'll probly finish with a good enough record where we can't get a decent qb or wr. oh well.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:53 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
Countertrey wrote: Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...
I disagree. The reason that I do is because it's longer than 4 seconds. It's 6,7,8 seconds. I'd be willing to bet if we go back and look at the Romo-Dez play, it's in the 5+ second category.

Baltimore overall has secondary vastly inferiror to our own. Their DB's could lay on the ground and WR's would still be covered. Why? Pass-rush.

We had Springs, Smoot, Taylor and Landry and our secondary was getting torched... Why? No pass rush.

You want Hall to look better? Get a better pass rush? Just because we've elevated from an atrocious pass-rush to what we have today does NOT mean we have arrived. Our NT and DE's don't get the pressure they should be getting, although they are AT LEAST occupying blockers.

In short. Improve the pass-rush, you improve the secondary.

If you look at that play, Hall was handed his butt at 2 seconds. Had he covered Bryant for 4 seconds, he would have been there when the ball arrived at 5 or 6 seconds. PERIOD. After the head fake and the inside slant move, he ran in a straight line. A corner that doesn't spin in his boots at the headfake would have still been with him. A corner that isn't peeking into the backfield doesn't get distracted from his cushion, and doesn't allow Bryant to close it up, making him susceptible to the head fake.

The pass rush was effective. Romo was retreating when he threw the pass up. No pass rush would have been there.

4 seconds is the best you will get from virtually any cornerback. Beyond that, a solid RECEIVER begins working back towards the line of scrimmage, to give his quarterback a target. At that point, the job of the cornerback is no longer to defense the pass, but to make an immediate tackle. That's just how it is.

Pass rush? Lead the league in sacks. Lead the league in GB hits. What do you want, Chris? The pass rush was effective on this play... there were 4 Redskins in pursuit of the retreating Romo at the time. One (Kerrigan) peeled off when he saw the TE slip his blocking assignment, apparently setting up a delay screen...

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:43 am

Deadskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
Countertrey wrote:

Disagree. Haslett is very aggressive. For some of the stuff he does, he would like to know that he can take away the opponent's #1 for 4 seconds. We don't currently have a corner that can do that, so, yes, there IS a need...

If he'd been willing to accept what he was actually worth, this would have been Carlos Rogers role. Had he been on the field against the Cowboys, he'd have been man up on Bryant... and that pass would probably have fallen to the ground. Say what you want, but he's not peeking into the backfield... and he doesn't bite on that weak headfake. You don't need an interception in that case... just a pass defensed.
+1
+2

=
+3

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Fletcher or Mcintosh replacement

Fletcher or Mcintosh replacement

Re: Fletcher or Mcintosh replacement

Re: Fletcher or Mcintosh replacement