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

funbuncher wrote:..The Vikings, like us, could generate no pass rush so they drafted a defensive end in the 1st round in 2004 AND 2005. Now they still rank 32 against the pass in 2006.

While I agree with your point in general, the Vikings example only proves we should do something OTHER than draft a DE .

You are partly right - The Vikings line was not good against the pass all year long - I think our line started to show some promise at the end of the year. Also the Vikings line did not get any help from who they drafted - I certainly hope that is not the case here PLUS I think that if we do use that 6 pick on a DE or a DT we will see a huge improvement across the board from our defense - the guys we have now were coming on fairly well at the end of the year and IMO we just need to "add" to those guys and we will see a lot more pressure from the front 4.

I doubt that we use the 6 pick however as I think they want to get more than 1 player for that pick.

SkinsFreak wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

funbuncher wrote:[While I agree with your point in general, the Vikings example only proves we should do something OTHER than draft a DE .

Or...maybe it says we should draft a DE who can actually rush the passer (unlike Udeze who started 16 games and had ZERO sacks)?

Are you serious? Are we back to criticizing their inability to predict the future??? Is there a crystal ball down at Redskins Park or something, you know, so we can avoid the same mistake? Come on...

***I think you just proved the point as to why some in the NFL are now leery about giving a potentially over-rated DE or DT huge amounts of guaranteed money.***

Cause it ain't about the fact that the Skins need d-line help, and it ain't about whether or not one of these guys could turn out to be good, but it's ALL about the guaranteed money, the size of the contract associated with the #6 pick, and the inherent risks involved. You gave us a perfect example of how you can get screwed.

If you take one of those guys, like Udeze, as you pointed out, and they fail to perform, as you pointed out, you are now screwed for the next few years. It's all about the risk / reward factor.

Well, you're comparing apples and oranges. Udeze and Erasmus James were both late 1st round picks (Udeze was the 20th pick, James was the 18th pick). At that range, when you pick a D-end, your chance of getting a passrushing monster is fairly low (I can think of both Renaldo Wynn and Kendard Lang went around that point).

DE's drafted in the Top 12 since 2000 (with pick # in () afterwards):
2006: Mario Williams (1)
2003: Terrell Suggs (10)
2002: Julius Peppers (2), Dwight Freeney (11)
2001: Justin Smith (4), Richard Seymour (6), Andre Carter (7)
2000: Courtney Brown (1), Shaun Ellis (12)

Yeah, there are a few busts (I guess don't pick a DE first overall?), but that's a pretty good list. Everyone except for the two first pick guys and Justin Smith has had at least 1 double digit sack season. Even better, excepting Mario Williams (and the jury really is out on him still), Courtney Brown (who was crippled by injuries), Justin Smith and Andre Carter, every one on that list has made at least one Pro Bowl. And Justin Smith hasn't been the passrushing monster people expected, but has been quite a solid defensive lineman. There's really not busts there (if you acknowledge Brown's career was wrecked by injuries). That's a very good return on value.

I think you're getting a bit tied up in the argument without seeing the big picture. I like Landry. I think that would be a really sick safety tandem. But...as it stands, we have a decent secondary. We have a stinky defensive line. No one, no matter how good they are, can cover someone forever....and that's where we're left if we don't get someone who can rush the passer. Or be a run stuffer....we can't depend on someone who plays 8 yards behind the line of scrimmage to improve our run game that much.

You made the point that no one had DE ranked 6th...well they have D-line ranked 6-10 pretty consistently. I think we can get decent value drafting someone at 6 who may be ranked 6th, 7th or 8th...if it's a position of need. And I can't imagine (imho) a greater need than defensive line.

The last few drafts have a number of people selected at all positions that have not worked out for the teams that selected them and a lot of guys who were not only not drafted but were drafted on the second day that have adapted really well to the pro game.

Our greatest weakness in player acquisitions recently has been that our talent "predictions" for both the draft and the free agents have left a lot to be desired. Hopefully this year our guys are going to make up for a lot of those mistakes of years past and give us a few young guys to add to the mix and help make this team better.

funbuncher wrote:While I agree with your point in general, the Vikings example only proves we should do something OTHER than draft a DE .

Exactly, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to drafting on the D-line. I'm not disagreeing that the D-line has an impact on the secondary (sorry, I realized looking back that it sounded that way). What I am saying is that drafting a DE at #6 is a risky proposition. The vikings have drafted three out of the last four first rounders on the D-line and what has it done?

High first round d-linemen are always risky. Thats why I would much rather trade down and get a few guys.

PulpExposure wrote:DE's drafted in the Top 12 since 2000 (with pick # in () afterwards):
2006: Mario Williams (1)
2003: Terrell Suggs (10)
2002: Julius Peppers (2), Dwight Freeney (11)
2001: Justin Smith (4), Richard Seymour (6), Andre Carter (7)
2000: Courtney Brown (1), Shaun Ellis (12).

Thats good information. I guess its the DT's alone that end up so risky? What does that chart look like for DT's?

I don't think that you can say that Mario Williams was a bust yet. Remember, he did have both toe nails removed during the season. Video has shown that he was double teamed all year long. He had no other d lineman getting pressure. And lastly, the guy who lined up behind him at LB won rookie of the year. Looks like he did more than the stats show.

Yeah, you know, it is suprising how many people in the media don't have a clue what they are talking about. Not just sports media, either. Anyway, all these guys judge DE's by is the # of sacks recorded. Seems kind of silly, when half the plays are running plays and even on passing plays there are plenty of ways to contribute besides making sacks. But you see a guy with less than 10 sacks a year and there isn't much chance anyone will consider him a good DE. Go figure.

I love the commentary here today. I'm actually leaning towards Landry as our best choice as it would hopefully shore up our secondary and cut down on the 20+ yard plays we gave up last year especially on third down. I also agree we need DE and DT help. We especially need a wide body two gap tackle to hog up the middle and a mean pass rushing DE but going with the best player available appears to be Landry. He appears to be a fit in how GW likes to blitz and give give differnet stunts and looks. It's a crapshoot and it will be interesting to see what we do on draft day. My two cents....

Not that I hate the idea of Landry, but it seems we have addressed the secondary and LB corps and haven't done anything on the D-Line. I don't think we need an overhaul, but going with what we had last year concerns me and how do we address it in any meaningful way now w/o the 6th pick?

I have to admit I was supporting the Briggs trade raising the same question, but at least we got the #31 pick that way.