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

Question: If Quinton Ganther had CJ Spiller speed how many TD's would he have had!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They say we have to go Oline with our first pick unless...

Unless we believe there is a franchise QB.

But what about a Franchise RB ala Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson

Today's NFL secondaries don't like chasing fast RB's, they have to chase fast WR's everyday and these burner RB's bring power so they're not an easy tackle.

Anthony Alridge Marcus Mason Ladell Betts Clinton Portis = no franchise RB

Portis + Spiller = dangerous

Its apparent we are going to live and die by running the football, and the team I like to think about running against is Dallas; Big strong DE's and quick DT's, smart LB's and physical secondary...hard to run on, unless they're tired and you are full speed in the 4th. Spiller gives us a game breaking threat, plus he's a return man.

We would instantly have good young potential at our skill positions,
WR TE and RB lacking only a better Oline and QB for a great offense. 2 or 3 strong free agents could make our line at least presentable

that's the sort of pick that Cerrato or Snyder could have made but nobody in their right mind is taking a RB with a top 5 pick this year

Adrian Peterson is about as good as you can get and if he or Johnson was avaialble this year I can guarantee Shanahan and Allen would not take him - he's good and he's the best in a while but he's had a problem holding onto the ball


Nobody who knows anything about the game is taking a Johnson or a Peterson or a CJ Spiller with the 4th pick in this draft - nobody




next question

Gibbs4Life wrote: Portis + Spiller = dangerous

Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

Drafting a RB with this OL does very little to help us. Combine our poor OL play with poor QB play (dependent on the OL, but to a much less degree) and here is some more NFL math for you:

Draft RB high w/no OL = wasted pick

RB have a 5 year self life. How long is it going to take us to fix or OL and QB.

Here is some more NFL math:
Stud OL + average RB = Stud running game

If you have a great OL just plug Timmy Smith or Olandis Garry in there and you have a great run game.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Gibbs4Life wrote: Portis + Spiller = dangerous

Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

Drafting a RB with this OL does very little to help us. Combine our poor OL play with poor QB play (dependent on the OL, but to a much less degree) and here is some more NFL math for you:

Draft RB high w/no OL = wasted pick

RB have a 5 year self life. How long is it going to take us to fix or OL and QB.

Here is some more NFL math:
Stud OL + average RB = Stud running game

If you have a great OL just plug Timmy Smith or Olandis Garry in there and you have a great run game.

I agree with what you're saying on having an OL, but I don't agree what we do with the #1 pick = what we do with the OL. Drafting for need is a path to mediocrity. We need to look at all our needs and all our options together. It's not like drafting an OL puts us on the path to the Big Game next year.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Gibbs4Life wrote: Portis + Spiller = dangerous

Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

Drafting a RB with this OL does very little to help us. Combine our poor OL play with poor QB play (dependent on the OL, but to a much less degree) and here is some more NFL math for you:

Draft RB high w/no OL = wasted pick

RB have a 5 year self life. How long is it going to take us to fix or OL and QB.

Here is some more NFL math:
Stud OL + average RB = Stud running game

If you have a great OL just plug Timmy Smith or Olandis Garry in there and you have a great run game.

I agree with what you're saying on having an OL, but I don't agree what we do with the #1 pick = what we do with the OL. Drafting for need is a path to mediocrity. We need to look at all our needs and all our options together. It's not like drafting an OL puts us on the path to the Big Game next year.

No, but its a pretty darn good start.

I voted for Okung and then watched some footage of CJ.. that boy got some serious jets!!!

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Come on DS.. Barry is like the exception to all things RB related .. That's not even fair to mention the great one

Jeremy81 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I agree with what you're saying on having an OL, but I don't agree what we do with the #1 pick = what we do with the OL. Drafting for need is a path to mediocrity. We need to look at all our needs and all our options together. It's not like drafting an OL puts us on the path to the Big Game next year.

No, but its a pretty darn good start.

Clearly we agree we need to put a lot more attention to OL then we have been. From Shanahan's background I am guessing that's a given. All I'm saying with the #4 is I wouldn't take a mediocre OL with that specific pick and bypass a far more talented player. Though it would hurt me if it were a D player, we just so badly need O help.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: .... We need to look at all our needs and all our options together. It's not like drafting an OL puts us on the path to the Big Game next year.

we are a 4-12 franchise and most here are thinking realistically about building this franchise as quickly as possible and seeing a consistently competitive product on the field - hopefully these guys come up with a plan for this year that means that next year we can see significant progress
I do not think that anybody can realistically go from where we are to being in a Super Bowl in 2 seasons but I think we can be consistently competitive in 2012 and who knows ....

one thing for sure is that to have a decent chance for success in the NFC East you must have very good offensive and defensive lines AND decent depth along both lines - the defensive side needs some work here but the offensive line is almost non existent and therefore is the priority

now, if we cannot address our offensive line through the draft (because the prospects are not there) then we need to find another way to do that - nothing takes longer to get the cohesiveness you need than the offensive line and we need to get that started ASAP



btw - I am glad to see that we've already added someone for the line - anyone is going to help upgrade our line

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Clearly we agree we need to put a lot more attention to OL then we have been. From Shanahan's background I am guessing that's a given. All I'm saying with the #4 is I wouldn't take a mediocre OL with that specific pick and bypass a far more talented player. Though it would hurt me if it were a D player, we just so badly need O help.

agreed KAZ - but hopefully they don't take a RB - the 'plan' should be for the longer term - the RB position is not an immediate need here - even Barry Sanders did not make his team a much better team, better yes, but not what we are thinking here, I hope

SkinsJock wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Clearly we agree we need to put a lot more attention to OL then we have been. From Shanahan's background I am guessing that's a given. All I'm saying with the #4 is I wouldn't take a mediocre OL with that specific pick and bypass a far more talented player. Though it would hurt me if it were a D player, we just so badly need O help.

agreed KAZ - but hopefully they don't take a RB - the 'plan' should be for the longer term - the RB position is not an immediate need here - even Barry Sanders did not make his team a much better team, better yes, but not what we are thinking here, I hope

And Sanders had a FAR BETTER OL than we do! Much better than people give it credit.

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Sanders had a darn good OL! I know everyone kept saying' "If he only had Emmitt's OL". He had a ver solid OL. It might not have been the 90s Cowgirls OL or the Hogs, but it was way above average!

Math still works with Sanders,

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Sanders had a darn good OL! I know everyone kept saying' "If he only had Emmitt's OL". He had a ver solid OL. It might not have been the 90s Cowgirls OL or the Hogs, but it was way above average!

Math still works with Sanders,

Not true. I saw a study once about how many times Sanders go hit behind the LOS in comparison with other top backs, and his line just didn't stack up. Emmit Smith was the product of logetivity, not greatness. He was a good, durable player, but nowhere near BS in ability.

Lookin at the poll results if they pick any of those guys other than Okung plenty of folks on here will be furious!!!

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Sanders had a darn good OL! I know everyone kept saying' "If he only had Emmitt's OL". He had a ver solid OL. It might not have been the 90s Cowgirls OL or the Hogs, but it was way above average!

Math still works with Sanders,

Not true. I saw a study once about how many times Sanders go hit behind the LOS in comparison with other top backs, and his line just didn't stack up. Emmit Smith was the product of logetivity, not greatness. He was a good, durable player, but nowhere near BS in ability.

Dude, I'm not going to get into the whole Emmitt is better than Barry (or the other way around) my point was, Barry had a good OL. Every year except Barry's last year he ran behind a line with at least one probowl OL. Heck Lomas Brown (7 time probowler) and Kevin Glover (3 time PB) were both probowlers in 1995.

Here is something else you have to understand. His OL knew they had no idea where Barry was going to run with the ball. They didn't kill themselves trying to open a whole that Barry wasn't going to run through. They just kind of got on a block and let Barry figure out where he was going to go. If they had been blocking for Emmitt, they would have been busting their humps to open the hole where it was supposed to be.

Dallas' OL would have stopped opening those huge holes if Barry was in the backfield, because, what would be the point. Barry was going to go where ever he wanted.

Maybe I didn't discribe that well but you can take an OL that blocks great for a Riggins, S Davis, or Byner type runner but thrown in a scat back and the next thing you know the holes are no longer there!

As an OL, why break your neck if more often than not your back is going to pass up a play that is blocked for a 2-3 yard dive and try to hit a home run by bouncing it outside.

That is why Barry got tackled in the backfield so often. He got caught trying to hit a home run when he should have taken the 2-3 yard dive!

By the way, Emmitt was far and away the better overall RB.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here is how football math 101 works:

No OL = NO Running game

It doesn't matter who the RB is the math is the same.

How do you explain Barry Sanders, then?

Sanders had a darn good OL! I know everyone kept saying' "If he only had Emmitt's OL". He had a ver solid OL. It might not have been the 90s Cowgirls OL or the Hogs, but it was way above average!

Math still works with Sanders,

Not true. I saw a study once about how many times Sanders go hit behind the LOS in comparison with other top backs, and his line just didn't stack up. Emmit Smith was the product of logetivity, not greatness. He was a good, durable player, but nowhere near BS in ability.

Dude, I'm not going to get into the whole Emmitt is better than Barry (or the other way around) my point was, Barry had a good OL. Every year except Barry's last year he ran behind a line with at least one probowl OL. Heck Lomas Brown (7 time probowler) and Kevin Glover (3 time PB) were both probowlers in 1995.

Here is something else you have to understand. His OL knew they had no idea where Barry was going to run with the ball. They didn't kill themselves trying to open a whole that Barry wasn't going to run through. They just kind of got on a block and let Barry figure out where he was going to go. If they had been blocking for Emmitt, they would have been busting their humps to open the hole where it was supposed to be.

Dallas' OL would have stopped opening those huge holes if Barry was in the backfield, because, what would be the point. Barry was going to go where ever he wanted.

Maybe I didn't discribe that well but you can take an OL that blocks great for a Riggins, S Davis, or Byner type runner but thrown in a scat back and the next thing you know the holes are no longer there!

As an OL, why break your neck if more often than not your back is going to pass up a play that is blocked for a 2-3 yard dive and try to hit a home run by bouncing it outside.

That is why Barry got tackled in the backfield so often. He got caught trying to hit a home run when he should have taken the 2-3 yard dive!

By the way, Emmitt was far and away the better overall RB.

That last line alone proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Emmitt's career yards per carry 4.2
Barry's career yards per carry 5.0

Emmitt's career yards per reception 6.3
Barry's career yards per reception 8.3


But I wasn't trying to turn it into a Barry Vs. Emmitt debate either. As to your OL point: One good O lineman out of five doesn't make a good line. Chris Samuels is one of the best of his generation, yet you can't say that the Skins have had good OLs during his career. And your point about not blocking because BS did not go to the assigned hole is laughable on its face.

Deadskins wrote:And your point about not blocking because BS did not go to the assigned hole is laughable on its face.

Just because you laugh at it doesn't change the fact that it is a very common NFL phenomenon.

NFl OL block less aggressively for scat backs than they do for power backs. That is just the way it works. I'm sorry if you haven't been observant enough to pick that up.

Did Barry or Emmit declare for the draft again? At their ages, I doubt we'd get them with the 4th overall pick.

I'm really interested in the O-lineman that Shannahan has drafted in the past and what round they were selected. I'm thinking that he takes smaller, more versitile players who would naturally go later in the draft. If that is the case, pick a corner. Please do not draft a RB in the first round. What a waste. They're a dime a dozen and good thing Shannahan knows that.

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm really interested in the O-lineman that Shannahan has drafted in the past and what round they were selected. I'm thinking that he takes smaller, more versitile players who would naturally go later in the draft. If that is the case, pick a corner. Please do not draft a RB in the first round. What a waste. They're a dime a dozen and good thing Shannahan knows that.

I agree 100%. Only possitions that should be considered on day one are LT, RT, RG, and QB.

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm really interested in the O-lineman that Shannahan has drafted in the past and what round they were selected. I'm thinking that he takes smaller, more versitile players who would naturally go later in the draft. If that is the case, pick a corner. Please do not draft a RB in the first round. What a waste. They're a dime a dozen and good thing Shannahan knows that.

Those small lineman would be at a disadvantage in the NFC East.

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm really interested in the O-lineman that Shannahan has drafted in the past and what round they were selected. I'm thinking that he takes smaller, more versitile players who would naturally go later in the draft. If that is the case, pick a corner. Please do not draft a RB in the first round. What a waste. They're a dime a dozen and good thing Shannahan knows that.

There's a difference between being small and being bad. Many smallish linemen get taken early because their speed is an asset.

If possible, I would trade back. This year's draft is heavier on lineman than year's past. We could potentially grab 2 lineman with high grades and a Quarterback for Shanahan to groom. Colt McCoy might not be a bad grab in the Second round if we run the ball like we expect and get better line play.

I'm not sure of the value of that 4th pick but if the FO is not certain about getting a future great offensive lineman OR QB then I'd hope we can trade out of that slot even if the trade involves picks in next year's draft because we are going to need 2 drafts and a lot of luck to have a good offensive line in 2011 - this season is just a building year and anyone that expects a miracle is just deluding themselves

we all should just hope we get a lot of new young players in here that we can make into really good players that can be here for a long while

I know that a lot of guys will be drinking the cool-aid but getting a decent offensive line is going to take more than 2 years