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

Definitely as mlb of future

yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.

While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.

Countertrey wrote:

yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.

While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.

I was responding to:

I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.

yupchagee wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.

While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.

I was responding to:

I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.

Gotcha... I'm thinking that if they take him, or Smith, it will be with an eye towards Samuels eventual retirement... but that he'll be used on the Right side in the short term...

Countertrey wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.

While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.

I was responding to:

I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.

Gotcha... I'm thinking that if they take him, or Smith, it will be with an eye towards Samuels eventual retirement... but that he'll be used on the Right side in the short term...

Exactly. The top OT's in this draft are, in fact, all LT's, as we all know. The Skins need immediate help at RT. So the idea of drafting a LT and using him on the right side for now is the thought process. It's also been reported by some of the draft gurus that Oher and Smith could be dominate beasts on the right side for a team needing help there... and the Skins could use that kind of help.

As I've said many times, to which I agree with yupchagee's post, a LB/DE would be nice at #13. I just rate OT as a slightly bigger need at this point.

Interestingly, there's been some recent shuffling at OLB which leads me to believe they may, in fact, target an OT in the 1st round. They've signed Robert Thomas, will be converting Chris Wilson to OLB this year, still may re-sign Washington and articles on the Skins site are proposing that "Blades is in the mix" at OLB. Additionally, Fincher was a pleasant surprise at OLB last year, so they re-signed him as well this offseason.

Of course, there's always smokescreens and bluffs this time of year, but those moves would at least offer a hint to the intended direction with their top pick. We'll just have to wait and see though, as it also largely depends on how the draft shakes out on draft day.

SkinsFreak wrote:Of course, there's always smokescreens and bluffs this time of year, but those moves would at least offer a hint to the intended direction with their top pick. We'll just have to wait and see though, as it also largely depends on how the draft shakes out on draft day.

Now watch them draft Brandon Pettigrew...

Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

Here are the scenarios facing the Skins: 1.) If A. Smith's still there at 13, he's their pick. 2.) With Smith gone, they'll need to decide between Oher or one of the defensive guys. Don't know who stands out here - Cushing, Maualuga, Jackson, Ayers, etc. 3.) Now, here's where it gets interesting. If Sanchez is still on the board, the Skins need to make it look like they'll take him. He would be the only guy left at 13 that I think a team would trade up for and, even at that, it appears only TB, Jets, or Denver (if they don't go QB at 11) would have an interest. So, it's either Smith, Oher, one of the defensive guys, or using Sanchez as leverage to trade down for more picks. Pretty simple, right?

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of ey, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

SkinsFreak wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of ey, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of ey, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.

Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.

SkinsFreak wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of ey, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.

Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.

Any red zone formation without CP in it is not an option. He catches better than Sellars, probably blocks better than Sellars in pass protection, and is always on the opposing D's mind.

Agreed, Vet.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

fleetus wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.

Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm...

I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of ey, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.

Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.

Any red zone formation without CP in it is not an option. He catches better than Sellars, probably blocks better than Sellars in pass protection, and is always on the opposing D's mind.

I want CP & Sellers BOTH in there in the red zone. It's simple arithmetic.
5 linemen
1 QB
Sellers & CP=2
that makes 8. We could not then have 2 WR's & 2 TE's on the field without getting flagged.

yupchagee wrote:I want CP & Sellers BOTH in there in the red zone. It's simple arithmetic.
5 linemen
1 QB
Sellers & CP=2
that makes 8. We could not then have 2 WR's & 2 TE's on the field without getting flagged.

A red zone package that includes both Portis and Sellers in the backfield is ideal and has been used on a regular basis. I don't believe there's a Skins fan out there that doesn't like watching Sellers plow the way for Portis. It's fun to watch and will be used frequently in the future.

The point regarding multiple TE's and WR's sets in the red zone was merely meant to establish that we now have options. That's all. You aren't going to use the same package or formation on every play. When they plan to pass inside the red zone, the point is that we now have some big/tall receivers to throw at.

In the past, we've only had short receivers to throw at in the red zone, which is far more difficult to execute. But now with ey (6'3), Davis (6'4), Thomas (6'2) and Kelly (6'4), that gives us some big targets in the red zone. When you have size like that, you have to take advantage of it when possible.

So yes, on running plays, I like the package that includes Portis and Sellers. Sellers has even caught a few swing passes out of the backfield. But in passing situations, which I believe they should use more of inside the 20, we now have a variety of package/formation options that should be more effective with bigger receivers, both at the TE and WR positions.

The look of the draft has changed with the Bills/Eagles trade

We got screwed here.

In addition to having to face Peters twice, its effect on the draft will limit our options.

The bills' two most glaring needs coming into the draft were a pass rusher, and a TE. 11 was too high to take a TE, so the projection was set on the Maybin/E. Brown table and left at that. With peters gone, OT becomes a more glaring need than pass rusher. Everyone pretty much agrees the top 3 OT were going to go in the top ten, which left us with the option of taking Oher at 13. Now the bills will likely get Oher at 11, and their TE (Pettigrew) with their new pick at 28, and look elsewhere for their pass rusher.

13 is too high, as the drop off after Oher down to Britton is substantial. To pick a OT at a value, we will likely have to trade back. If no trade partners our options narrow (if we insist on getting value and dont reach and pick Britton)

dad23hogjrs wrote:The look of the draft has changed with the Bills/Eagles trade

We got screwed here.

In addition to having to face Peters twice, its effect on the draft will limit our options.

The bills' two most glaring needs coming into the draft were a pass rusher, and a TE. 11 was too high to take a TE, so the projection was set on the Maybin/E. Brown table and left at that. With peters gone, OT becomes a more glaring need than pass rusher. Everyone pretty much agrees the top 3 OT were going to go in the top ten, which left us with the option of taking Oher at 13. Now the bills will likely get Oher at 11, and their TE (Pettigrew) with their new pick at 28, and look elsewhere for their pass rusher.

13 is too high, as the drop off after Oher down to Britton is substantial. To pick a OT at a value, we will likely have to trade back. If no trade partners our options narrow (if we insist on getting value and dont reach and pick Britton)

I believe it's a bit premature to conclude that the Skins got screwed by this deal. Many still believe the Bills will still target a DE with their 11th overall pick. Additionally, even before this trade, some were already talking about the possibility of the top 4 OT's going in the top half of the 1st round. Here's what they think in Buffalo...

Despite Peters' departure, look for defense to remain the Bills' top priority in the draft. They are expected to get a defensive end or outside linebacker with their first pick.

Taking a defensive end would create a logjam at the position, but the Bills have floated Chris Kelsay's name as a trade possibility, according to a league source.

Peters' replacement is currently on the roster, as Walker will likely move to the left side. The 28th pick obtained from Philadelphia could be used on the best available right tackle (perhaps Oklahoma's Phil Loadholt).

The Bills' offensive line is in a state of transition after the release of left guard Derrick Dockery and departures of free agent centers Duke Preston and Melvin Fowler.

Buffalo filled the center position by signing free agent Geoff Hangartner and added journeyman center/guard Seth McKinney to bolster the interior offensive line depth. Backup tackle Kirk Chambers is the leading candidate to start at left guard.

Link

Again, despite this trade, grabbing an OT at #13 could still be difficult for the Skins. That's why there's been a lot of discussion about defensive players that fill needs for us. It's also been reported that there are some interesting OT prospects in the middle of the draft that could become starters much sooner then some realize. So if we can't get a top OT at #13, there's still a chance in the 3rd round. But, of course, it's all speculation at this point.