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

Rookie sixth-round pick Jordan Palmer has struggled at Redskins camp and is not expected to make the final roster.

Washington has five draft choices, and wastes a sixth-rounder on a guy not even making the team. Palmer probably doesn't have a future in the league if he can't beat out Todd Collins and Casey Bramlet for the third-string job.

The Redskins plan to use Sean Taylor as a true free safety this season.
Taylor won't be asked to play in the box; that job will be left to rookie LaRon Landry.

Taylor is expected to sit back and cover center field, intimidate, and create takeaways. The more defined role plays better to his strengths.

Coach Jeff Fisher downplayed the Titans' interest in Simeon Rice Thursday. Rice, a free agent, would have to be an upgrade over Travis LaBoy and Antwan Odom in terms of skill, but he's far older and his price tag will likely be way higher. Still, the team should end up giving him a look.

From what I've heard, the Giants, Titans, and The Redskins are the ones pursuing him the most. May be this opens the door for Snyder to grab a veteran DL that we desperately need!

http://www.rotoworld.com

If you can get Simeon for the veteran minimum, it's worth a shot. Only problem is where you would intergrate him into the line. He plays Carters' side, and I don't think he should start over him at all at this point. So, does he play 3rd downs instead of Daniels?

LetsRollBurgundyNGold wrote:If you can get Simeon for the veteran minimum,

Good one. . .

I wouldn't gt to hyped up about the Redskins wanting Rice. Every agent who has an over-the-hill veteran says the Redskins are interested, trying to jack up the price.

We have enough old timers on the defensive line, we don't need another one with 1-2 yrs shelf life. We need youth....

VetSkinsFan wrote:We have enough old timers on the defensive line, we don't need another one with 1-2 yrs shelf life. We need youth....

I agree we need youth, but we haven't addressed youth on the DL in years! If Rice can help us, cheaply mind you, create a few turnovers or get us a few sacks that we desperately need then why not?

sch1977 wrote:I agree we need youth, but we haven't addressed youth on the DL in years!

Check in to a couple of guys named Golston, Montgomery and Buzbee.

sch1977 wrote:I agree we need youth, but we haven't addressed youth on the DL in years! If Rice can help us, cheaply mind you, create a few turnovers or get us a few sacks that we desperately need then why not?

The problem is that "cheaply" simply isn't part of the reality right now. Rice is going to command a higher price than just about any Skins fan will be comfortable with. So, if the FO doesn't sign him then they will be blamed for not "doing something" about the D-line, and if they do sign him then they will be blamed for "overpaying another over-the-hill vet. . .again."



Skins fans tend to throw around "cheaply" with respect to free agents like they talk about "trading down" from a high draft pick. Most of the time, they are ignoring the reality that it takes 2 people to make a deal happen. This is why I do have sympathy for our FO. . .sometimes, though not usually. . .

SkinsFreak wrote:

sch1977 wrote:I agree we need youth, but we haven't addressed youth on the DL in years!

Check in to a couple of guys named Golston, Montgomery and Buzbee.

I wouldn't call picking up a couple of fifth or sixth round guys in the past 15 years addressing the DL. Since 1990, we have drafted Bobby Wilson, Shane Collins, and Kenard Lang in the first three rounds of the draft. So in my opinion, we have NOT addressed youth in the draft.

Irn-Bru wrote:

sch1977 wrote:I agree we need youth, but we haven't addressed youth on the DL in years! If Rice can help us, cheaply mind you, create a few turnovers or get us a few sacks that we desperately need then why not?

The problem is that "cheaply" simply isn't part of the reality right now. Rice is going to command a higher price than just about any Skins fan will be comfortable with. So, if the FO doesn't sign him then they will be blamed for not "doing something" about the D-line, and if they do sign him then they will be blamed for "overpaying another over-the-hill vet. . .again."



Skins fans tend to throw around "cheaply" with respect to free agents like they talk about "trading down" from a high draft pick. Most of the time, they are ignoring the reality that it takes 2 people to make a deal happen. This is why I do have sympathy for our FO. . .sometimes, though not usually. . .

That is why I said if he can come cheaply. I don't want us to overpay for him, or any other aging player.

I don't think it would be a good idea. The guy is past his prime. Plus, Carter is gonna be a beast this year.

sch1977 wrote:I wouldn't call picking up a couple of fifth or sixth round guys in the past 15 years addressing the DL. Since 1990, we have drafted Bobby Wilson, Shane Collins, and Kenard Lang in the first three rounds of the draft. So in my opinion, we have NOT addressed youth in the draft.

Are you saying that you are dissatisfied with Golston and Montgomery?

why would we bring in Rice.. he is in essense what we have in Carter ( a pass rush specialist.. Daniels plays the run well.. Rice doesnt.. we would be hurting our overall defense just to MAYBE get a few more sacks on the QB..Rice isnt the same guy he was 4 years ago..

Irn-Bru wrote:

sch1977 wrote:I wouldn't call picking up a couple of fifth or sixth round guys in the past 15 years addressing the DL. Since 1990, we have drafted Bobby Wilson, Shane Collins, and Kenard Lang in the first three rounds of the draft. So in my opinion, we have NOT addressed youth in the draft.

Are you saying that you are dissatisfied with Golston and Montgomery?

I am saying that from 1990-current, I believe the D-Line has been a major issue for us. In my opinion we have not properly address this area in the draft. Although I agree that first and second round picks don't always pan out, one would think that we would have addressed the DL in early rounds. Golston is a fine player, but I think he is more suited for a backup role in the long-term. I hope I am proven wrong, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that the FO has waited until later rounds and/or FA rookies to "hope" to find a diamond in the rough.

sch1977 wrote:I am saying that from 1990-current, I believe the D-Line has been a major issue for us. In my opinion we have not properly address this area in the draft. Although I agree that first and second round picks don't always pan out, one would think that we would have addressed the DL in early rounds. Golston is a fine player, but I think he is more suited for a backup role in the long-term. I hope I am proven wrong, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that the FO has waited until later rounds and/or FA rookies to "hope" to find a diamond in the rough.

Where a player is drafted doesn't matter as long as his performance meets standards. So, are you saying that you are dissatisfied with Montgomery and Golston? Would it have made you think differently had the Skins used a high pick on a d-lineman in recent years, even if the player didn't pan out?


Also, I see the FA pickup of Andre Carter as a move towards more youth on the line. . .would you agree that he was a positive pickup? Would you rather have seen a 1st or 2nd round pick used on a D-lineman than, say, on Campbell or Landry? Or on Rogers or Taylor? ey?

Irn-Bru wrote:

sch1977 wrote:I am saying that from 1990-current, I believe the D-Line has been a major issue for us. In my opinion we have not properly address this area in the draft. Although I agree that first and second round picks don't always pan out, one would think that we would have addressed the DL in early rounds. Golston is a fine player, but I think he is more suited for a backup role in the long-term. I hope I am proven wrong, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that the FO has waited until later rounds and/or FA rookies to "hope" to find a diamond in the rough.

Where a player is drafted doesn't matter as long as his performance meets standards. So, are you saying that you are dissatisfied with Montgomery and Golston? Would it have made you think differently had the Skins used a high pick on a d-lineman in recent years, even if the player didn't pan out?

The point is that if you are lacking in a certain area of your team, waiting until later rounds (if drafting them at all) doesn't make sense to me. As I stated earlier, I think they will be fine players but not the Stud(s) we need to solidify our line for years to come. Would I have been happy if we used high picks on D-Lineman? Absolutley!! Would they have been busts? Who knows, but at least you attempt to address your biggest weakness. If you lack at the QB or RB position do you wait until the 5th or 6th round to draft one? I wouldn't think so.

Irn-Bru wrote:

sch1977 wrote:I am saying that from 1990-current, I believe the D-Line has been a major issue for us. In my opinion we have not properly address this area in the draft. Although I agree that first and second round picks don't always pan out, one would think that we would have addressed the DL in early rounds. Golston is a fine player, but I think he is more suited for a backup role in the long-term. I hope I am proven wrong, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that the FO has waited until later rounds and/or FA rookies to "hope" to find a diamond in the rough.

Where a player is drafted doesn't matter as long as his performance meets standards. So, are you saying that you are dissatisfied with Montgomery and Golston? Would it have made you think differently had the Skins used a high pick on a d-lineman in recent years, even if the player didn't pan out?


Also, I see the FA pickup of Andre Carter as a move towards more youth on the line. . .would you agree that he was a positive pickup? Would you rather have seen a 1st or 2nd round pick used on a D-lineman than, say, on Campbell or Landry? Or on Rogers or Taylor? ey?

Well ey wasn't a 1st or 2nd round pick, but yes I think Carter was a good pickup. But that is one example in 15 + years. All the players you mentioned have turned out to be positive players for our team. But that doesn't fix the DL. We took Landry because he was the best available Defensive player at our pick (possibly in the draft), but that position wasn't (IMO) a pressing need.

sch1977 wrote:The point is that if you are lacking in a certain area of your team, waiting until later rounds (if drafting them at all) doesn't make sense to me. As I stated earlier, I think they will be fine players but not the Stud(s) we need to solidify our line for years to come. Would I have been happy if we used high picks on D-Lineman? Absolutley!! Would they have been busts? Who knows, but at least you attempt to address your biggest weakness. If you lack at the QB or RB position do you wait until the 5th or 6th round to draft one? I wouldn't think so.

We had a big lack at the QB position that Gibbs foresaw: MB was a stopgap even at his best, and Ramsey was snakebitten. So the Skins moved to take Campbell.

Our secondary has been as much of a concern in the last 5 years as the D-line. Matt Bowen was good but post-injury he really faded. Ohalete was out of the league a couple of years after we moved on. Sean Taylor addressed this need. Think about who our starting CB's would have been last year without Carlos Rogers in the mix: Shawn Springs, Kenny Wright, Mike Rumph. . .you get the idea.

ey was a 3rd round pick. . .would Darrion Scott or Tim Anderson, the nearest DLs taken, have been better?

Landry was simply the best player on the board. We didn't want to be 6th in line for this draft, but imagine if we picked up a D-lineman with that pick who otherwise would have been drafted in the 2nd round. Sounds like a good idea to some, but it is the wrong philosophy of drafting IMO and it's something that the Redskins have been criticized for in the past (Taylor Jacobs, for example). One could argue that we didn't really need a safety as badly as a WR in the year that we drafted Sean Taylor. . .


My point is that it's not enough to say "Oh, we should have done something about it," because that argument is so abstract and vague that you will always sound right, wise, and far more prescient than the pro's. It's better in my opinion to point out what would have been a better move, rather than just referring to "some early round pick." Which player would you drop, and for whom?

Even that would be shooting ducks in a barrel, and of course would have the benefit of the extreme 20/20 hindsight bias, but at least then you'd be matching your argument a little more precisely to reality. Otherwise, I could argue every single year (as some fans do), that the Redskins should have "traded our 6th pick for a low first rounder plus a 2nd and 5th rounder, and then traded that first rounder for a lower first rounder and a 3rd." Sounds nice, in my dream world, but don't hold your breath in real life. . .

Irn-Bru wrote:

sch1977 wrote:The point is that if you are lacking in a certain area of your team, waiting until later rounds (if drafting them at all) doesn't make sense to me. As I stated earlier, I think they will be fine players but not the Stud(s) we need to solidify our line for years to come. Would I have been happy if we used high picks on D-Lineman? Absolutley!! Would they have been busts? Who knows, but at least you attempt to address your biggest weakness. If you lack at the QB or RB position do you wait until the 5th or 6th round to draft one? I wouldn't think so.

We had a big lack at the QB position that Gibbs foresaw: MB was a stopgap even at his best, and Ramsey was snakebitten. So the Skins moved to take Campbell.

Our secondary has been as much of a concern in the last 5 years as the D-line. Matt Bowen was good but post-injury he really faded. Ohalete was out of the league a couple of years after we moved on. Sean Taylor addressed this need. Think about who our starting CB's would have been last year without Carlos Rogers in the mix: Shawn Springs, Kenny Wright, Mike Rumph. . .you get the idea.

ey was a 3rd round pick. . .would Darrion Scott or Tim Anderson, the nearest DLs taken, have been better?

Landry was simply the best player on the board. We didn't want to be 6th in line for this draft, but imagine if we picked up a D-lineman with that pick who otherwise would have been drafted in the 2nd round. Sounds like a good idea to some, but it is the wrong philosophy of drafting IMO and it's something that the Redskins have been criticized for in the past (Taylor Jacobs, for example). One could argue that we didn't really need a safety as badly as a WR in the year that we drafted Sean Taylor. . .


My point is that it's not enough to say "Oh, we should have done something about it," because that argument is so abstract and vague that you will always sound right, wise, and far more prescient than the pro's. It's better in my opinion to point out what would have been a better move, rather than just referring to "some early round pick." Which player would you drop, and for whom?

Even that would be shooting ducks in a barrel, and of course would have the benefit of the extreme 20/20 hindsight bias, but at least then you'd be matching your argument a little more precisely to reality. Otherwise, I could argue every single year (as some fans do), that the Redskins should have "traded our 6th pick for a low first rounder plus a 2nd and 5th rounder, and then traded that first rounder for a lower first rounder and a 3rd." Sounds nice, in my dream world, but don't hold your breath in real life. . .

Irn... I respect your opinions on this board because you are apparently knowledgeable and sensible when it comes to the skins. My point in the whole discussion was that our D-Line has been a major concern for years. I do not object to us taking quality players like Carlos, Landry, and others, but to the fact that we have never addressed quality and depth on the DL. Teams draft players in round 5-7 to help with depth, not to find permanent studs along the line. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

I think Irn-Bru makes some valid points here.

We all know the d-line struggled last year, along with the entire defense, right? (sounds like a broken record around here) But I think some are trying to draw conclusions without having all the facts or insight the coaching staff currently has.

They didn't see the need this year to address the d-line and have explained it numerous times. Why? Do they know something we don't... yet? I would have to think so. Gibbs is an offensive guy, yet listen to him talk about our young guys up front on defense. They are going up a pretty good o-line in camp and if they are making waves, well that says something, to me anyway.

By the end of last season, through all the adversity, we saw Carter come on strong and the emergence of Golston. Now we are hearing about Montgomery, Buzbee, the health of Griffin and the diligence of the d-line in the weight room, like Daniels packing on the muscle this offseason. So when the coaches say we are not doomed on the d-line, like the media has portrayed, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

These aren't rookie coaches. And I can almost guarantee that if they did address the d-line, these same folks would be screaming that they didn't address the secondary, which, if you can remember, got completely abused the first half of last year before Williams basically went to a prevent defense and pulled everyone back. I remember the media all over Williams early last year about the secondary giving up so many big plays.

I think my only point is to say that we need to see what our healthy d-line does this year before we can criticize them. They obviously have far more insight than we do. If, at the end of this year, our d-line has failed to produce, then yes, at that point we can say they made a gross misjudgment. But, if the d-line holds their own, and Landry proves to be a beast, then we may be saying that the coaches were right and knew what they were doing. It's simply premature to make that assessment.

Landry simply possesses a rare talent and I was all for taking him at #6. Taylor and Landry are going to solidify the secondary for years to come. I read somewhere recently, that this could be the first team in history, if they actually keep stats like this, to field an entire secondary of all top ten, 1st round picks (Taylor, Landry, Rogers and Springs). Sprinkle that with Smoot and Macklin, and I think we are looking pretty good back there.

I have faith in this d-line and I'm certain they will silence the nay sayers this year. We just have to give them that chance.

sch1977 wrote:My point in the whole discussion was that our D-Line has been a major concern for years.

I think that you need to be careful in saying this. In 2004 and especially 2005, our defensive line was really a solid unit. It's one of the reasons that we were finishing top-5 in defense in the NFL.

Last year, our defensive line returned to a form that we are more accustomed to from the last 5-10 years. But that doesn't mean that (blanket statement) "the defensive line has been a major concern for years." It simply wasn't that much of a concern in 2005.

sch1977 wrote:I do not object to us taking quality players like Carlos, Landry, and others, but to the fact that we have never addressed quality and depth on the DL.

But, we have addressed these issues, in two ways:

(1) Primarily through FA's: Griffin, Daniels, Salave'a, and Carter. The first three were injured last year, and are getting older, so I understand the concern there, but the statement of yours I just quoted seems to ignore the fact that the Redskins brought these players in and that they had productive seasons here in DC.

(2) I thought the Redskins were constantly criticized for not utilizing late round picks like the draft gods over in New England and Philadelphia were able to. Whatever happened to finding quality depth and even starters in the later rounds? I think you will find the answer to your concerns here in Montgomery and Golston.


Just because the solutions don't always work doesn't mean that the Redskins didn't "address the problem." That concern is actually new from this offseason, when the Redskins had no notable draft picks or FA pickups on the line. So I'd argue that you're really conflating two things here: (1) the failure of previous moves and (2) the non-movement of this past offseason, and that this is inaccurate of what has actually happened.

sch1977 wrote:Teams draft players in round 5-7 to help with depth, not to find permanent studs along the line.

Again, the teams that really get credit (especially on this board and in contrast to the Redskins) are precisely the ones that find good talent in later rounds. That's why you'll find a ton of praise for Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Engand, and other repulsive teams on this website. You're ignoring a huge aspect of FO strategy.