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

Russell Okung, OT Oklahoma State.

thoughts?

elect to trade #1 pick for 2 first rd picks? LoL


LATE 1st RD picks I should say. =)

djlash wrote:Russell Okung, OT Oklahoma State.

thoughts?

Not unless we trade up. He is likely going in the top 5 and I don't think that we end up with a pick that high.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

djlash wrote:Russell Okung, OT Oklahoma State.

thoughts?

Not unless we trade up. He is likely going in the top 5 and I don't think that we end up with a pick that high.

I kinda hope you're right but with the way this team is banged up I don't see another win this year... we could actually get a top 5 pick.

Just take the next best LT available. We can only hope there is a star player there and another team will want to trade up to get him. Would love to trade down a few spots if we can still get a guy we want.

frankcal20 wrote:Just take the next best LT available. We can only hope there is a star player there and another team will want to trade up to get him. Would love to trade down a few spots if we can still get a guy we want.

The problem there is that the next best tackle, from what I've seen, is Trent Williams. Not that this is conclusive by any means, but Mel Kiper doesn't even have Williams on his Big Board. If we have a top 10 pick, drafting any offensive lineman not named Okung would be a pretty big reach. Kiper has Okung 6th on his Big Board and McShay/Scouts, Inc. have Okung rated as the 4th best prospect. They have Trent Williams at 19th.

Here's a breakdown of Trent Williams that I found on ESPN...

Had I not known before watching video of Williams that he was considered a first-round prospect in many circles, it wouldn't have occurred to me to even consider ranking him that high. He might go in the first round because he is a left tackle, but the metrics say he will be a mediocre pro player, and that stamps him with the TFS overhyped label."

Another problem with Williams is that he has only played right tackle in college.

Outside of Okung, it's a very weak offensive line draft.

That's why I know that we should be able to trade down. You can't say, ok we'll move from 9 to 26 but I want your next year's 1st round pick. Screw that, move down, pick up another 2nd round pick and a 5th or whatever the value chart shows. We need bodies and we need them know. Look at NE. They move down/up/backdown. They work the draft and find people who are players who can play today. We've not shown that.

frankcal20 wrote:That's why I know that we should be able to trade down. You can't say, ok we'll move from 9 to 26 but I want your next year's 1st round pick. Screw that, move down, pick up another 2nd round pick and a 5th or whatever the value chart shows. We need bodies and we need them know. Look at NE. They move down/up/backdown. They work the draft and find people who are players who can play today. We've not shown that.

Agreed that you can't necessarily trade from a specific spot to a specific spot. Agreed that you can trade down.

The questions are if you can get fair compensation for the trade AND trade into a spot you get a player at a position you're targeting. That's the tough job to do and saying you can trade down doesn't cover it.

Hopefully, the Skins can trade a high first rounder for a low first rounder, a second rounder and a mid-round pick.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:That's why I know that we should be able to trade down. You can't say, ok we'll move from 9 to 26 but I want your next year's 1st round pick. Screw that, move down, pick up another 2nd round pick and a 5th or whatever the value chart shows. We need bodies and we need them know. Look at NE. They move down/up/backdown. They work the draft and find people who are players who can play today. We've not shown that.

Agreed that you can't necessarily trade from a specific spot to a specific spot. Agreed that you can trade down.

The questions are if you can get fair compensation for the trade AND trade into a spot you get a player at a position you're targeting. That's the tough job to do and saying you can trade down doesn't cover it.

I'm not sure how hard it is because NE seems to do it every year. SD is also very good as well as Indy. But again, these guys seem to be regular front runner. But that's where we differ vs them.

frankcal20 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:That's why I know that we should be able to trade down. You can't say, ok we'll move from 9 to 26 but I want your next year's 1st round pick. Screw that, move down, pick up another 2nd round pick and a 5th or whatever the value chart shows. We need bodies and we need them know. Look at NE. They move down/up/backdown. They work the draft and find people who are players who can play today. We've not shown that.

Agreed that you can't necessarily trade from a specific spot to a specific spot. Agreed that you can trade down.

The questions are if you can get fair compensation for the trade AND trade into a spot you get a player at a position you're targeting. That's the tough job to do and saying you can trade down doesn't cover it.

I'm not sure how hard it is because NE seems to do it every year. SD is also very good as well as Indy. But again, these guys seem to be regular front runner. But that's where we differ vs them.

If you actually look at New England's last three or four drafts, they actually struggled somewhat with their picks. I think that Belichik, with all the moves that he has made, has actually tried to be too clever. Agree with you about Pittsburgh and Indi though. Those teams just seem to pull starters out of nowhere.

CanesSkins26 wrote:If you actually look at New England's last three or four drafts, they actually struggled somewhat with their picks.

I was just about to make this exact point. Once they worked the draft like nothing else, but honestly, their latest drafts have produced a few impact players, and more than a few busts (look at their 2nd/3rd round picks; very few are contributors to the team, and many are out of the NFL completely).

Patrick Chungs pretty good and I believe he's their kickoff returner right now. Don't know about the other guys. I think Ron Brace is there for depth but hasn't been in the game much. And I think Jerod Mayo's pretty good. But he should be b/c he was a #10 pick.

i think we should trade our #1st rounder for for 3 #2 rounders and select 2 wide outs and a te..........

then pick up some undrafted fa's from UMd to play line.........

sounds like a plan

Remember drafting for need is what gets you in trouble!!

This should be a deep draft at QB, and I doubt Campbell, whatever you think of him, will be back next year. If there are no great OTs but there is a potentially great QB (no sure things there) we should get one. He can even sit for a year learning behind Collins (all he probably has left in him) until we can get a decent OL to protect him. If we wait to get a QB, we'll be in a position where we have to start him immediately. And let me tell you, there are not many Matt Ryans who can play well when thrown right into the fire. Just take a look at P. Manning's rookie stats for proof.

Well here's the breakdown of how that pick could go down depending on current records...

Teams before us that could go QB - Cle, Oak, St. Louis?

Teams that could go OT - Det, TB, KC, Oak? (Prob would go Qb first)

Here is a likely scenario where we could get Okung, and I'm going to assume KC pulls out more wins.

Cleveland- Jake Locker
St. Louis- Ndamakong Suh
Tampa Bay-Gerald McCoy
Detroit-Eric Berry
Oakland-Jimmy Clausen
Washington- Russell Okung

The big question would be whether detroit would take Okung or Berry, they should take Berry because they are the worst defensive team I have ever seen. TB and St. Louis are pathetic against the run and should take DT's. Of course, change in records/scouting will skew all of this.

In that scenario, two qb's will be gone. I can tell you I believe its EXTREMELY likely that both Cleveland and Oakland go QB. However, Cleveland could go Suh, being that they are bad against the run. Personally I think Locker will pick up a lot of steam, and we all know that Qb's are the most likely position to be taken no.1

Here's a scenario where we get a Qb.

Cleveland- Jake Locker
St. Louis- Ndamakong Suh
Tampa Bay- Gerald McCoy
Detroit- Eric Berry
Oakland- Russell Okung
Washington- Jimmy Clausen

Here's a scenario where we need to trade back immediately

Cleveland- Jake Locker
St. Louis- Ndamakong Suh
Tampa Bay- Gerald McCoy
Detroit- Russell Okung
Oakland-Jimmy Clausen
Washington (Please don't draft Eric Berry)

On draft day, I'm conference calling Frank, CS, Brad, and Cerrato (cause we all know DS won't get rid of this guy).. we're going to get this right.. watch!

We'll probably miss our pick b/c we'd all be arguing too much.

frankcal20 wrote:We'll probably miss our pick b/c we'd all be arguing too much.

I think that you, me, and Brad would at least be able to agree that Vinny should not draft Eric Berry, which I assume is Vinny's current plan for the draft. Or maybe he'll try to draft Gresham from OU. You can never have enough tight ends.

HA!!!!

HA!!!!