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

So, I've been away for a while, and I just want to check in with my THN brethren to see how y'all felt about the draft.

Here's the damage:

How are the only options:

A- IT WAS INCREDIBLY AWESOME AND WE'RE SET FOR YEARS!!!!!

or

B- Meh, we should have got a QB.

That's the reason I didn't vote. Not a lot of options there.

I liked the draft though. I think at worst Kerrigan, Jarvis and Hankerson are serviceable starters and at best they all have the ability to be standouts. Helu could be promising, and looks like he might have the speed we've been missing in the backfield for a few years now. Apart from that, I think most of the other guys are roster filler and special teams guys.

Of course I wish we'd gotten a QB but if the Shanaclan didn't think Gabbert or Ponder was their guy and they didn't have a shot at Locker then that's that. I think the talk about Beck starting is a smokescreen and we'll be aggressive in finding a QB. I figure we'll also be very active in free agency building on this draft class looking to make a big step in the right direction as we did under Gibbs getting Marcus Washington, Shawn Springs and Cornelius Griffin.

Yea, you need more options for the poll. Overall, I would give us a B-/C+ grade. We filled some needs, but we reached on several players (Jenkins, Helu, Gomes, Paul in particular) so we didn't get great value out of several picks.

I love the Jenkins/Kerrigan combo. One is an excellent pass rusher with good run stopping ability and one is an excellent run stopper with good pass rushing ability. They compliment each other very well. With Perry Riley in the middle along with Fletcher, Kerrigan and Orakpo on the outside, and Carriker and Jenkins on the ends, we are are solid NT away from being a dominant front 7. Our safety's are very good and our corners are halfway there. I like the defensive improvements as we also have very good depth at each position.

On Offense, I feel like Shannahan will make our RB situation work next year with one of these guys. Along with a handful of WR's to choose from, I'm good with Hankerson, AA and hopefully Kelly or Moss as the starters. Our TE's are very good, and our line was coming together last year and will only get better. Big question mark at QB, so those wanting to build the team before a franchise QB should be happy.

Free agency will only help upgrade some area's. I'm hopeful that next year we make as many strides on offense as this years strides on defense. Again, looking for something in 2012. I'm pleased so far

We won't know for years, but my read at this point is they did a good job. We needed a broad infusion of youth at a lot of positions, not one or two key players to complete the puzzle. Right strategy for this year.

Give ShanAllen a full year to make changes and they'll show us what they can do.

I for one was very happy as we addressed plenty of needs on our team. Will they pan out, who knows yet but its a step in the right direction.

A Gator/Hurricane/Seminole... Hahhaha, gotta love that because we know some of the best football players are from the state of FL.

Hey CanesSkins, what's your thought process on some of your rivals coming up here? Have you seen them play vs your boys?

Just curious, if you voted for "QB" at #10, mind sharing why you went that way?

langleyparkjoe wrote:Just curious, if you voted for "QB" at #10, mind sharing why you went that way?

Please, I don't want to hear from R_F right now going into a rant

I like the draft. I think that we created opportunities for ourselves with good character, hard working guys who can come in and start but also have the skill set to sit and learn. All these guys are special teams studs which is always valuable as well for backups.

Lastly - I said b4 the draft that I really didn't feel any of the QB's were ready to play NOW and need to sit. If any, Ponder was the guy and it appears that Minny felt the same way. But I also didn't feel that Ponder was worth a #12 or even where we chose at #16. Mid to late 20's sure but not mid 1st round for a guy coming off injury and questions about if he has the arm strength for the NFL.

So all in all - like our picks and hope that 1/2 the guys pan out and become special players for our team. Would be a special draft if so.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

* we showed recognition of the importance of the draft, of building through it with enough picks, and trying to acquire quality depth through it (hopefully)

* we continued to show recognition of the importance of the upfront guys (after getting Williams on OL last year). this was something that was almost TOTALLY ignored by Vinny for ages.

WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness by switching schemes to the 3-4. as glad as i am we are [hopefully] getting the right players for that scheme, from the inside out (the way it should be done, unlike in the recent past when we've tried to build from the secondary in), the bottom line is that if we'd just kept the 4-3, those top 2 picks could've gone toward quality offensive linemen which we DESPERATELY need.

now we're likely to limp through another season on offense. and i'm honestly getting pretty sick of that.

oh and obviously we'll have to see if Gabbert (or Dalton etc) ends up becoming a franchise QB. and crying if so. but for now i'm willing to believe that Shanahan simply thought this was a shoddy draft class for QBs, and next years is better.

die cowboys die wrote:WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Don't discount Chris Neild. He anchored the middle (NT) of the WV defense last year and they were not 2 shabby.

I like the first 3 picks. I think they will be solid players for a while and there is star potential in Kerrigan and Hankerson. We got a steal with Hankerson in the 3rd round. Analysts have been saying we reached with the Jenkins pick but I think he will end up playing DE in the 3-4 system and be pretty good at it. Hopefully a good amount of the later round picks make the team and contribute in some way.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Yea, but you can tweak the scheme to be more aggressive and get more sacks/turnovers. There are plenty of 4-3 defenses that get sacks and turnover.

DCD has a point....the first two picks in the draft were used to get players to fill holes that were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Yea, but you can tweak the scheme to be more aggressive and get more sacks/turnovers. There are plenty of 4-3 defenses that get sacks and turnover.

DCD has a point....the first two picks in the draft were used to get players to fill holes that were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4.

I agree on the holes were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4, but I don't agree that our 4-3 would be fixed for sacks, turnovers and critical stops simply with a "tweak (of) the scheme."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OUR DRAFT:

for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Yea, but you can tweak the scheme to be more aggressive and get more sacks/turnovers. There are plenty of 4-3 defenses that get sacks and turnover.

DCD has a point....the first two picks in the draft were used to get players to fill holes that were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4.

I agree on the holes were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4, but I don't agree that our 4-3 would be fixed for sacks, turnovers and critical stops simply with a "tweak (of) the scheme."

In 2009 we had 40 sacks, which was in the top 10 in the NFL. The combo of Carter/Orkapo was very effective rushing the passer in 2009. If the scheme had been tweaked to be more aggressive, we would have been even more effective. Some changes were needed, but I don't think that a complete overhaul of the scheme was needed.

I am convinced Shanahan was ready to take Locker at no. 10. When Locker was taken by the Titans the FO explored other options. Either way I like the approach the FO took during the draft. The players arent exactly the ones I would have chosen but overall I am happy with the draft. Only time will tell if these players will become good.

Oh to all you who wanted a QB this draft. Give me a break 99 percent of the QBs available were bums! Shanahan traded down because he knows these Qbs were bums.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Yea, but you can tweak the scheme to be more aggressive and get more sacks/turnovers. There are plenty of 4-3 defenses that get sacks and turnover.

DCD has a point....the first two picks in the draft were used to get players to fill holes that were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4.

the decision was made that the 3-4 would be give the team a better chance at success and the DC was brought in to manage the switch - we are in that transition

IF we had stayed with the 4-3 we MAY have had another top 5 defense last season but we also may have had a defense like the other top 10 defenses we have seen here and that was not giving the team much at all - just a top 10 rating

the 3-4 did not work but the decision was made and we are heading down that road - they recognise the needs and are trying to adjust


we are going to have a better defense .... and one with an attitude

CanesSkins26 wrote: ... Some changes were needed, but I don't think that a complete overhaul of the scheme was needed.

No worries - you could be right but I think that we'll see a much better defense than we were likely to get with the 4-3 - I already like that the players on defense seem to be embracing the new scheme and Haslett - also they seem to be playing a lot more aggressively

I DO think that a change was needed and I DO think that we are on the right track with the switch to a 3-4

I see why they reached for Jenkins and Helu, Jenkins is fast for his size, ideal for a 3-4 DE, and Helu gets upfield in a hurry which is good for zone blocking. Torain isn't real shifty either, but he works in that scheme.

The thing with those two picks is they need to get stronger, but the athleticism is obviously there. I'm really glad we didn't take Gabbert, he won't be a great NFL qb, and qb's are so hit or miss that they should have more upside than him if you're gonna select one. It's just a down year for qb's. I liked Dalton, that was about it.

SkinsJock wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

die cowboys die wrote:for most of the years within a decade, we had a good defense and a pitiful offense. all Shanahan had to do was keep the defense and come fix the offense. instead, he took our one strength and turned it into our biggest weakness

I totally know what you're saying, but while our D was our strength keep in mind we had some glaring weaknesses regarding sacks, turnovers and critical stops. I like 3-4 strategy of taking some burns but attacking and forcing mistakes. At least if they burn us it's over and our O gets back on the field. The death marches down the field of the other team taking 10 minutes off the clock in a drive in the fourth quarter and our O sitting on their hands getting cold were killers. And assuming we're switching, I'd rather just do it then try to do O out and D later.

Yea, but you can tweak the scheme to be more aggressive and get more sacks/turnovers. There are plenty of 4-3 defenses that get sacks and turnover.

DCD has a point....the first two picks in the draft were used to get players to fill holes that were specifically created by the switch to the 3-4.

the decision was made that the 3-4 would be give the team a better chance at success and the DC was brought in to manage the switch - we are in that transition

IF we had stayed with the 4-3 we MAY have had another top 5 defense last season but we also may have had a defense like the other top 10 defenses we have seen here and that was not giving the team much at all - just a top 10 rating

REDSKINS POINTS PER GAME



2010:
SCORED: 18.9
ALLOWED: 23.6
RECORD: 6-10

2009:
SCORED: 16.6
ALLOWED: 21
RECORD: 4-12

2008:
SCORED: 16.6
ALLOWED: 18.5
RECORD: 8-8

2007:
SCORED: 20.9
ALLOWED: 19.4
RECORD: 9-7

2006:
SCORED: 19.2
ALLOWED: 23.5
RECORD: 5-11

2005:
SCORED: 22.4
ALLOWED: 18.3
RECORD: 10-6

2004:
SCORED: 15
ALLOWED: 16.6
RECORD: 6-10

2003:
SCORED: 17.9
ALLOWED: 23.2
RECORD: 5-11

2002:
SCORED: 19.2
ALLOWED: 22.8
RECORD: 7-9

2001:
SCORED: 16
ALLOWED: 18.9
RECORD: 8-8

2000:
SCORED:17.6
ALLOWED: 16.8
RECORD: 8-8


over the last 11 years, we have averaged scoring more than 20 points a game only twice; we had a winning record and went to the playoffs both times.


please note that scoring just above 20 points per game is hardly asking much; in most seasons that is within the bottom half of the league, sometimes the bottom third, and almost never within the top 10.

the defense may not have been flashy but they did their part and did it well enough that even a barely-above-pitiful offense would likely have yielded a majority of winning seasons. they were successful enough that we didn't even need a good offense. it just had to not be lousy.

We played a lot of two deep in the recent years, but buckled down when the field shrank. That's why we gave up lots of yards, but less points comparatively.

Some here know how I feel about statistics


all I'm really looking for here is a 3-4 defense - I think that's the base defense that has shown to be better suited in today's NFL

the offense has got to score more points - duh - I think having a defense that can give the offense better field position and create more turnovers will give the offense a better chance to do that - I don't think I'm the only NFL fan that thinks the 3-4 base defense has proven to be more effective


hopefully this franchise improves the scoring on offense and the defense finds players that can help the 3-4 work as it should here soon