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

We are about 9 days away from the NFL draft.
Rumors and speculation run a muck around the league of who's going here or there.
While the Redskins have needs mainly on defense. The team did sign two free agents to help on the defensive line in Mcgee and McClain. Questions do remain how effective these two will be. Also Dj Swearinger S and Zach Brown ILB both veterans who should help the defense improve.
Still as a fan I am sure we as a fan base have some questions about the defensive line. Since last year were near the bottom of the league vs the run. We are also division rivals with the leagues best Oline,Rb and running game in Dallas.

After considering the Redskins strengths, weaknesses, needs and the opposition we will be facing.
I believe that from this draft we must come away with at the very least 2 solid DL starters 3 would be ideal. Now this draft is not deep in 1st round talent. There are 2 prospects who all agree are 1st round talent and likely would go in the top 15 picks. Jonathan Allen and Solomon Thomas.

The Redskins pick is 17. Our biggest weakness most would agree is defensive line. However at 17 the top prospects at a highly coveted position DT would likely be gone.

At 17 maybe a player like Mccaffrey, Cook, Peppers, (least likely) Reuben Foster, Humphrey, Mckinley, Hasan Reddick or a TJ Watt might be worth it at 17?

However after much consideration I think the following scenarios would be best for our team.
I think the talent for DL at 17 is mostly 2nd round caliber.
So I want more 2nd round picks and currently we only have 1 pick in 2nd round.

Trade down scenario 1.

Trade down with Houston. We swap our 1st and acquire there 2nd. So we give up 17 for 25 and 57. We then would have 25,49 and 57.
Many teams still need a Qb to get them over the hump Houston is no exception. This year's Qbs are more like 2nd round talent but Qb needy teams will reach if it really needs a qb. Houston qualfies.

Trade down scenario 2.

Trade down with Cleveland

Cleveland has both the #1 and #12 pick.
It's anticipated they take Qb at #12. Cleveland also has 2 2nd round picks.
However with the QB class considered weak this year.
It's feasible a Watson, Tribuski, Mahomes all could be there at 17.

So we offer 17 for both of Clevelands 2nd round picks.
We give up 17. We would then have #33,#44 and #49.

In the 2nd round with those picks I would probably go Brantley, McDowell and Joe Mixon. Or Obi Melifonwu, Brantley and Montravious Adams.

Basically we must come away with 2 to 3 DL starters.
I believe with the free agent signings combined with a good draft at DL will do the trick.

If we must stay put at 17. Then I'd opt for BPA. Which is likely Mccaffrey, Cook, Peppers, Reddick or best CB available.

In the 2nd maybe Brantley, McDowell or Adams. Then grab a NT in 3rd or 4th.

I like your Cleveland scenario, and I agree with your comment about the second round DL talent. Cleveland has so many picks. Almost TOO many really. I'd make that trade #17 for two second round picks. Honestly, I would also consider #17 for their #33 and a third rounder. That extra third round pick could be some help at safety, CB, maybe a center?

I don't believe we can really "fix" the dline with this draft, but adding more picks, more depth, would be a huge help.

I don't think trading down will be an option. Ostensibly, there aren't enough in-demand prospects in this draft for anyone to give up a premium to trade up to 17.

If anything I see teams trading ahead of the Redskins if McCaffrey and Cook and a few other players are still on the board.

If the Skins can't make anything happen with the 10 picks they have it has nothing to do with where they are drafting.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I don't think trading down will be an option. Ostensibly, there aren't enough in-demand prospects in this draft for anyone to give up a premium to trade up to 17.

Trading the first round pick is definitely harder than most people think. Most teams don't want to trade away picks and like you said there has to be a player at that position where someone would trade up.

I just believe this year that the Browns are an unusual team with the ammunition to move up. With the number of picks they've stockpiled, they could easily trade a couple lower picks to move into the first round for an extra pick. #17 doesn't have to be an expensive move up, and it could be a spot for them to draft a QB.

Agree with you though that trades in the first round aren't especially likely.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I don't think trading down will be an option. Ostensibly, there aren't enough in-demand prospects in this draft for anyone to give up a premium to trade up to 17.

If anything I see teams trading ahead of the Redskins if McCaffrey and Cook and a few other players are still on the board.

If the Skins can't make anything happen with the 10 picks they have it has nothing to do with where they are drafting.

I don't think we'll be seeing mega blockbuster trades. Like RGIII or Jared Goff multiple 1st rounders.


But we'll see smaller deals.

The talent for Qb is mostly 2nd round prospects.
But a qb needy team like Jets, Bills and Browns have the #1, #6 and #8 pick too high for these qbs.

Either way If two or three qbs go before us. That means more top ten players could slide.

But If no Qbs are selected before us. I think #15 is about right for Qb needy teams to start picking Qbs.

The Texans are a Qb away from a deep playoff run. They love Mahomes.

Mahomes stock is on the rise.

God, we're going to draft for need, aren't we. This is really happening.

Irn-Bru wrote:God, we're going to draft for need, aren't we. This is really happening.

Irn-Bru wrote:God, we're going to draft for need, aren't we. This is really happening.

Since when is it smart to ignore need in the draft?
Every team considers need when they pick.

The Scherff pick was totally a need pick. All though I liked the pick. Point is the Redskins struggled protecting the QB previously.
Leonard Williams and Vic Beasley a DT and OLB both positions of high value. If you consider them equal in talent the position value gives them the nod.

It's not like a GM is going to say the player they picked was not the best player available.

Dallas has 3 1st round picks spent on the Oline. Tony Romo repeatedly asked Jerry Jones to help protect him by drafting Oline. Drafting two guards in the first round.
Plenty of good players at higher value positions went after Dallas made those picks.
That's just recently.

If a player like Reuben Foster or Malik Hooker is available. Then I'm all for it.
However If we are left choosing between Peppers, Cook, Mccaffrey, Reddick, Mckinley or a CB?
Then I'd prefer we trade down.

Bill Belichick has reportedly traded down to load up in the 2nd rounds.

No one's saying reach on a player.

I'm going on record to say Caleb Brantley and Montravious Adams are going to be very good players. Heck Pro Bowl players. They are likely 2nd round picks.

This notion of ignore need is just stupid.
I'd go as far as saying Bill Belichick drafts for need every year.

Irn-Bru wrote:God, we're going to draft for need, aren't we. This is really happening.

Since when is it smart to ignore need in the draft?
Every team considers need when they pick.

The Scherff pick was totally a need pick. All though I liked the pick. Point is the Redskins struggled protecting the QB previously.
Leonard Williams and Vic Beasley a DT and OLB both positions of high value. If you consider them equal in talent the position value gives them the nod.

It's not like a GM is going to say the player they picked was not the best player available.

Dallas has 3 1st round picks spent on the Oline. Tony Romo repeatedly asked Jerry Jones to help protect him by drafting Oline. Drafting two guards in the first round.
Plenty of good players at higher value positions went after Dallas made those picks.
That's just recently.

If a player like Reuben Foster or Malik Hooker is available. Then I'm all for it.
However If we are left choosing between Peppers, Cook, Mccaffrey, Reddick, Mckinley or a CB?
Then I'd prefer we trade down.

Bill Belichick has repeatedly traded down to load up in the 2nd round.

No one's saying reach on a player.

I'm going on record to say Caleb Brantley and Montravious Adams are going to be very good players. Heck Pro Bowl players. They are likely 2nd round picks.

This notion of ignore need is just stupid.

I was 100% for Foster at 17. I personally didn't care about the altercation at the combine, but I 100% DO CARE about the watered down pee test results. If the guy was playing dirty, and the way in which he plays could (not saying it is) be consistent with someone on enhancers, then I'm not drafting him with my first pick.

Then again, I say that without even being confident in what I just said. It is tough. He is just so dynamic, but we did sign that ILB from BUF. If I'm the redskins FO, I'm doing my due diligence on whether his story has clear evidence to back it up ---- because my guess is he could fall to 17 at this point and even with the history, I'm tempted. In a 3-4, we still could use an additional ILB even with the guy from BUF. I'd just really look into the situation; perhaps even hire an investigator.

I still think Marvin Lewis and the Bengals Will take him at no. 9. Last time Marvin Lewis had playoff success he had some guy named Ray Lewis.

With all the guys who had so called questionable character. Also Marvin Lewis being on the hot seat.
He needs that defense to take a huge step forward.

Dirty or not. No denying the talent.
With all the circumstances in Cincinnati I think he's a Bengal.

CBS mock draft today slides him our way...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news ... -take-lbs/

" 17. Washington Redskins

Reuben Foster, LB, Alabama: The Redskins surrendered an average of nearly 120 yards per game on the ground in 2016 and only three teams (the Chargers, Bills and 49ers) allowed more than their 19 rushing touchdowns. Foster is a top-10 talent but may suffer a slide on draft day after questions about his decision-making off the field and durability on it surfaced since the season ended. Possessing remarkable closing speed and the physicality to intimidate, he could prove a steal at this point in the draft. "

I see a lot of mock drafts this week with the Bengals picking Barnett. Who knows, but at #9 they don't really have to gamble on a guy with question marks.

All of the top players in the draft have talent - it's just a matter of developing that so that the player can make the transition to the NFL

Dan & Bruce will select the guy they think is the most marketable - he will be talented and he will be a huge hit with everyone - can't miss

Not to digress wildly, but I keep reading that the Trumpster still has some insane number of vacant positions in his admin. Don't you think Allen would be perfect for like a four year posting as Ambassador to Liechtenstein? Hire that fool! MRGA!!!!

riggofan wrote:Not to digress wildly, but I keep reading that the Trumpster still has some insane number of vacant positions in his admin. Don't you think Allen would be perfect for like a four year posting as Ambassador to Liechtenstein? Hire that fool! MRGA!!!!

I'm sure Dan Snyder could do worse than Bruce Allen. Let's not test that theory.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:Not to digress wildly, but I keep reading that the Trumpster still has some insane number of vacant positions in his admin. Don't you think Allen would be perfect for like a four year posting as Ambassador to Liechtenstein? Hire that fool! MRGA!!!!

I'm sure Dan Snyder could do worse than Bruce Allen. Let's not test that theory.

I've got Snyder slated for a four year posting to Maldives. Joe Gibbs can run the team in the interim.

HEROHAMO wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:God, we're going to draft for need, aren't we. This is really happening.

Since when is it smart to ignore need in the draft?
Every team considers need when they pick.

The Scherff pick was totally a need pick....

Need may have entered the picture a bit but maybe not at all. I totally disagree that it was totally a need pick.

But we can disagree. Anyway ...

[quote="In America's Game" Michael MacCambridge"]The 1979 draft found the Dallas Cowboys preparing for the beginning of a new era, with Roger Staubach nearing the end of his career. His understudy, Danny White, who’d come over after the demise of the WFL, was the heir apparent, and the young Glenn Carano, an unpolished but physically gifted thrower from University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the third round, as the Cowboys’ selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys’ master list, and did something he had rarely done in his nineteen years of drafting. Instead of taking the top player on the Cowboys’ chart, he went “against the board” and selected not the highest-rated player, but the next-highest-ranked one, a rangy tight end named Doug Cosbie, who would go on to enjoy a productive career and provide further evidence that the Cowboys were able to find a diamond in the rough.

On the next selection, the eighty-second, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys’ board, the player Dallas has passed on because, in Landry’s words, “We don’t really need another quarterback.”

His name was Joe Montana.
[/quote]

I just love the expression "you can never have enough good players"

it's a given that all of these players are incredibly talented and that only a few of them will go onto becoming "good players"

hopefully Dan & Bruce find more than a few players that can adapt well and will eventually become "good players"


I'd feel a lot better if we had better guys in charge but the expression "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then" seems pretty apt

DarthMonk wrote:[quote="In America's Game" Michael MacCambridge"]The 1979 draft found the Dallas Cowboys preparing for the beginning of a new era, with Roger Staubach nearing the end of his career. His understudy, Danny White, who’d come over after the demise of the WFL, was the heir apparent, and the young Glenn Carano, an unpolished but physically gifted thrower from University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the third round, as the Cowboys’ selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys’ master list, and did something he had rarely done in his nineteen years of drafting. Instead of taking the top player on the Cowboys’ chart, he went “against the board” and selected not the highest-rated player, but the next-highest-ranked one, a rangy tight end named Doug Cosbie, who would go on to enjoy a productive career and provide further evidence that the Cowboys were able to find a diamond in the rough.

On the next selection, the eighty-second, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys’ board, the player Dallas has passed on because, in Landry’s words, “We don’t really need another quarterback.”

His name was Joe Montana.

[/quote]

Which is all well and good but Montana never would have seen the field with Danny White starting. No one would have ever known how good he was.

I still think you have to look very closely at those QB picks just because of how important the position is. When you pass on Aaron Rodgers it becomes one of those glaring things.

I was messing with the mock draft last night and Mitch Trubisky fell to 17. QB needy teams went with the safer defensive picks early. Would you consider Trubisky at 17?

riggofan wrote:I still think you have to look very closely at those QB picks just because of how important the position is. When you pass on Aaron Rodgers it becomes one of those glaring things.

I was messing with the mock draft last night and Mitch Trubisky fell to 17. QB needy teams went with the safer defensive picks early. Would you consider Trubisky at 17?

I still think you have to take the best player on the board at #17. If they trade down to, say, #25 I think all options are in play.

riggofan wrote:I still think you have to look very closely at those QB picks just because of how important the position is. When you pass on Aaron Rodgers it becomes one of those glaring things.

I was messing with the mock draft last night and Mitch Trubisky fell to 17. QB needy teams went with the safer defensive picks early. Would you consider Trubisky at 17?

I'm not making the pick and as many of you know, I'm not a QB guru by anyone's definition
if Trubisky is at #17 and the FO thinks he's the best player available, I'd be OK with that - I just don't see Trubisky &/or Watson falling that far

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:[quote="In America's Game" Michael MacCambridge"]The 1979 draft found the Dallas Cowboys preparing for the beginning of a new era, with Roger Staubach nearing the end of his career. His understudy, Danny White, who’d come over after the demise of the WFL, was the heir apparent, and the young Glenn Carano, an unpolished but physically gifted thrower from University of Nevada-Las Vegas was seen as a potential diamond in the rough. In the third round, as the Cowboys’ selection came up, Tom Landry looked at the Cowboys’ master list, and did something he had rarely done in his nineteen years of drafting. Instead of taking the top player on the Cowboys’ chart, he went “against the board” and selected not the highest-rated player, but the next-highest-ranked one, a rangy tight end named Doug Cosbie, who would go on to enjoy a productive career and provide further evidence that the Cowboys were able to find a diamond in the rough.

On the next selection, the eighty-second, San Francisco chose the very player who had been on the top of the Cowboys’ board, the player Dallas has passed on because, in Landry’s words, “We don’t really need another quarterback.”

His name was Joe Montana.

Which is all well and good but Montana never would have seen the field with Danny White starting. No one would have ever known how good he was.[/quote]

Yeah, right.

Thank God SF got him and not Dallas.

Widely considered the best offensive lineman in the draft, Scherff potentially could play any position up front. In high school, he did everything—football, basketball, track, baseball and tennis. In high school, played quarterback as a sophomore — passing for 1,200 yards — before moving to the line his final two seasons. A left tackle at Iowa, Scherff was the Outland Trophy winner and first team all-Big Ten.

Not exactly a position of need for us at the time.

SkinsJock wrote:if Trubisky is at #17 and the FO thinks he's the best player available, I'd be OK with that - I just don't see Trubisky &/or Watson falling that far

I don't either, but had the same opinion.

Looking at teams like the Jets, Browns, Bills, etc; continuing to chase that franchise QB right now, really makes the Cousins situation more painful to me.

Sorry to get off the original "fix defensive line" topic!

DarthMonk wrote:

Widely considered the best offensive lineman in the draft, Scherff potentially could play any position up front. In high school, he did everything—football, basketball, track, baseball and tennis. In high school, played quarterback as a sophomore — passing for 1,200 yards — before moving to the line his final two seasons. A left tackle at Iowa, Scherff was the Outland Trophy winner and first team all-Big Ten.

Not exactly a position of need for us at the time.

No, but everyone, including Scherff, knew he projected as a guard at the NFL level. Or maybe a right tackle. No one projected him as a left tackle at the NFL level. Right guard was most definitely a position of need at the time. Chester was way undersized for a power blocking scheme.