Kiper suggestion for #6

Archive of discussions on NFL Draft 2003, NFL Draft 2004, NFL Draft 2005, NFL Draft 2006, NFL Draft 2007 NFL Draft 2008, NFL Draft 2009 and NFL Draft 2010.
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Kiper suggestion for #6

Postby fleetus » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:05 am

ESPN just had their draft preview for the Redskins. They acknowledged that we've given away too many picks on previous deals and need to try and trade down to get some of those picks back. They also covered the fact that we have a poor pass rush and need to consider a DL at #6. In the end however, Kiper said we should not pass up Laron Landry to pair him with ST at safety. Interesting.
Build through the draft!

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:31 am

Re: Kiper suggestion for #6

Postby jklote » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:18 am

fleetus wrote:ESPN just had their draft preview for the Redskins. They acknowledged that we've given away too many picks on previous deals and need to try and trade down to get some of those picks back. They also covered the fact that we have a poor pass rush and need to consider a DL at #6. In the end however, Kiper said we should not pass up Laron Landry to pair him with ST at safety. Interesting.


I like Landry better than any of the Dlinemen in the draft. That being said, I think we should trade down if possible. We need at least one dlinemen ready to factor in the two deep this year, and an olinemen wouldn't hurt either.

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:55 am

From The "Inside Slant" Thread wrote:However, strong safety was a mess last year. Adam Archuleta and Troy Vincent are gone. Vernon Fox is a special teamer. Pierson Prioleau started just 14 games from 2003-05 before missing all of last year with a major knee injury. And Prioleau will be 20 this summer. Help is needed to keep mercurial free safety Sean Taylor under control.


It's all about the value of the 6th overall pick and most now feel that Landry is the only defensive player worthy of that value. Yes we have needs on the d-line, but safety is also a position of need.

I think everyone would like to have Calvin Johnson, but that's just not a position of need right now. Most NFL executives agree that when you have a pick inside the top ten, you take the best player available rather than filling a need. In Landry's case, we would be getting the best defensive player available and at the same time, would be filling a position of need.

If we got...say... Gaines Adams, offensive coordinators can game plan to take him out of the game, unless you have stellar coverage downfield that would allow for more time for the d-line to get to the QB. They cannot, however, game plan for both Taylor AND Landry. Taylor and Landry both can makes loads of plays at the line of scrimmage or in the backfield; stuffing the run or pressuring the QB.

I'm not sure why some feel we are set with Fox, Prioleau and Stoutmire. A strong secondary can pick up the slack for a weak d-line. A strong d-line cannot make up for a weak secondary. When you only rush 4 guys, and the offense mass-protects with 6, 7 or 8 blockers, I don't care how great the d-line is, they will seldom get to the QB. Meanwhile, the weak secondary is getting scorched all over the field, much like last year. If the secondary is strong, and you have full confidence in them, then you can bring more than 4 guys in the form of stunts and blitzes. That's how you get pressure on a QB to force bad throws. Landry coming full speed (4.35 :wink: ) at the QB will force him to make bad decisions.

08 Champ
Posts: 13637
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: RG3 support team

Postby SkinsJock » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:42 am

Last year the Vikings defensively were #1 against the run and #32 against the pass :shock:

I am surprised to continually see here (Kiper and most everybody in the media, know squat about this team and our needs) that some think a great secondary is as important or even more-so than a great front 7.
I think having a great secondary is important and would be great but the need at this time is the line and ensuring that the few good college prospects we add will help make the current players better. We have some decent guys now but we need to be better up front IMO more than we need to improve our secondary.

A good/great front 7 can make a fair secondary much better a lot easier than a great/super secondary can help a fair front 7 :wink: The better QBs today will eat up a super secondary if they have time!


If Kiper is hyping anyone (especially for our team) that would automatically draw some concern but to be fair about Landry - I think he would be a good pick at #6 for someone else because I'm really hoping we do not have to actually make that pick.
The Redskins need to have a plan for how to put a product on the field that will be consistently competitive and they need to stick with that plan - it's taken years to become as bad as we are and it will be years getting out of it

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:04 pm

SkinsFreak wrote: A strong secondary can pick up the slack for a weak d-line. A strong d-line cannot make up for a weak secondary.


You've got it backwards. The Panthers survived (even thrived) with a strong D-Line and weak secondary for years. The Eagles have a great secondary, but when their D-line generates no pressure, they have problems. But when the d-line is on, and the blitz is working, their secondary is free to make plays.

It's not just about sacks. The more pressure your front 4 can generate by itself, the more an extra blitzer will wreak havoc. And the more pressure a QB feels, the more chance he has of making a mistake.

|||||||
Posts: 4566
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Somewhere, out there.

Postby UK Skins Fan » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:08 pm

Have to disagree with SkinsFreak, and agree with SkinsJock (not for the first time in either case :wink: ) on this one. A great front seven will undoubtedly make the secondary look better. Also, great corners will help to make safeties look better.

As I said in the Landry thread, it may just be that we end up drafting him, on the best available player principle. However, I feel this should only happen if we absolutely cannot get anything done by way of trade, and decide that no defensive lineman is worth the pick at #6.

We can look at the Redskins history to see the relevant importance of the positions. Butz, Grant, Mann and Manley made Todd Bowles and Alvin Walton look a lot better than they were (nobody would say these guys were elite). Stokes, Williams, Mann and Johnson made Brad Edwards and Danny Copeland look OK too.

Consistent success starts with the lines, on both sides of the ball. I can see Landry in burgundy and gold, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.
Also available on Twitter @UKSkinsFan

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:09 pm

SkinsJock wrote:A good/great front 7 can make a fair secondary much better a lot easier than a great/super secondary can help a fair front 7 :wink: The better QBs today will eat up a super secondary if they have time!

Well, it can be viewed differently as well, and I know what saying...

But, on a passing down, there isn't a "front seven". The LB's will be dropping into coverage; taking on a RB coming out of the back field or a TE breaking into the flat. Therefore, with no blitz, due to the lack of confidence in your secondary, you only have a "front 4". An offense should be able to sufficiently block 4 d-linemen with 6 or 7 blockers.

On the other hand, with a strong secondary, you can now bring a LB, safety or a corner on a blitz, ultimately getting more pressure on the QB, something that is very prevalent in Williams' defenses. We had a very weak secondary last year, reducing the amount of pass rushers. Williams pulled everyone back. The 4 upfront should be taking on blockers to open lanes for stunts from the LB's and the safeties.

I agree with needing d-line help, but if we can't trade down, we are talking about the value of the 6th pick. And no experts, including scouts, inc. has any d-linemen worthy of a top 6 pick. Therefore, if you can't trade down, you have to consider Landry, that's all I'm trying to say.

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:15 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:As I said in the Landry thread, it may just be that we end up drafting him, on the best available player principle. However, I feel this should only happen if we absolutely cannot get anything done by way of trade, and decide that no defensive lineman is worth the pick at #6.


That's all I'm saying, right there. I'm in complete 100% agreement that we need d-line help the most, as I've said many times. But if we can't trade down, they may end up making a move like this. That's why guys like Clayton and Kiper are projecting Landry, because no d-linemen is worthy of a top 6 pick this year.

08 Champ
Posts: 13637
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: RG3 support team

Postby SkinsJock » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:22 pm

I understand SFreak - My opinion is that our secondary is not going to be that bad this year :lol: I just have to think that last year's performance by our D overall is going to be a whole lot better this year. Maybe I'm reaching but this team's D this year will be a lot more like 05 than 06! I just think we will be better at the LB position because of who we have right now and may still add PLUS the players we will add to the D line guys who started to look and play better at the end of last year.

I like Landry a lot, but, IF we do have to make that pick I will be a little surprised if it's Landry My 2 cents
The Redskins need to have a plan for how to put a product on the field that will be consistently competitive and they need to stick with that plan - it's taken years to become as bad as we are and it will be years getting out of it

kazoo
Posts: 10280
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:31 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I understand SFreak - My opinion is that our secondary is not going to be that bad this year :lol: I just have to think that last year's performance by our D overall is going to be a whole lot better this year. Maybe I'm reaching but this team's D this year will be a lot more like 05 than 06! I just think we will be better at the LB position because of who we have right now and may still add PLUS the players we will add to the D line guys who started to look and play better at the end of last year.

I like Landry a lot, but, IF we do have to make that pick I will be a little surprised if it's Landry My 2 cents


It does seem we would be in a good position to drop and still get Landry or one of the better DL's. The problem is more teams generally look to trade down then up. Hopefully someone somebody wants will fall to us. But will we get enough value? It'll be interesting.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:36 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Maybe I'm reaching but this team's D this year will be a lot more like 05 than 06!

I absolutely agree with that.

SkinsJock wrote:I like Landry a lot, but, IF we do have to make that pick I will be a little surprised if it's Landry

I think that's the only area where we disagree. I, along with the many experts, believe Landry has more value at #6, than any of the d-linemen this year. I'm still for trading down, but I'd take Landry at #6 and maybe find another way of getting a young DE, like through free agency or trading up from the late rounds. But that's just me. :D I see your points as well. :D

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:05 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:[I agree with needing d-line help, but if we can't trade down, we are talking about the value of the 6th pick. And no experts, including scouts, inc. has any d-linemen worthy of a top 6 pick.


No experts? What about all these?

Scouts actually has Gaines Adams at 6 (Landry is at 5, though)

CNNSI has Gaines Adams ranked a 4.49, Laron Landry a 4.34

CBS Sportsline has Jamaal Anderson at 5, Alan Branch at 6, Gaines Adams at 7, and Okoye at 8. Landry is at 14

Scout.com has LaRon Landry ranked 4, but a 4 star player, while Gaines Adams is at 6, and a 5 star player. I'll get back to this in a bit.

NFLDraftScout.com has Gaines Adams at 7, and Landry at 8

ProFootballWeekly has Adams at 7, Landry at 8 also

Kiper has Landry at 6, Okoye at 7, Adams at 8.

In all cases, where Adams or another d-lineman is rated lower than Landry, it's RIGHT behind him. It's not like there's a tremendous drop off from 6 to 7. And in multiple cases, Landry is ranked behind Adams.

The other thing that makes me leery about drafting Landry is that he's a late riser (which is why you see him a 4 star player in NFLDraftScout, and ranked higher than some of the 5 star prospects). That means that his gametape, evaluated since the end of the season, says one thing; but his combine & individual workout numbers cause him to rise. For instance, two months ago, Kiper had Jamaal Anderson at 6, and Landry at 11. You're telling me that in 2 months, Landry went from being a good first round value to the 6th best player in the draft? Doing what? Having a good day at his pro player day?

I'm not saying he's not a good player. It's obvious he is. But there ARE a lot of options at D-line in this draft that have all had their turns as top 5 projected picks. Landry is another option if we're going to pick 6, but not the only one as you make him out to be.

Especially since safeties imho are much less important than d-line.

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:56 pm

Ok, Scouts has Gaines at #6, so I stand corrected, although Landry is still rated higher, which was my overall point. Other than that, the only other outlets that have a d-linemen in the top 6 are CNNSI and CBS Sportsline. :shock: I really wouldn't hang my hat on the grades given out by CNNSI or CBS Sportsline. I don't really consider their sports writers to be "expert" player evaluators. Pete Prisco still has Anderson at #5 and JaMarcus Russell at #20. :shock: :roll:

Experts have now had a chance to analyze hours of game film, as well as evaluate pro days and combine results. Initial projections were made without that luxury.

Remember, I only started talking about this because Kiper and Clayton brought it up first, and have now revised their initial projections. And like them or not, they do know a little bit about this stuff. I was just trying to figure out why. But there will always be varying opinions, that's a foregone conclusion.

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:12 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:Ok, Scouts has Gaines at #6, so I stand corrected, although Landry is still rated higher, which was my overall point. Other than that, the only other outlets that have a d-linemen in the top 6 are CNNSI and CBS Sportsline.


And Scout.com. And it's not like picking a guy ranked 7th is a stretch at the 6th pick, is it?

Experts have now had a chance to analyze hours of game film, as well as evaluate pro days and combine results. Initial projections were made without that luxury.


Without the pro and combine results, sure. But if the scouts weren't evaluating the players the entire year, what the hell are they doing?

In Feinstein's book, [img]Next%20Man%20Up[/img], he mentions that the Ravens scouts have fully evaluated a player based upon gametape by the end of January.

Remember, I only started talking about this because Kiper and Clayton brought it up first, and have now revised their initial projections. And like them or not, they do know a little bit about this stuff. I was just trying to figure out why. But there will always be varying opinions, that's a foregone conclusion.


Kiper does know a lot about the draft, but this is also the guy has been monumentally wrong multiple times. Ryan Leaf, according to Kiper, was a sure-fire ProBowler. He went on record saying he'd have a better NFL career than Manning. "More upside." Whoops.

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:51 pm

PulpExposure wrote:In Feinstein's book, [img]Next%20Man%20Up[/img], he mentions that the Ravens scouts have fully evaluated a player based upon gametape by the end of January.


Gibbs said in his press conference the other day that they were only half way done reviewing game tape.

And yes, no one is perfect in predicting the future, including Kiper.

John Clayton said that the Skins are not that impressed by Adams. Why? I personally don't know. Maybe it's because of his size. Or maybe because they feel that offenses could simply double or triple team him (with a RT, TE and/or a RB) and take him out of most plays. We don't know what they are thinking yet. I don't see anyone feeling so strong about Adams that they would trade up to get him. But in my opinion, Gaines would be the only d-linemen I would consider at #6. I still like trading down. But that may not be possible.

Return to NFL Draft 2003-2010