Skins face dilemma at 13th pick

Want to play GM? Think the Redskins should sign a free agent or trade for someone? Speculation / rumors / trade possibilities / fantasy football / mock drafts - Do it here!

Who would you draft at #13?

Brian Cushing
8
27%
Clay Matthews
1
3%
Andre Smith
8
27%
Tyson Jackson
2
7%
Michael Oher
11
37%
Everette Brown
0
No votes
Michael Johnson
0
No votes
Eben Britton
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 30
Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4729
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:12 am

yupchagee wrote:I want CP & Sellers BOTH in there in the red zone. It's simple arithmetic.
5 linemen
1 QB
Sellers & CP=2
that makes 8. We could not then have 2 WR's & 2 TE's on the field without getting flagged.


A red zone package that includes both Portis and Sellers in the backfield is ideal and has been used on a regular basis. I don't believe there's a Skins fan out there that doesn't like watching Sellers plow the way for Portis. It's fun to watch and will be used frequently in the future.

The point regarding multiple TE's and WR's sets in the red zone was merely meant to establish that we now have options. That's all. You aren't going to use the same package or formation on every play. When they plan to pass inside the red zone, the point is that we now have some big/tall receivers to throw at.

In the past, we've only had short receivers to throw at in the red zone, which is far more difficult to execute. But now with Cooley (6'3), Davis (6'4), Thomas (6'2) and Kelly (6'4), that gives us some big targets in the red zone. When you have size like that, you have to take advantage of it when possible.

So yes, on running plays, I like the package that includes Portis and Sellers. Sellers has even caught a few swing passes out of the backfield. But in passing situations, which I believe they should use more of inside the 20, we now have a variety of package/formation options that should be more effective with bigger receivers, both at the TE and WR positions.

swine
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Richmond, Va.

Postby dad23hogjrs » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:16 am

The look of the draft has changed with the Bills/Eagles trade

We got screwed here.

In addition to having to face Peters twice, its effect on the draft will limit our options.

The bills' two most glaring needs coming into the draft were a pass rusher, and a TE. 11 was too high to take a TE, so the projection was set on the Maybin/E. Brown table and left at that. With peters gone, OT becomes a more glaring need than pass rusher. Everyone pretty much agrees the top 3 OT were going to go in the top ten, which left us with the option of taking Oher at 13. Now the bills will likely get Oher at 11, and their TE (Pettigrew) with their new pick at 28, and look elsewhere for their pass rusher.

13 is too high, as the drop off after Oher down to Britton is substantial. To pick a OT at a value, we will likely have to trade back. If no trade partners our options narrow (if we insist on getting value and dont reach and pick Britton)

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4729
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am

dad23hogjrs wrote:The look of the draft has changed with the Bills/Eagles trade

We got screwed here.

In addition to having to face Peters twice, its effect on the draft will limit our options.

The bills' two most glaring needs coming into the draft were a pass rusher, and a TE. 11 was too high to take a TE, so the projection was set on the Maybin/E. Brown table and left at that. With peters gone, OT becomes a more glaring need than pass rusher. Everyone pretty much agrees the top 3 OT were going to go in the top ten, which left us with the option of taking Oher at 13. Now the bills will likely get Oher at 11, and their TE (Pettigrew) with their new pick at 28, and look elsewhere for their pass rusher.

13 is too high, as the drop off after Oher down to Britton is substantial. To pick a OT at a value, we will likely have to trade back. If no trade partners our options narrow (if we insist on getting value and dont reach and pick Britton)


I believe it's a bit premature to conclude that the Skins got screwed by this deal. Many still believe the Bills will still target a DE with their 11th overall pick. Additionally, even before this trade, some were already talking about the possibility of the top 4 OT's going in the top half of the 1st round. Here's what they think in Buffalo...

Despite Peters' departure, look for defense to remain the Bills' top priority in the draft. They are expected to get a defensive end or outside linebacker with their first pick.

Taking a defensive end would create a logjam at the position, but the Bills have floated Chris Kelsay's name as a trade possibility, according to a league source.

Peters' replacement is currently on the roster, as Walker will likely move to the left side. The 28th pick obtained from Philadelphia could be used on the best available right tackle (perhaps Oklahoma's Phil Loadholt).

The Bills' offensive line is in a state of transition after the release of left guard Derrick Dockery and departures of free agent centers Duke Preston and Melvin Fowler.

Buffalo filled the center position by signing free agent Geoff Hangartner and added journeyman center/guard Seth McKinney to bolster the interior offensive line depth. Backup tackle Kirk Chambers is the leading candidate to start at left guard.


Link

Again, despite this trade, grabbing an OT at #13 could still be difficult for the Skins. That's why there's been a lot of discussion about defensive players that fill needs for us. It's also been reported that there are some interesting OT prospects in the middle of the draft that could become starters much sooner then some realize. So if we can't get a top OT at #13, there's still a chance in the 3rd round. But, of course, it's all speculation at this point.

Return to General Manager's Office