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
newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:50 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Postby T 4D » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:07 pm

Definitely as mlb of future

the 'mudge
Posts: 14834
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:50 pm

yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.


While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

#14
Posts: 4326
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:50 pm
Location: Louisville KY

Postby yupchagee » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:10 pm

Countertrey wrote:
yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.


While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.



I was responding to:
I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.
Skins fan since '55

"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln

the 'mudge
Posts: 14834
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:26 pm

yupchagee wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.


While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.



I was responding to:
I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.


Gotcha... I'm thinking that if they take him, or Smith, it will be with an eye towards Samuels eventual retirement... but that he'll be used on the Right side in the short term...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

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

Postby SkinsFreak » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:22 pm

Countertrey wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
yupchagee wrote:You don't use the 13th overall pick on a RT. We can fill that hole in the 3rd round. Go LB or DE in the 1st.


While that is certainly true, there is nothing wrong with selecting your future LT at 13, and using him at RT until he's ready... that would get us Samuel's eventual replacement, and fill the hole at RT in the interim... It would also protect us against future injuries to Samuels.



I was responding to:
I've seen some coaches tape on Oher now and I'm warming up to the idea of taking him as well. He could be very good at RT.


Gotcha... I'm thinking that if they take him, or Smith, it will be with an eye towards Samuels eventual retirement... but that he'll be used on the Right side in the short term...


Exactly. The top OT's in this draft are, in fact, all LT's, as we all know. The Skins need immediate help at RT. So the idea of drafting a LT and using him on the right side for now is the thought process. It's also been reported by some of the draft gurus that Oher and Smith could be dominate beasts on the right side for a team needing help there... and the Skins could use that kind of help.

As I've said many times, to which I agree with yupchagee's post, a LB/DE would be nice at #13. I just rate OT as a slightly bigger need at this point.

Interestingly, there's been some recent shuffling at OLB which leads me to believe they may, in fact, target an OT in the 1st round. They've signed Robert Thomas, will be converting Chris Wilson to OLB this year, still may re-sign Washington and articles on the Skins site are proposing that "Blades is in the mix" at OLB. Additionally, Fincher was a pleasant surprise at OLB last year, so they re-signed him as well this offseason.

Of course, there's always smokescreens and bluffs this time of year, but those moves would at least offer a hint to the intended direction with their top pick. We'll just have to wait and see though, as it also largely depends on how the draft shakes out on draft day.

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4616
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:22 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:Of course, there's always smokescreens and bluffs this time of year, but those moves would at least offer a hint to the intended direction with their top pick. We'll just have to wait and see though, as it also largely depends on how the draft shakes out on draft day.


Now watch them draft Brandon Pettigrew...

#33
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Postby skinsfan#33 » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:46 pm

Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Postby fleetus » Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k
Build through the draft!

newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:47 pm
Location: Henderson. NV

Postby Bones21 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:30 pm

Here are the scenarios facing the Skins: 1.) If A. Smith's still there at 13, he's their pick. 2.) With Smith gone, they'll need to decide between Oher or one of the defensive guys. Don't know who stands out here - Cushing, Maualuga, Jackson, Ayers, etc. 3.) Now, here's where it gets interesting. If Sanchez is still on the board, the Skins need to make it look like they'll take him. He would be the only guy left at 13 that I think a team would trade up for and, even at that, it appears only TB, Jets, or Denver (if they don't go QB at 11) would have an interest. So, it's either Smith, Oher, one of the defensive guys, or using Sanchez as leverage to trade down for more picks. Pretty simple, right?

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

Postby SkinsFreak » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:34 am

fleetus wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k


I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of Cooley, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.

#14
Posts: 4326
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:50 pm
Location: Louisville KY

Postby yupchagee » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:14 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:
fleetus wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k


I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of Cooley, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.


I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.
Skins fan since '55

"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln

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

Postby SkinsFreak » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:26 am

yupchagee wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
fleetus wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k


I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of Cooley, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.


I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.


Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.

One Step Away
Posts: 7652
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:31 am
Location: NoVA

Postby VetSkinsFan » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:02 am

SkinsFreak wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
fleetus wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k


I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of Cooley, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.


I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.


Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.


Any red zone formation without CP in it is not an option. He catches better than Sellars, probably blocks better than Sellars in pass protection, and is always on the opposing D's mind.
...any given Sunday....

RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!

GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.

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

Postby SkinsFreak » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:04 am

Agreed, Vet.

#14
Posts: 4326
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:50 pm
Location: Louisville KY

Postby yupchagee » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:13 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
fleetus wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Funny, very funny.

We wouldn't have to worry about WRs any more. Just line up with three TEs and one WR.


Hey, now that idea has merit. Since we don't have decent red zone WR's, we could line up 3 TE's inside the 20 in a power run formation. But then, we'd have the option to put them in motion, pull them, play action, split them wide, you name it. Hmm... :-k


I agree, that does look interesting. Zorn said several times last year that he was looking to add multiple TE formations to the playbook. Zorn has also made some positive comments about Davis' maturation and play making abilities. In the red zone, a formation or package that included of Cooley, Davis, Thomas and Kelly could be special.


I don't agree. I want Sellers on the field in the red zone.


Lining up as a receiver or a TE? Because we were discussing pass catchers... you know, WR's and TE's. I know Sellers can catch swing passes out of the backfield, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

Now, to be quite honest, when I visioned that red zone formation, I was actually thinking about it with Sellers in the backfield. But, I was focusing primarily on pass catchers from receiver and TE positions.

If you're speaking about Sellers as a red zone threat running the ball, he didn't do that great last year at it. I remember one game in which he had 2 chances from the 1 yard line, didn't make it on either attempt and eventually fumbled the ball away. Don't get me wrong, I love Sellers, but the point being made was that we have numerous options in the red zone, with regard to pass catchers.


Any red zone formation without CP in it is not an option. He catches better than Sellars, probably blocks better than Sellars in pass protection, and is always on the opposing D's mind.


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.
Skins fan since '55

"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln

Return to General Manager's Office