The Draft?

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.

Was this a good draft?

Yes, the FO laid the groundwork for future years.
21
88%
No, they should have grabbed a QB at #10.
3
13%
 
Total votes : 24
kazoo
Online
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon May 02, 2011 9:36 pm

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."
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

Canes Skin
Posts: 6661
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Postby CanesSkins26 » Mon May 02, 2011 10:26 pm

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.
Suck and Luck

|||
Posts: 4270
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA

Postby HEROHAMO » Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

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.
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."

|||
Posts: 4270
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA

Postby HEROHAMO » Tue May 03, 2011 12:11 am

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.
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Tue May 03, 2011 6:50 am

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 :D
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Tue May 03, 2011 6:57 am

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
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

B-rad
Posts: 3036
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:46 am
Location: De La War

Postby brad7686 » Tue May 03, 2011 12:42 pm

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.
No Pressure, No Diamonds

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby die cowboys die » Thu May 05, 2011 1:54 am

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.

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

Postby VetSkinsFan » Thu May 05, 2011 9:56 am

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.
...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.

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Tue May 10, 2011 11:12 am

Some here know how I feel about statistics :lol:


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
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby die cowboys die » Thu May 12, 2011 4:56 am

SkinsJock wrote:Some here know how I feel about statistics :lol:


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


i agree that the 3-4 has generally been a more effective defense-- particularly in the sense of being more "disruptive".

however, if my understanding is correct, the 3-4 has up until the past 2-3 years been employed by a stark minority of NFL teams-- which means that the entire talent pool for players best suited toward a 3-4 defense was divided up by very few teams, making it easier to find superior players than the vast majority of other teams who were dividing up the diluted talent pool of players best suited for a 4-3 defense.

so i don't think it's necessarily clear whether the scheme itself is superior, or if they've simply had a higher concentration of superior players.

and now that so many teams are switching to the 3-4, the talent pool is being heavily diluted, which may prove to neutralize what has been the real main advantage of employing the 3-4.

and it wouldn't surprise me at all if as more and more teams switch to the 3-4, the teams still running the 4-3 eventually suddenly magically start getting better and better as the talent pool they are drawing their players from becomes more concentrated. and then suddenly everyone will think the 4-3 is hot new thing, a schematically superior defense that everyone will start switching back to... and on and on the cycle will continue.

kazoo
Online
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu May 12, 2011 7:25 am

die cowboys die wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Some here know how I feel about statistics :lol:


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


i agree that the 3-4 has generally been a more effective defense-- particularly in the sense of being more "disruptive".

however, if my understanding is correct, the 3-4 has up until the past 2-3 years been employed by a stark minority of NFL teams-- which means that the entire talent pool for players best suited toward a 3-4 defense was divided up by very few teams, making it easier to find superior players than the vast majority of other teams who were dividing up the diluted talent pool of players best suited for a 4-3 defense.

so i don't think it's necessarily clear whether the scheme itself is superior, or if they've simply had a higher concentration of superior players.

and now that so many teams are switching to the 3-4, the talent pool is being heavily diluted, which may prove to neutralize what has been the real main advantage of employing the 3-4.

and it wouldn't surprise me at all if as more and more teams switch to the 3-4, the teams still running the 4-3 eventually suddenly magically start getting better and better as the talent pool they are drawing their players from becomes more concentrated. and then suddenly everyone will think the 4-3 is hot new thing, a schematically superior defense that everyone will start switching back to... and on and on the cycle will continue.


You realize though that on the flip side fewer athletes have trained for the 3-4 and fewer who would fit the scheme better made the NFL, so you could also argue that as more teams switch they will actually improve based on increased availability and experience of 3-4 players and not decrease in skill. Reality's actually a balance of the two.
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

08 Champ
Posts: 12937
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Thu May 12, 2011 7:35 am

interesting stuff dcd

I'm hoping that Haslett learned from what happened here and makes the adjustment to having a defense that better utilizes the abilities of the players he has this season - I look for a 3-4 base defense but playing a scheme that takes advantage of the players he has and not hoping that the players can play in a scheme that they are not suited for like it seemed we did here last season

Haslett was brought in because of his experience and hopefully he'll show better judgement in running this defense here this year


I could care less if we run a 4-3 as long as Haslett best utilizes the players we have AND finds a way to scheme/use the 3-4 packages that cause the opposing teams offenses to have little success - I am hoping for a defensive scheme along the lines of a Dick LeBeau or a Dom Capers and not a Greg Williams or Greg Blache style

I think we'll see a lot of improvement from both the players and the game planning on the defensive side of the ball here

not that it would take much :oops:
one should always try to look on the bright side ... especially Redskins fans after the past 20 plus years

things will get better .... hopefully soon

Hail to the Redskins

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby die cowboys die » Sat May 14, 2011 2:53 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Some here know how I feel about statistics :lol:


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


i agree that the 3-4 has generally been a more effective defense-- particularly in the sense of being more "disruptive".

however, if my understanding is correct, the 3-4 has up until the past 2-3 years been employed by a stark minority of NFL teams-- which means that the entire talent pool for players best suited toward a 3-4 defense was divided up by very few teams, making it easier to find superior players than the vast majority of other teams who were dividing up the diluted talent pool of players best suited for a 4-3 defense.

so i don't think it's necessarily clear whether the scheme itself is superior, or if they've simply had a higher concentration of superior players.

and now that so many teams are switching to the 3-4, the talent pool is being heavily diluted, which may prove to neutralize what has been the real main advantage of employing the 3-4.

and it wouldn't surprise me at all if as more and more teams switch to the 3-4, the teams still running the 4-3 eventually suddenly magically start getting better and better as the talent pool they are drawing their players from becomes more concentrated. and then suddenly everyone will think the 4-3 is hot new thing, a schematically superior defense that everyone will start switching back to... and on and on the cycle will continue.


You realize though that on the flip side fewer athletes have trained for the 3-4 and fewer who would fit the scheme better made the NFL, so you could also argue that as more teams switch they will actually improve based on increased availability and experience of 3-4 players and not decrease in skill. Reality's actually a balance of the two.


that's a good point. i wonder how much of it has to do with training for it vs. just having a certain kind of natural build. i won't pretend to have any idea.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:25 pm
Location: Columbia MD

Postby skins2357 » Wed May 18, 2011 11:34 am

Here are my grades..

1. Ryan Kerrigan - B+ He was the best OLB left on the board and I think he will be a solid player for the skins, not a star but very very solid

2. Jarvis Jenkins - B- I think we may have reached a little bit, and I would have rathered Marvel Austin at the time, but I think he will come in and play a good DE in the 3-4. He was not the best 3-4 DE prospect on the board when taken though IMO

3. Leonard Hankerson - A+ I think this guy was a steal and could be our future #1 WR

4. Roy Helu - B+ I think this guy will give the backfield the speed we have been missing, I think this guy will be our starting RB by midseason.

5. Dejon Gomes - D I think we could have gone in a different direction then S. I think it was a reach and he plays a position where we have depth. Although he will be a ST guy, and is a true SS, something we dont have behind LL.

5. Niles Paul - C I dont mind the WR pick, and Paul could be a steal, noone knows bc he played in a rushing offense. But I from things I read, most had this as a reach too.

6. Evan Royster - C Has good college numbers, but does not do 1 thing exceptionally, but overall could be solid. Only reason pick is a C is bc I dont think we needed 2 RBs, but hey Im being nitpicky.

6. Aldrick Robinson - B+ This guy could end up being a pretty darn good slot reveiver. He's quick with good hands, not a 1 or 2, but potentially a solid slot guy.

7. Brandyn Thompson - B Good depth pick here. We needed depth at the position but dont see this guy making the squad, hope I am wrong though.

7. Maurice Hurt - B See above, good value pick in a position of weakness, but not sure he makes the team. Hopefully will develop on PS

7. Markus White - A I LOVE this pick, and this this guy could be a valuable depth guy at OLB. Im thinking he spells Orakpo as our pass rushing OLB when needed.

7. Chris Neild - A+ This guy is going to be good IMO and was a steal. This may be one of my favorite picks of the draft, I think he will be starting by midseason.

I LOVE the infusion of youth we brought to the team with this draft. Im hoping we continue the trend by being WISE on free agents
Mike/Bruce - If your going to spring big this year in Free Agency, please spring big on offensive lineman! I cant watch Rabach anymore!

Return to NFL Draft 2003-2010