Glaring Need / Roster

Trample the Elderly · 03-26-2009, 11:33 PM

I just went over the roster tonight and there was one glaring need that stuck out, OLB.

Now I know that there isn't much to talk about, except the random Colt VS Soup threads, but I think we could chew the fat about the roster. This will only get better after the draft and with camp.

RT is up in the air. If we don't go after a RT then we absolutely have to address the OLB. With Marcus gone there is no one of any caliber there to take his spot. We can argue about DE, but we do have Wynn, Buzbee, Carter, and Wilson there. Daniels might return but he and Wynn will only be there for a little while. We can argue about Daniels and Buzbee but let's not forget if it wasn't for them going down, well . . . . you know.

For OLB we only have three guys: Fincher, McIntosh, and Campbell. You can throw in Blades but that leaves open a spot at ILB, and Fletcher isn't a spring chicken.

I'm under the opinion that we'll wind up getting either a RT or an OLB with our first pick. All of the RTs look good to me and so do the OLBs at that spot. I think they'll get a RT with the first and an OLB with the third rounder. I also think that we might be able to bring back Marcus for depth.

It seems to me they should address the O-line before the D because Coach Blache is a better at getting what he wants from the D. The O-line needs more young Ts. I'm not against getting a OLB with the 13th though.

Oh yeah, it looks to me like we're getting younger, just not as fast as everyone would like.

Hopefully this is worthy of a new thread.

What sayeth the Mob?

GTripp0012 · 03-26-2009, 11:44 PM

OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.

SFREDSKIN · 03-26-2009, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.

It would, but I think OL is more important if we are going to compete in the division against some serious DL's especially the Giants.

Ruhskins · 03-27-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

It would, but I think OL is more important if we are going to compete in the division against some serious DL's especially the Giants.

While I agree that OL is important, also the current players need to step it up. Besides, if our offense improves, we should be able to compete with the Giants.

tryfuhl · 03-28-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz.

I think that if a "name" is still there, we'll take him. I don't know much about the lesser known guys though.

vallin21 · 03-27-2009, 12:02 AM

Our Glaring need is LDE. At 13 there is at least 1 guy that will fall to us (Maybin, Jackson, Orakpo) in which we will get value and need

rbanerjee23 · 03-29-2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallin21

Our Glaring need is LDE. At 13 there is at least 1 guy that will fall to us (Maybin, Jackson, Orakpo) in which we will get value and need

you're dreaming if you think orakpo will be around at 13 - the top ot's will be gone, trade down in the draft and build depth on both lines. Everyone is yelling about ot being a huge need, sure but are the skins looking for a starter this year?? no, chris samuels is fine for this year, stephon heyer played really well when he stayed true to form (watch the tape), Rhinehart has been getting better after getting reps with the starters. BUILD DEPTH!!! please...dont throw a ton of money who has a 75-80% chance of being grossly overpaid/bust.

FRPLG · 03-27-2009, 12:12 AM

This is driving me nuts. DE is not but our 4th or 5th need. We can rotate 3 guys there to hold it down. RT, C and OLB have no such luxury. Our options at RT are among the lowest in the league and there is no depth. Our C is average at best. OLB is somewhat hideable using scheme but is shallow and undertalented. I am tired of the DE arguments.

GTripp0012 · 03-27-2009, 12:16 AM

That and Maybin is a Jason Taylor wannabe, so making the same mistake we just made with Taylor has all the wisdom of Blache written all over it. Luckily, we have Wynn and Daniels to buffer against that, because, we really need to get those guys on the field somehow.

WaldSkins · 03-27-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That and Maybin is a Jason Taylor wannabe, so making the same mistake we just made with Taylor has all the wisdom of Blache written all over it. Luckily, we have Wynn and Daniels to buffer against that, because, we really need to get those guys on the field somehow.

I hope he turns out to be that good if we select him at 13.

The Goat · 03-27-2009, 12:17 AM

13 may be too high to take an LB unless we feel a very special player is available. Obviously Curry will be long gone by then; however, I feel Rey fits that bill. He is the only other LB worthy of the 13th overall pick IMO. Rey could well be on the board at 13, but it's likely either Oher or A. Smith will also be there... I mean seriously a WON'T complain about getting any one of those guys.

... I do think there's room for debate about the draft depth of LB talent vs. OT talent. Personally I believe there's way, way more OT talent in the draft. Beyond Curry, Rey, Cushing (who i don't want) I don't see any more impact starters, though Matthews, English and Laurinaitis may be close. Meanwhile I see 4 immediate impact OTs in the draft and probably 2 or 3 more guys who probably will be able to start on opening day. The implications of all this should be more OT talent available in the market post draft, as teams jettison overpaid vets for young talent. I'm not advocating Rey over Oher or Smith necessarily just telling it the way I see it.

One more thing... why do some people think a college DE will have luck as an OLB, in our system especially, when we require our guys to cover well and basically be very dynamic? I've heard a shit-ton of comments like "Rey can't cover" or "Rey is only suited to play the middle." First of all the scouting reports say Rey covers very well, and our FO has said it thinks he could play OLB. But tell me how a DE, who's probably had zero experience covering much of anything, will somehow be more capable than this stud who's been doing it for the last four years?

skinsnut · 03-27-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Goat

more OT talent available in the market post draft, as teams jettison overpaid vets for young talent.

hmm...this is an interesting point.
However, the argument will be....they will cut "older" OTs and that is what we are trying to get away from.

But I certainly see this as a good argument

redskingrove · 03-27-2009, 12:31 PM

Let's look at our current starting roster...LT is Samuels (old and injury prone), Dockery and Thomas at G (Thomas is long in the tooth also), Heyer/Jansen at RT (one is inexperienced and the other old and injury prone, Rabach is our C (old also and will be tested and battered more often since teams are going to 3-4 schemes). We currently have no viable backup for the C position which is the main cog in the offensive production gears. Our defense was good last year without the current free-agent acquisitions for 2009. If we don't bolster the O-line, and any of our aged starting veterans go down, we will be stuck running the same quick pass routes that cause defenses to tee off in the box on us. Portis will be banged up from stacked boxes and we will be mediocre in our record once again. Yes, we are rebuilding somewhat right now, but O-line is the best place to start in the draft to even the keel with team production (points put on the board). We lost several games last year that were by a TD or less. Add those games into our win column from better offensive production and we are in the playoffs. It all starts with adequate protection in the run or pass games. A defensive pick at 13th doesn't make all that much sense when you consider that no matter what the defense does to get a team off the feild for our offense, if we can't move the ball effectively we will struggle to win. The defense will be on the field longer and more times and get fatigued resulting in tough losses. My vote is Offensive drafts first.

GridIron26 · 03-27-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redskingrove

Let's look at our current starting roster...LT is Samuels (old and injury prone), Dockery and Thomas at G (Thomas is long in the tooth also), Heyer/Jansen at RT (one is inexperienced and the other old and injury prone, Rabach is our C (old also and will be tested and battered more often since teams are going to 3-4 schemes). We currently have no viable backup for the C position which is the main cog in the offensive production gears. Our defense was good last year without the current free-agent acquisitions for 2009. If we don't bolster the O-line, and any of our aged starting veterans go down, we will be stuck running the same quick pass routes that cause defenses to tee off in the box on us. Portis will be banged up from stacked boxes and we will be mediocre in our record once again. Yes, we are rebuilding somewhat right now, but O-line is the best place to start in the draft to even the keel with team production (points put on the board). We lost several games last year that were by a TD or less. Add those games into our win column from better offensive production and we are in the playoffs. It all starts with adequate protection in the run or pass games. A defensive pick at 13th doesn't make all that much sense when you consider that no matter what the defense does to get a team off the feild for our offense, if we can't move the ball effectively we will struggle to win. The defense will be on the field longer and more times and get fatigued resulting in tough losses. My vote is Offensive drafts first.

C. Samuels is injury prone? I find that hard to believe, as I believe last year was his first injury that forced him out from playing? Anyone who knows for sure, please correct me as I am sure I'm wrong but I'm absolutely sure that Samuels isn't injury prone..

Just like some said, I believe that DE is one of glaring needs but it is not imperative for us to address the position this year.. We managed well with Evans last season; we are going to manage it well with Wynn (and maybe Phillips?), and along with 3 others such as Chris Wilson, Buzbee and Jackson.. They are on roster list for a reason, and it is not to just to fill in #2 and #3 spot.. If something happens to #1, we are suppose to go to #2 and then to #3.. Therefore, we should use #13 pick to draft OT - whichever's the best left on the board (I'm really huge fan of Mack but I have to be realistic and OT is significant, compared to C for this season). I would understand completely if Redskins decide to trade up into 2nd rd to draft LB but I'm hoping that we would stand pat and keep all of our draft picks. Then we would be able to use other picks to pick capable back-ups and maybe starters in future (such as C and nickel CB)

The idea of moving Chris Wilson is really intriguing (SmootSmack brought up the idea, I believe?) - CW and Jason Taylor are virtually alike physically- Jason Taylor is 6-6 and weighs 244, while CW is 6-4 and weighs 247.. Obviously the question is, do CW possess the coverage skills? I'm really hoping that Redskins would try do this kind of experiment this year..

However, next off-season; we MUST address DE, preferably through draft, using #1 pick or #2 pick.

skinsnut · 03-27-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GridIron26

The idea of moving Chris Wilson is really intriguing (SmootSmack brought up the idea, I believe?) - CW and Jason Taylor are virtually alike physically- Jason Taylor is 6-6 and weighs 244, while CW is 6-4 and weighs 247.. Obviously the question is, do CW possess the coverage skills? I'm really hoping that Redskins would try do this kind of experiment this year..

Wilson is not a linebacker...he is a pass rushing specialist...that is all.
You don't want him in coverage if you can help it.
He has always played the line.

It is one thing to have an OLB play on the line...it is quite another to take a DE and put him in coverage full time. They can experiment, but this aint a college kid, hes been playing pro ball on the line for a few years now.
If he could cover, he'd be great because he can certainly rush the passer.

03-27-2009, 12:02 AM	#6
vallin21 The Starter Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,177	Re: Glaring Need / Roster Our Glaring need is LDE. At 13 there is at least 1 guy that will fall to us (Maybin, Jackson, Orakpo) in which we will get value and need

03-27-2009, 12:12 AM	#8
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: Glaring Need / Roster This is driving me nuts. DE is not but our 4th or 5th need. We can rotate 3 guys there to hold it down. RT, C and OLB have no such luxury. Our options at RT are among the lowest in the league and there is no depth. Our C is average at best. OLB is somewhat hideable using scheme but is shallow and undertalented. I am tired of the DE arguments.

03-27-2009, 12:16 AM	#9
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 36 Posts: 15,994	Re: Glaring Need / Roster That and Maybin is a Jason Taylor wannabe, so making the same mistake we just made with Taylor has all the wisdom of Blache written all over it. Luckily, we have Wynn and Daniels to buffer against that, because, we really need to get those guys on the field somehow. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

03-27-2009, 12:17 AM	#11
The Goat Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,662	Re: Glaring Need / Roster 13 may be too high to take an LB unless we feel a very special player is available. Obviously Curry will be long gone by then; however, I feel Rey fits that bill. He is the only other LB worthy of the 13th overall pick IMO. Rey could well be on the board at 13, but it's likely either Oher or A. Smith will also be there... I mean seriously a WON'T complain about getting any one of those guys. ... I do think there's room for debate about the draft depth of LB talent vs. OT talent. Personally I believe there's way, way more OT talent in the draft. Beyond Curry, Rey, Cushing (who i don't want) I don't see any more impact starters, though Matthews, English and Laurinaitis may be close. Meanwhile I see 4 immediate impact OTs in the draft and probably 2 or 3 more guys who probably will be able to start on opening day. The implications of all this should be more OT talent available in the market post draft, as teams jettison overpaid vets for young talent. I'm not advocating Rey over Oher or Smith necessarily just telling it the way I see it. One more thing... why do some people think a college DE will have luck as an OLB, in our system especially, when we require our guys to cover well and basically be very dynamic? I've heard a shit-ton of comments like "Rey can't cover" or "Rey is only suited to play the middle." First of all the scouting reports say Rey covers very well, and our FO has said it thinks he could play OLB. But tell me how a DE, who's probably had zero experience covering much of anything, will somehow be more capable than this stud who's been doing it for the last four years? __________________ 24-34

03-26-2009, 11:33 PM	#1
Trample the Elderly Playmaker Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Three Chopt Virginia Age: 47 Posts: 2,906	Glaring Need / Roster I just went over the roster tonight and there was one glaring need that stuck out, OLB. Now I know that there isn't much to talk about, except the random Colt VS Soup threads, but I think we could chew the fat about the roster. This will only get better after the draft and with camp. RT is up in the air. If we don't go after a RT then we absolutely have to address the OLB. With Marcus gone there is no one of any caliber there to take his spot. We can argue about DE, but we do have Wynn, Buzbee, Carter, and Wilson there. Daniels might return but he and Wynn will only be there for a little while. We can argue about Daniels and Buzbee but let's not forget if it wasn't for them going down, well . . . . you know. For OLB we only have three guys: Fincher, McIntosh, and Campbell. You can throw in Blades but that leaves open a spot at ILB, and Fletcher isn't a spring chicken. I'm under the opinion that we'll wind up getting either a RT or an OLB with our first pick. All of the RTs look good to me and so do the OLBs at that spot. I think they'll get a RT with the first and an OLB with the third rounder. I also think that we might be able to bring back Marcus for depth. It seems to me they should address the O-line before the D because Coach Blache is a better at getting what he wants from the D. The O-line needs more young Ts. I'm not against getting a OLB with the 13th though. Oh yeah, it looks to me like we're getting younger, just not as fast as everyone would like. Hopefully this is worthy of a new thread. What sayeth the Mob?

03-26-2009, 11:44 PM	#2
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 36 Posts: 15,994	Re: Glaring Need / Roster OLB would not be a good use of our FIRST pick, because the class is so gosh darn deep, but I would start looking at trading up into the bottom half of round two if we really like a Cody Brown or a Lawrence Sidbury. Guy has to get after the quarterback to work in this scheme at OLB, since when our coordinator gets uncomfortable, it means very predictable 6 man blitz. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

03-27-2009, 12:31 PM	#13
redskingrove Camp Scrub Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 57	Re: Glaring Need / Roster Let's look at our current starting roster...LT is Samuels (old and injury prone), Dockery and Thomas at G (Thomas is long in the tooth also), Heyer/Jansen at RT (one is inexperienced and the other old and injury prone, Rabach is our C (old also and will be tested and battered more often since teams are going to 3-4 schemes). We currently have no viable backup for the C position which is the main cog in the offensive production gears. Our defense was good last year without the current free-agent acquisitions for 2009. If we don't bolster the O-line, and any of our aged starting veterans go down, we will be stuck running the same quick pass routes that cause defenses to tee off in the box on us. Portis will be banged up from stacked boxes and we will be mediocre in our record once again. Yes, we are rebuilding somewhat right now, but O-line is the best place to start in the draft to even the keel with team production (points put on the board). We lost several games last year that were by a TD or less. Add those games into our win column from better offensive production and we are in the playoffs. It all starts with adequate protection in the run or pass games. A defensive pick at 13th doesn't make all that much sense when you consider that no matter what the defense does to get a team off the feild for our offense, if we can't move the ball effectively we will struggle to win. The defense will be on the field longer and more times and get fatigued resulting in tough losses. My vote is Offensive drafts first.

Glaring Need / Roster

Locker Room Main Forum