What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'm not sure what people see in Golston. I like the guy and he played well for a 6th rounder, but I didn't see enough good things out of him to think he'll be a great starter or that we should rely on his development. I'd like to see him being the #3 DT and hopefully replace Griffin in about 2 years.

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?

I can't imagine a front four featuring Golston (290), Carter (265), Adams (258), and Griffin (305), being that great against the run. That's why the idea of drafting Adams and relying on Golston kinda scares me. If I had to choose between our front four being good against the run or good at getting to the passer, I'd prefer to be good at being good against the run. I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I can't imagine a front four featuring Golston (290), Carter (265), Adams (258), and Griffin (305), being that great against the run. That's why the idea of drafting Adams and relying on Golston kinda scares me. If I had to choose between our front four being good against the run or good at getting to the passer, I'd prefer to be good at being good against the run. I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.

As a counter arguement, its tougher to have a DL play the line worse than ours did this year. However, our defensive unit did pretty OK vs the run (at least when compared to the pass). I think this is because our secondary is full of a bunch of solid tacklers who consistently fly up to make the play on runs that take time to develop. It's possible that getting a bunch of smaller quicker players would actually HELP us to stop the run, because they could be good against quick hitting runs such as gut or trap plays. Our secondary is probably league tops vs the run, and already does a great job for us.

That's a farfetched arguement though. I still want Branch.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.

^^^ Probably the understatement of the year.

If we are going to use our first round picks on DL over the next few years, I'd hope we can find guys that are good at both.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

I certainly would love to get Branch, but my understanding is that he's not an effective pass rusher (yet).

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I certainly would love to get Branch, but my understanding is that he's not an effective pass rusher (yet).

I wouldn't think that's the first thing you'd look for in a D-tackle. Certainly, it would be an incredible bonus, but as long as he can stuff the run and collapse the pocket, thus creating a certain amount of havoc for the quarterback, you're getting just about everything you could hope for.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

he's not good against the pass, and he can disappear at times too. all three of those guys have knocks on them. I'd still probably opt for branch, but you've got to do the research to make sure he isn't going to be lazy before taking him. 1st round DTs tend to be one of the safest positions to draft and golston is better at the #3 DT spot anyways.