Vinny Cerrato

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not impressed by the haul, but I AM impressed by the job that Vinny did. Trading down three separate times, and attacking a need to make sure it wouldn't be a need anymore, all signs of a great GM in the making.

Yeah but, and no offense, you tend to get so mired in the details when it comes to the draft and all these players that if the draft doesn't go according to how you'd draft it, you'll naturally be unimpressed.

If you step back and check out the forest for the trees, we acquired some weapons at key areas, which will expand the various methods we can employ to attack a defense.

If you focus on what we didn't get, I think you miss the point of the draft. Instead focus on what we did get. It was a number of very talented players who will be paid on the cheap.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah but, and no offense, you tend to get so mired in the details when it comes to the draft and all these players that if the draft doesn't go according to how you'd draft it, you'll naturally be unimpressed.

If you step back and check out the forest for the trees, we acquired some weapons at key areas, which will expand the various methods we can employ to attack a defense.

If you focus on what we didn't get, I think you miss the point of the draft. Instead focus on what we did get. It was a number of very talented players who will be paid on the cheap.

I feel that's a fair criticism of me, but again, when I see the potential for a great draft, and all we can do is fill a mid level need for the future with it, I'm (naturally) going to be disappointed.

I mean, there's the train of thought that you filled a critical need cheaply, but you have to ask yourself if the need was actually filled, and at what cost. Yes, the "red zone weapons" need was filled, but it cost THREE second round draft picks. Was the red zone weapons need worth three second round draft picks? A rational person would say no.

I think who we didn't draft is a very critical factor in evaluating a draft. If it wasn't, no one would every have a bad draft. I'm not advocating hindsight three years from now if Calais Campbell becomes an all-pro. That's pretty pointless. I'm looking at a roster that is seven deep with competent receivers, and I'm just thinking to myself, as we all should be:

"If Santana Moss gets back on track this year, where are we going to play him? If Randle El continues to play well, where are we going to play him?"

Fact: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends don't have the impact on the game to make the offense score ten more points per game than it did last season. People don't have any clue what they are talking about. That's just not the way things work.

What we didn't do was add any significant help for a front seven that is starting 4 players over the age of thirty, and a 5th next year when Andre Carter hits 30. That matters. It really does.

Yes, we can address those needs next year, but do you have any confidence that we will?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel that's a fair criticism of me, but again, when I see the potential for a great draft, and all we can do is fill a mid level need for the future with it, I'm (naturally) going to be disappointed.

I mean, there's the train of thought that you filled a critical need cheaply, but you have to ask yourself if the need was actually filled, and at what cost. Yes, the "red zone weapons" need was filled, but it cost THREE second round draft picks. Was the red zone weapons need worth three second round draft picks? A rational person would say no.

I think who we didn't draft is a very critical factor in evaluating a draft. If it wasn't, no one would every have a bad draft. I'm not advocating hindsight three years from now if Calais Campbell becomes an all-pro. That's pretty pointless. I'm looking at a roster that is seven deep with competent receivers, and I'm just thinking to myself, as we all should be:

"If Santana Moss gets back on track this year, where are we going to play him? If Randle El continues to play well, where are we going to play him?"

Fact: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends don't have the impact on the game to make the offense score ten more points per game than it did last season. People don't have any clue what they are talking about. That's just not the way things work.

What we didn't do was add any significant help for a front seven that is starting 4 players over the age of thirty, and a 5th next year when Andre Carter hits 30. That matters. It really does.

Yes, we can address those needs next year, but do you have any confidence that we will?

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with the bolded point.. When you look at the most productive offenses in the NFL, what do they have in common? At least one elite WR. NE-Randy Moss, Dallas-Owens, Cleveland-Braylon Edwards, Indy-Harrison & Wayne.. Points come from the passing game!! Of course the line (which we have a good one) and QB (which we have a good one) are important, without the players with the ability to get 40 or 50 yard chunks at a time it's tough to score a ton of points in the league..

I don't know what your Redskins 7 deep WR depth chart looked like before the draft but I saw Moss, Randle-El, Mix, Thrash and that's it. I see 2 solid WR, an unproven-undrafted prospect and an older special teams player.. If Thomas and/or Kelly develop into what we expect, we can legitimately trot out 4 solid WR on any given week and cause matchup nightmares for any DC. Can you imagine having to put a nickel or dime corner on Moss in the slot? Having a LB or safety matched one on one with Randle-El? With the attention the WR are going to require, it sets up another mismatch for Cooley with whomever has to match up with him. This was a draft to build an explosive offense to compete with the elite teams in the league.

[Jake2008]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with the bolded point.. When you look at the most productive offenses in the NFL, what do they have in common? At least one elite WR. NE-Randy Moss, Dallas-Owens, Cleveland-Braylon Edwards, Indy-Harrison & Wayne.. Points come from the passing game!! Of course the line (which we have a good one) and QB (which we have a good one) are important, without the players with the ability to get 40 or 50 yard chunks at a time it's tough to score a ton of points in the league..

I don't know what your Redskins 7 deep WR depth chart looked like before the draft but I saw Moss, Randle-El, Mix, Thrash and that's it. I see 2 solid WR, an unproven-undrafted prospect and an older special teams player.. If Thomas and/or Kelly develop into what we expect, we can legitimately trot out 4 solid WR on any given week and cause matchup nightmares for any DC. Can you imagine having to put a nickel or dime corner on Moss in the slot? Having a LB or safety matched one on one with Randle-El? With the attention the WR are going to require, it sets up another mismatch for Cooley with whomever has to match up with him. This was a draft to build an explosive offense to compete with the elite teams in the league.

The teams you mentioned also had great lines. Look what happened to Brady when he finally got pressured. Moss didn't make a difference. All these guys had time to look over the defense and wait for someone to get open. You can only do that with a great offensive line. Without it, you better have John Elway.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Jake2008

The teams you mentioned also had great lines. Look what happened to Brady when he finally got pressured. Moss didn't make a difference. All these guys had time to look over the defense and wait for someone to get open. You can only do that with a great offensive line. Without it, you better have John Elway.

I acknowledged the line, but also said we have a good one. Samuels is a perennial pro bowler, Thomas and Rabach are very good, Jansen and Kendall are just about done but we can probably get another good season out of them both. Last year our inability to score points didn't have as much to do with not being able to protect the QB as our lack of weapons the defense had to account for and the playcalling did. Our OL depth needed (and needs) improvement, but we didn't go into the draft needing starters on the OL in '08. If Samuels or Jansen goes down for an extended period, I'm ok with Heyer and to a much lesser extent, Wade. If Thomas or Kendall goes down, we've got Alexander and the rookie. We've got a top 15 OL in the NFL right now when everyone is healthy, now we have the weaponry to utilize them.

[Jake2008]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I acknowledged the line, but also said we have a good one. Samuels is a perennial pro bowler, Thomas and Rabach are very good, Jansen and Kendall are just about done but we can probably get another good season out of them both. Last year our inability to score points didn't have as much to do with not being able to protect the QB as our lack of weapons the defense had to account for and the playcalling did. Our OL depth needed (and needs) improvement, but we didn't go into the draft needing starters on the OL in '08. If Samuels or Jansen goes down for an extended period, I'm ok with Heyer and to a much lesser extent, Wade. If Thomas or Kendall goes down, we've got Alexander and the rookie. We've got a top 15 OL in the NFL right now when everyone is healthy, now we have the weaponry to utilize them.

All our OL are on the wrong side of 30 and Jansen missed the whole season with a major injury and Thomas missed most of the season so who knows how they will come back this year. But odds are we will lose 2-3 of the starting 5 to at least injury assuming they can still perform at their former levels. A good starting lineman is probably harder to find then a second TE or another possesion type receiver in which we now have the 2 we drafted to go with ARE. Hopefully Davis's blocking skills have improved because I can see us needing to hold a TE back to help out the line.

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

Originally Posted by Jake2008

The teams you mentioned also had great lines. Look what happened to Brady when he finally got pressured. Moss didn't make a difference. All these guys had time to look over the defense and wait for someone to get open. You can only do that with a great offensive line. Without it, you better have John Elway.

You got that right! Great offensive lines win championships, they make everyone around them better not the other way around.

[irish]

Originally Posted by HOGTIMUS PRIME

You got that right! Great offensive lines win championships, they make everyone around them better not the other way around.

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by irish

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

Really? Let's come out of the 80's glory years and look at recent history.

QB is the key to everything. In today's NFL you win with a great QB.
Patriots: got Brady and built around him, their OL & DL haven't been filled with Pro-Bowlers during their successful run.
Indy: Manning, then fill in the pieces
Steelers: couldn't get over the hump until Big Ben arrived and when he struggled, no matter how good the OL & DL are, they struggled.
Seattle: solid, but playoff caliber when Hasselbeck put it together.
Green Bay: One of the better OL & DL, but Favre sucks, they suck. Favre plays well they go deep into the playoffs.
Dallas: (as much as I hate it) very solid OL & front 7, Romo goes to Mexico with Jess and they choke.
Jaguars: I'd argue they have the best OL & front 7 in the NFL. They can't get over the hump. Garrard's play improves and now they are on the cusp of doing something special.
Bears: outside of the miracle D in 2006, with no QB, they struggle.

How does this apply to us? JC is coming to the point where it is $hit or get off the pot. Zorn needed to get him the weapons to be successful. JC should have learned the system and be primed for a Pro-Bowl performance in 2009, the receivers should be ready in 2009 after a year to adjust to the NFL and learn the system. Even if we have an average OL / DL, JC playing at a Pro-Bowl level with the weapons the FO has provided should put us deep in the playoffs.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

And Bill Parcells who always advocated building from the outside in. The lines are important, not disputing that, but skill position players put points on the board and keep them off..

The best O-line for most of this decade was the KC Chiefs, what did they win? The best D-line has been in Tampa for most of the decade, TB won once.

You've got to have better skill position (QB and LB) and perimeter players (WR & CB) than your opponent in order to win and win consistently.

[DGreene28]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel that's a fair criticism of me, but again, when I see the potential for a great draft, and all we can do is fill a mid level need for the future with it, I'm (naturally) going to be disappointed.

I mean, there's the train of thought that you filled a critical need cheaply, but you have to ask yourself if the need was actually filled, and at what cost. Yes, the "red zone weapons" need was filled, but it cost THREE second round draft picks. Was the red zone weapons need worth three second round draft picks? A rational person would say no.

I think who we didn't draft is a very critical factor in evaluating a draft. If it wasn't, no one would every have a bad draft. I'm not advocating hindsight three years from now if Calais Campbell becomes an all-pro. That's pretty pointless. I'm looking at a roster that is seven deep with competent receivers, and I'm just thinking to myself, as we all should be:

"If Santana Moss gets back on track this year, where are we going to play him? If Randle El continues to play well, where are we going to play him?"

Fact: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends don't have the impact on the game to make the offense score ten more points per game than it did last season. People don't have any clue what they are talking about. That's just not the way things work.

What we didn't do was add any significant help for a front seven that is starting 4 players over the age of thirty, and a 5th next year when Andre Carter hits 30. That matters. It really does.

Yes, we can address those needs next year, but do you have any confidence that we will?

Don't worry Calais Campbell won't be a pro bowler.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I mean, there's the train of thought that you filled a critical need cheaply, but you have to ask yourself if the need was actually filled, and at what cost. Yes, the "red zone weapons" need was filled, but it cost THREE second round draft picks. Was the red zone weapons need worth three second round draft picks? A rational person would say no.

I think who we didn't draft is a very critical factor in evaluating a draft. If it wasn't, no one would every have a bad draft. I'm not advocating hindsight three years from now if Calais Campbell becomes an all-pro. That's pretty pointless. I'm looking at a roster that is seven deep with competent receivers, and I'm just thinking to myself, as we all should be:

Fact: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends don't have the impact on the game to make the offense score ten more points per game than it did last season. People don't have any clue what they are talking about. That's just not the way things work.

What we didn't do was add any significant help for a front seven that is starting 4 players over the age of thirty, and a 5th next year when Andre Carter hits 30. That matters. It really does.

Yes, we can address those needs next year, but do you have any confidence that we will?

I wouldn't classify the three 2nd rounders as exclusively "Red Zone" threats. Thomas runs a 4.4, Davis can stretch the middle of the field, and Kelly while initially may be a "Red Zone" guy, should develop into A. Boldin-lite as long as he doesn't act like a whiny-baby.

I agree with your point about improving the offensive point production not being done by a single WR. However if you give a developing QB three more large targets that can make plays on the ball, that will definitely help keep drives alive and compensate for inaccuracy as JC learns the system and improves. I think two major factors in the improvement to our offense will be a combination of Zorn's playcalling and JCs improved play.

We did address the OL with the 3rd rounder and some of the UDFAs. I'll wager Buges develops at least one of the UDFAs into a solid back-up. DL & LB is still a concern that I share with you.

I was hoping for DL to be addressed early, then WR later, but unfortuantely the draft didn't play out that way. Merling was taken right before our #34 pick by Miami, (based on SS's G2 we may have gone with Thomas even if Merling was there). Trevor Laws was taken a pick or two before our # 48, Harrison, DT, Ark was taken shortly before our 3rd or 4th rounder. So VC & crew went with "best available" and I thought addressed needs pretty well on Day 2.