NFL DRAFT SCOUT 1/30 mock (Alan Branch, DT)

[gabe1984]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Sure they don't, but aside from anomalies like the Pats, who else can boast that?

I'm kinda confused on what you're getting at. I can think of a fair amount of teams in the league that don't have players come an go as much as the Skins do. They stick with their guys, mainly build through the draft, and eventually they click and become contenders. Seattle, Philly, Baltimore, Indiannapolis, Chicago, Carolina, I dunno I think this is a really objective conversation.

[SmootSmack]

I don't know. I don't see how, after yet another year of Arrington being injured, we can continue to miss him. All the talent in the world, but if he doesn't play who cares?

[Hog1]

He's Jeff George in a linebacker suit

[gabe1984]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I don't know. I don't see how, after yet another year of Arrington being injured, we can continue to miss him. All the talent in the world, but if he doesn't play who cares?

Yeah, I'll agree with you on that it doesn't matter if he's not playing. But if we're trying to stay away from guys who are easily injured, why sign a bunch of older defensive lineman and a CB in springs who is injury prone. I just don't get it, and I think I'm not going to try to, lol.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think they thought they were just a few pieces away from winning it all.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I still don't see how Russell's stock has risen so high..

Because Quinn's has fallen...at least in my eyes.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Buster

Because Quinn's has fallen...at least in my eyes.

Quinn's down now because of the Sugar Bowl performance combined with the fact that he spent most of the year as the consensus no. 1 pick. Theres little doubt in my mind that if the Raiders keep the first pick it will be Brady Quinn. Russell will go somewhere between 3 and 9 overall.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Quinn's down now because of the Sugar Bowl performance combined with the fact that he spent most of the year as the consensus no. 1 pick. Theres little doubt in my mind that if the Raiders keep the first pick it will be Brady Quinn. Russell will go somewhere between 3 and 9 overall.

I can't see Russell dropping out of the top 5. Oakland, Cleveland, Tampa, and Detroit all need a QB. Cleveland (Frye), Tampa (Simms), and Detroit (Kitna) could all survive without a new QB, but my guess is that one of them will grab whichever QB Oakland doesn't take.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I can't see Russell dropping out of the top 5. Oakland, Cleveland, Tampa, and Detroit all need a QB. Cleveland (Frye), Tampa (Simms), and Detroit (Kitna) could all survive without a new QB, but my guess is that one of them will grab whichever QB Oakland doesn't take.

If Calvin Johnson goes to TB and Cleveland opts for Peterson, I could see it happening. I actually don't think Peterson is going to be that good at the pro level, but the Browns have certainly made worse decisions, thats for sure.

[SmootSmack]

I think Russell would be a bad pick for the Raiders....which is exactly why I think they'll take him

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I am somewhere in between Grim21 and GTripp. I think the Redskins have done a pretty decent job of scouting free agents (e.g., Washington, Griffin, Springs, Daniels, Coles/Moss, Portis, Rabach, Thomas, ARE). Those guys far outnumber the Lloyds and AAs.

On the other hand, they have overpaid for their free agents. They've given them fat contracts (e.g., AAs being the richest for ANY safety in the history of the league). They've also overpaid to acquire them (e.g., 3rd rounder for Brunell, 3rd and 4th rounders for Lloyd, 3rd rounder for Duckett).

Then there is the whole matter of the draft. Cooley was an excellent find int he 3rd round, Taylor had a bad 2006 campaign but should be stud, Golston is an oustanding find when you consider he was a 6th rounder, Campbell looks very promising and may prove to be worth more than we gave up to get him, and it is still too early to judge Rocky McIntosh. But, Rogers was perhaps a big mistake (especially considering Ware and Merriman were on the board).

Agree. It's ok to pick up some FA's and not everyone of them is going to pan out 100% of the time. That's ok. What's not ok is to mortgage our future by freely giving our draft picks away while "overpaying" every free agent on the market.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by gabe1984

TAFKAS. Arrington, was a leader on our team and we got rid of him. He brought a fierce presence, a swagger, and was loved by everyone in DC. We should have kept him, IMO.

As far as Champ goes, if he wanted to go that bad, then fine, let him go, but we should have got more for him. We gave him and a draft pick for Portis, if anything they shoulda given us the draft pick, that's just bad negotiating.

Ok, I'll wait another season to pass judement on roders too , but I guess my point is that if we woulda kept smoot, who up to this point has played much better than Carlos, then maybe we coulda got Merriman or Ware in the draft. I don't see Carlos ever being as good as either of them.

When it comes to the Champ Bailey deal, I honestly feel we were fortunate to be able to work a deal for him at all. It's not often a team can work a major trade for a player in the last year of his contract, about to enter free agency. Bailey was going to leave the team anyway, so I'm not convinced the results of that deal was a bad one.

I like Alan Branch at #6 if he's still available when we pick. Despite the fact we need help in other areas, a player of his stature at that position are not always available. We can certainly use his abilities in the front four because I'm convinced that's where it all starts-up front. We can't fix everything at once. but Branch is a good place to start.

[70Chip]

Can someone explain to me, in the context of what we all observed last year, why we need to draft a defensive tackle? Won't opposing teams just coninue to run over Carter and Holdman? If he is rookie of the year he might, might get 10 sacks. Defensive tackle is not the problem. If Greg Williams thinks it is, then he is the problem.

I'm not saying that we couldn't improve there, but we couldn't possibly improve there as much as we could at DE, CB, or LB which were all terribly suspect last season. This is something that Casserly would have done.

I want to be on the record early and often as being in absolute metaphysical opposition to this pick.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Can someone explain to me, in the context of what we all observed last year, why we need to draft a defensive tackle? Won't opposing teams just coninue to run over Carter and Holdman? If he is rookie of the year he might, might get 10 sacks. Defensive tackle is not the problem. If Greg Williams thinks it is, then he is the problem.

I'm not saying that we couldn't improve there, but we couldn't possibly improve there as much as we could at DE, CB, or LB which were all terribly suspect last season. This is something that Casserly would have done.

I know DTs aren't the sexiest players on the field - they are lucky to get more than 4 sacks in a season, they rarely intercept passes, and they had a spectacular season if they have 70+ tackles. BUT, defenses start with great lines and lines are anchored by good DTs. I could care less about how many sacks a DT gets. I want a guy who draws double teams and frees up the DEs to do their work and stuffs the run up the gut. The ONLY guy on our line to draw double teams last season was Carter.

Our DTs are awful or injury prone. We got NO push up the middle, allowing perfect pockets to form for opposing QBs and rushers to run all over us (not just to the left). Griffin is the only player who can be counted on when healthy, and that is a rarity. Golston is a great player for a 6th round pick, but if you are going to bank on his development then you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Salave'a has been injury prone the past two seasons and has never been more than an overachieving mediocre DT. And it's pretty hard to evaluate Montgomery when he doesn't see the field. So, I like Branch at #6.

But because, as you noted, we have so many holes, trading down to get more picks (if possible) is the best thing. I'd like to see us fill two holes on defense. But because I doubt we'll be able to trade down at #6, I want Branch.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Can someone explain to me, in the context of what we all observed last year, why we need to draft a defensive tackle? Won't opposing teams just coninue to run over Carter and Holdman? If he is rookie of the year he might, might get 10 sacks. Defensive tackle is not the problem. If Greg Williams thinks it is, then he is the problem.

I'm not saying that we couldn't improve there, but we couldn't possibly improve there as much as we could at DE, CB, or LB which were all terribly suspect last season. This is something that Casserly would have done.

I want to be on the record early and often as being in absolute metaphysical opposition to this pick.

The key is not to consider the draft a quick fix. We aren't looking to use the sixth pick on a boom or bust prospect who is being brought in to save the Redskins next year.

I think we can both agree that the pick should probably be spent on the DL. Addressing why it would be better spent at Tackle then End is a bit more complicated. The most obvious reason would be that we just spent a boatload of money on a pass rusher in Andre Carter, who ideally will be our starting end for years to come. It makes little sense to draft his replacement one year after signing him. The guy is 27.

Perhaps you were thinking we draft a bookend for Carter. Someone who is more stout against the run. We could take Jamaal Anderson at 6 this season and start him accross from Carter (or have him compete with Wynn/Daniels). But a year from now, we are looking at maybe Griffin being cut, Saleve'as contract not being extended, and the top two DTs on the roster being Golston and Montgomery, a pair of late round 3rd year players. It seems like we'd have to make a big FA signing to be competitive, and we won't have the cap room in 2008 to do that. We have no talent in the middle whatsoever. Additionally, you run the risk of Carter having another sub par season, getting cut, and the only guy on the line at that point who is any good is Anderson. He has no tackle help and no bookend. And the only thing we can do about it is spend ANOTHER 1st rounder on the best available rush end in 2008.

But lets say we take Branch this year. A year from now, we opt not to extend Saleve'a's contract and for sake of cap room we release Griffin. Now we have a bona fide No. 1 tackle in the middle of the line who is only 23 years old (which assumes he pans out). We have Golston, a third year player, who can start at the 2nd tackle. We have Montgomery on the roster and we can get a 4th DT through FA without investing a lot of cap space. This team still sports Carter at an end, and while Wynn and probably Daniels will be gone by this point, you have Demetic Evans who can start in a pinch and you can spend a day one pick on a stronger, anchoring DE to compliment Carter. Because of the nature of this player, this could be something like a 3rd rounder. Even if Carter doesn't pan out for us, we can still cut him, and spend the 2008 pick on the best availiable DE, and be certainly no worse off than we would be with Anderson at DE. But because of the big money investment in Carter, I want to see one more year of him before I go back and pick at his position.

Longtimefan said it better than I possibly could have:

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I like Alan Branch at #6 if he's still available when we pick. Despite the fact we need help in other areas, a player of his stature at that position are not always available. We can certainly use his abilities in the front four because I'm convinced that's where it all starts-up front. We can't fix everything at once. but Branch is a good place to start.

The simple response to your question is because DT is going to be a bigger problem than DE very soon if we don't address it right now. One pick can put us in a great situation for the future at the DT position.