WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Guys, once and for all it's not an easy thing to switch an OLB to MLB. They are not interchangeable positions. Sure we have seen guys make the transition, but don't be fooled into thinking it's an easy thing to do and all linebackers can make the switch successfully.

If I had to pick between Fletcher or moving a guy out of position, I'd take Fletcher 100% of the time.

That is so true, and it's the reason we're in the market for a MLB because it hasn't been easy for Marshall to make the transition from OLB to the middle.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

yeah hes probably right

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by datdudeallstar7

if we did get London Fletcher, do u think we would start Lemar or Rocky on the weakside????? I say probably Lemar and if either of the other 2 guys gets hurt then Lemar fills in for them and Rocky takes over for Lemar. I say any way it happens this upcoming season is Lemar's last in Washington, unless he plays amazing.

That's the great part in all of this. Not only does the Fletcher signing upgrade the MLB position, but it also gives us much needed depth at ALL the LB positions. Basically it makes LB (IMO our biggest problem in 2006) a non issue. That will do wonders for the defense. With the Clements signing, I believe we will have fixed the back 7 entirely. The D Line, where it all begins, will still be an issue, but with the back 7 fixed up, it will be much easier to identify the problems on the front 4 and draft players on the DL accordingly.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

No Our Biggest Problem Was Line Play Not Getting Penetration On The Qb Which Caused The Secondary To Play Bad Which Caused The Linebackers To Play Bad It Was A Chain Reaction Which Started With The Defensive Line

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

No Our Biggest Problem Was Line Play Not Getting Penetration On The Qb Which Caused The Secondary To Play Bad Which Caused The Linebackers To Play Bad It Was A Chain Reaction Which Started With The Defensive Line

Yeah, you're right, our biggest problem last year was on the defensive line. What I meant to say was that the biggest difference between 2005 and 2006 was a significant decrease in the quality of LB play, mostly in coverage. We had no underneath coverage on curl or dig routes, and this is usually the linebackers responsibility. They just weren't playing on the ball.

Our line play also dropped off a bit, but it wasn't exactly a defensive strength in 2005 either.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's the great part in all of this. Not only does the Fletcher signing upgrade the MLB position, but it also gives us much needed depth at ALL the LB positions. Basically it makes LB (IMO our biggest problem in 2006) a non issue. That will do wonders for the defense. With the Clements signing, I believe we will have fixed the back 7 entirely. The D Line, where it all begins, will still be an issue, but with the back 7 fixed up, it will be much easier to identify the problems on the front 4 and draft players on the DL accordingly.

Would you be satisfied with signing Fletcher and Smoot rather than Fletcher and Clements? Speaking entirely from a fiscal point of view. Can the money saved (18 million signing bonus?) be used for other areas in need of depth?

[EXoffender]

We need to be thinking about drafting Polunsky.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Would you be satisfied with signing Fletcher and Smoot rather than Fletcher and Clements? Speaking entirely from a fiscal point of view. Can the money saved (18 million signing bonus?) be used for other areas in need of depth?

I don't think Smoot will be the clear cut No. 1 corner this team needs. I don't think Clements gets anywhere near an 18 million SB from anyone; I think he can be had for about 10-12 million on the bonus. Clements is worth it though, he's the real deal at CB.

[datdudeallstar7]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

We need to be thinking about drafting Polunsky.

I say we draft Pat Willis way ahead of Posluszny. Each could be good, but Pat Willis is a MLB and Posluszny is an OLB, and the transition is not easy which has been mentioned in this thread. I got a feeling that Pat Willis is gonna be a beast. I would be so happy to see the skins trade down and get Pat Willis while picking up other pick(s) also.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

ok to say the skins should draft a lb with the 6th overall pick is just syupid we should be focused on the d line with eirther alan branch or gaines adams i would be happy with either but both those LB'S are a serious reach at number 6. while alan branch may be the safer pick gaines adams is the sexier pick and would provide and excellent pass rush of the edge he is a jason taylor clone and that would lead to more picks from nate clements who is one of the top 7 or 8 corners in the nfl

[AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

We need to be thinking about drafting Polunsky.

yeah...either him or Posluszny

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

We need to be thinking about drafting Polunsky.

We need to draft D-line, D-line and D-line.

[Skinz4life]

What would be nice is if someone like Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson or even Brady Quinn Drops and the teams between 7-13 covet one of those guys and they trade up with us to get one of them. In this senario we add additional picks and we still could get lucky and get A. Branch, but if he isn't there we could look at Amobi Okoye, I really think this kids is going to be a superstar.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

He Will Be But Branch Or Adams Is Just A Better Fit To The Skins And He Is No Offense To Him

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

"If you're so dense as to not see the difference in success as a whole, I can't help you, and there won't be many that can."


Above is what I responded to. that is the crap that I can't stand. calling people dense or stupid. Grow the f*ck up.

What I said, is that the draft in general is a crap shoot. You can draft a 1st rounder and they turn out to be a bust, just as much as a 6th rounder. How can you interpret anything I said as saying you are wrong. what did I say you are wrong about. Did "you are wrong get typed?" i dont believe so. if it did, put it here so I can see it.

I never started or paid attention to what you wrote until you started the dense thing. dude, I really could give a rats ass what people think out here. there opinions. not truths or matter of facts. If you are a genious on NFL and GM crap, then apply for a job with the skins. People are real f*cking brave on a message board.
Show me where I said you are wrong. show me where i critisized anything you posted, other than giving my opinion. I never did. post it, maybe my memory is going bad.

again, please read. notice that if. if you feel insulted it means that YOU think you're dense, if you don't then it doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

uh..what are you trying to say? how is drafting a 1st, 2nd, 3rd an exact science. there is no guarantee that a 1st rounder is going to be a hall of famer, or a bust, or at least servicable.

^ this is you replying to something i never said. I only said draft a 1st rounder is safer than drafting a 6th rounder for obvious reasons, and you've had at least two posts which literally said it's an equal crap shoot, though now you've clarified to simply say it's merely possible for either to be a bust of HoF'er.

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

If you are a genious on NFL and GM crap, then apply for a job with the skins.

^ this is you replying to something i never said (unless you want to show me where i said my opinions are better than anyone else's, which you have yet to do), and you've made this comment at least 3 times now.

I'm sorry if it seemed overly harsh, maybe it was, but i assure you if i'd say it here, i'd say it to your face.

as far as aging veterans, C grif, s springs have been okay. the guys you mentioned like bruce, etc were thought by most to be over the hill when they were signed. we (as fans) really need to get past the 200 offseason - it's about time.