Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Redskins unlikely to make a pick in the supplemental draft

A year ago, the Redskins were the only team that made a move in the supplemental draft, making Jeremy Jarmon a third-round selection. This year's supplemental draft is slated for today and it'd be surprising if you heard a peep out of Redskins Park.

The most likely player to hear his name called today is running back Harvey Unga, who withdrew from BYU after violating the school's honor code. In just three seasons, Unga managed to become the school's all-time leading rusher and last year earned first team All-MWC honors.

Unga last week had a workout for 20 NFL teams. It is not believed that the Redskins were one of them. Six other teams reportedly requested video of Unga.

Here's a pretty thorough breakdown of Unga's strengths and weaknesses. Most expect him to go in the fourth- to sixth-round.

Even if the Redskins liked him and felt they needed an unproven power back, it'd be a risky proposition. Right now, the Redskins hold only six picks in the 2011 NFL Draft, though that number could change because some of their offseason trades involved conditional picks.

By Rick Maese  |  July 15, 2010; 9:53 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: LaRon Landry has toe surgery
Next: Clinton Portis, in shape and motivated, will enter camp determined

Comments

We can't afford to spend more than our 7th pick.

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

brown

"...you say we haven't groomed any offensive playmakers and then promptly write off the one that we have as "lucky".

Finding a diamond in the rough one time is the definition of luck.

Finding gems every other draft that turn into solid stones is skill.

The redskins' talent people were lucky with Cooley.

But name any offensive player drafted over the past ten years outside of him that's a keeper?

Our offense is made up of playmakers who used to be stars some where else.

Hopefully, Shanallen will reverse this trend and we start growin' our own.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

We can't afford to spend more than our 7th pick.

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 9:56 AM

Why? If he's a back that they would've drafted in the sixth round, or fifth round next year I don't see what difference it makes.

Posted by: TWISI | July 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Moe,

what about Dockery?

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

redskinhead

"I don't think I want a team of big ego, I-before-team playmakers."


No one is endorsing that.

But the likes of J Cribbs, D Sproles, Pierre Garcon, Marques Colston, Frank Gore, Jerrico Cotchery, Stephan Jackson, Devery Henderson, Jamaal Charles, Mike Wallace, Brad Smith, Owen Daniels, Miles Austin, DeSean Jackson, et al, have all entered the league while we hope for playmakers.

It's a passing, offensive minded league, y'all.

We need some dudes who can score once the ball comes their way.

And we haven't been too good about drafting or finding these kind of guys--and dudes up front to block for them-- over the past ten years.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Thank you WaPO for finally making mention of the supplemental draft. You'd think it had something to do with the NFL or something...

On another note, I think Unga might be a running back in the NFL but he doesn't fit with Shanahan's history of backs. Unga is a chugger and Shanny seems a little more enthused with lighter, faster backs.

On yet another note, Moe. I tried to find some data to argue against your summary of the offensive players drafted and I really can't. You hit the nail on the head with that one. With the exception of Cooley, the Redskins have sucked big time with drafting offensive players. Let's hope the triplets rise up this season to prove us wrong, but I am thinking that in hindsight we will say Vinny only got that 66% correct. I'd also like to see Rinehart succeed, but I am thinking he's done. The writing on the wall for Rhino is Shanny has been bringing in competition at the position, which suggests he wasn't ahppy with what he had. You bring in a career backup like Hicks and automatically annoint him a starter, then you draft three guys, trade for a guy, and you get the idea that Shanny doesn't think much of most of the guys he has on the o-line.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | July 15, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Moe, I could see that Cooley argument if he was a 5th or 6th round pick. If you're doing well for yourself, a 3rd rounder should be a solid starter for you and Cooley (at worst) is that. He's probably better than they thought he would be, but I still can't call that "lucky".

Tom Brady in Round 6 is lucky. Cooley in the 3rd (considering that's where most TE/H-back types are taken) isn't.

And let me get this straight...you're saying the '08 draft is bust because they didn't shore up the line? In that case EVERY draft of the last 10 years is bust because they haven't done that since Chris Samuels was taken top 3. A draft shouldn't be graded on need, it should be graded on how good the players you took are for your team. I mean, the one guy everyone is saying ISN'T a bust is Fred Davis, and that's the guy we needed the absolute least.

However, I will agree 100% that we should be growing our own...which is why I'm desperate for DT to develop into a solid WR. But if you look around the league you do sometimes have to poach skill position players from wherever you can get 'em. Drew Brees wasn't drafted by the Saints. Nor was Randy Moss by the Pats. Doesn't make 'em any less important and hasn't made their respective teams win any less...

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Nicely put MistaMoe. I do miss me some Bobby Bethard...but hope that we can bring that kind of talent finding back to the Burgundy and Gold.

Posted by: shanahananigans | July 15, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Why? If he's a back that they would've drafted in the sixth round, or fifth round next year I don't see what difference it makes.

Posted by: TWISI | July 15, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Simple,

Most of our picks are tied up in hypothetical, we have them tied into performance based things with our QB and OT. From what I can decipher the only picks we KNOW we will have next year are our 1st 6th and 7th. Maybe 3rd (can't remember off hand).

I don't think you are allowed to get a guy in the Sup draft with a pick thats possibly been involved in a trade.

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 10:26 AM

Ok. I didn't recall the 5th rounder being tied up in a conditional draft tiggamagiggy. But they could use a 6th rounder if they think he's worth it.

Posted by: TWISI | July 15, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I still believe that DT and MK can play, at a pretty high level.

It was all Zorn's fault. They practically got no playing time in 2008, were used sparingly in 2009.

Zorn kept starting Randle El because he had some psychological issue with young players.

Just look at the punt return game last year.

What possible reason did he have to keep putting ARE back there?

2010 is when these guys break out.

BOOK IT!

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Ok. I didn't recall the 5th rounder being tied up in a conditional draft tiggamagiggy. But they could use a 6th rounder if they think he's worth it.

Posted by: TWISI | July 15, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

From what I remember, and its never been clearly explained, our 3-4-5 are all conditionally tied in to those moves.

Posted by: alex35332 | July 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Right now, the Redskins hold only six picks in the 2011 NFL Draft, though that number could change because some of their offseason trades involved conditional picks"

If memory serves, there are only 7 rounds to the draft, I'd say 6 picks is pretty good from a Redskin's historical perspective. I get that some may be 'hypothetical' based on performance. But most of those are like 4th or 6th based on performance - meaning we get the pick, just not sure where/what year. Regardless, to say we "only" have 6 picks is a bit disingenuous. It would be good to know for sure what definite picks we have for the next draft.

Posted by: amaranthpa | July 15, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

brown

"...you're saying the '08 draft is bust because they didn't shore up the line?"


No.

My point is that a team with a moribound, low-scoring offense put all its eggs in the '08 draft basket and all its hopes have come up scrambled.

Zorn got hired with the idea that his WCO-based offense would put points on the board.

Scouts said, going into that draft, the skins needed depth in the line and players on the edges.

Two years later, 3 of the four guys taken in rounds 2-4 of that draft on the side of the ball where you identify a problem haven't satisfied.

That's what makes it a bust.

You take out Fred Davis, and all you have are questions.

It's two years later, and we don't know what we have.

That's what makes it a bust.

Redskin fans say baseball is slow, but will wait two years for receivers to develop.

Hopefully, this year, we get some offense.

'Cuz Indy, Houston, Dallas(twice), Minn, Giants (twice), Detriot, and Tenn will all have it.

And we don't know if we will.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Less than two weeks to camp. Can't wait to see a svelt HAYNESWORTH. Now that teammates and other players have been openly riding his ass about "the money," maybe he turns to, and kicks some on the d-line this season. He appears to be the type who enjoys negative controversy, chews and swallows it, then regurgitates pure rage on those who espoused it. We'll see says the Zen-Master.

Posted by: glawrence007 | July 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Moe, I get what you're saying but it's still waaay too early to speak in such absolutes before Year 3 is even played. If we're having this discussion in 2011, I'll be more willing to entertain that notion. In 2010, it's pointless.

I mean, if the Chargers played by those rules, Vincent Jackson would've never got first (or 2nd) 1,000 yard season. Just because there are questions heading into Year 3 doesn't mean they won't be answered in the affirmative...

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

'Cuz Indy, Houston, Dallas(twice), Minn, Giants (twice), Detriot, and Tenn will all have it.

And we don't know if we will.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

You know what else Indy, Houston, Dallas(twice), Minn, Giants (twice), Detriot, and Tenn all have?

Professional offenses with legit QBs. Now we do, too.

We will see what our offensive players can an can't do and this year, there are no excuses.

Posted by: Original_etrod | July 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"Regardless, to say we "only" have 6 picks is a bit disingenuous."

It is?

7 is the average number of draft picks at this point of the year.

Once compensatory picks are distributed, 7 is below average.

And right now we have 6. Needless to say, this is yet again below the NFL average of picks. What you described is like praising a child for getting a D+ when his historical average is a D-.

Not sure I agree with that.

But it will all be well and good if Shanahan and co. live up to the hype this season.

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Professional offenses with legit QBs. Now we do, too.
Posted by: Original_etrod | July 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Your damn right!

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"And right now we have 6. Needless to say, this is yet again below the NFL average of picks. What you described is like praising a child for getting a D+ when his historical average is a D-."

No...it is below what you would have were you to close your mind to any other way of acquiring players other than the draft. If your basic philosophy has been acquiring players via FA, 6 is a great number.

The problem has not been too many FAs and/or too few draft picks, the problem has been failure to get players that produce period. I am not sure what was worse, Vinnie's draft record or his FA record. To say that we would have been better off if we had 'built through the draft' glosses over the fundemental problem, which is that the organization has had issues, to say the least, with identifying talent.

Posted by: amaranthpa | July 15, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"And right now we have 6. Needless to say, this is yet again below the NFL average of picks. What you described is like praising a child for getting a D+ when his historical average is a D-."

No...it is below what you would have were you to close your mind to any other way of acquiring players other than the draft. If your basic philosophy has been acquiring players via FA, 6 is a great number.

The problem has not been too many FAs and/or too few draft picks, the problem has been failure to get players that produce period. I am not sure what was worse, Vinnie's draft record or his FA record. To say that we would have been better off if we had 'built through the draft' glosses over the fundemental problem, which is that the organization has had issues, to say the least, with identifying talent.

Posted by: amaranthpa | July 15, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It's a passing, offensive minded league, y'all.

Posted by: MistaMoe |

Not in the NFC East, it ain't.

Posted by: TheCork | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

O_E

"We will see what our offensive players can and can't do and this year, there are no excuses."


And that's the source of all our optimism.

Rememba: even without McNabb, a re-vamped line and re-dedicated CP improves our offense.

D-Mac gets to lean on that running game while Kyle Shanahan figures out what the passing game can and can not do.

If D-Mac has JC type numbers from last year (3,600 yards) with 1,600 rushing yards (from two backs) as support, that might be enough to make us all smile come Sunday nights.

Too, we gotta hope our new D keeps the more prolific passing teams within a range where 24-21 or 28-21 type victories are doable on our part.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Professional offenses with legit QBs. Now we do, too.
Posted by: Original_etrod | July 15, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Your damn right!

Posted by: iH8dallas

Now if only that legit QB had someone to throw to, other than TEs.

Posted by: TheCork | July 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

theCork

"Not in the NFC East (it's a passing league), it ain't."

Yes it is.

The NFC East is no longer some Neantherthal, grind-it-out division some make it out to be.

Go check NFL.COM.

The iggles, jints, and 'boys are all Top 15 passing teams in a 32 team league.

The number 16 team?

The Washington Redskins.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: TheCork | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Dallas, Giants and Philly loves to pass...what are you talking about?

Posted by: merajc86 | July 15, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Moe, I could see that Cooley argument if he was a 5th or 6th round pick. If you're doing well for yourself, a 3rd rounder should be a solid starter for you and Cooley (at worst) is that. He's probably better than they thought he would be, but I still can't call that "lucky".

Tom Brady in Round 6 is lucky. Cooley in the 3rd (considering that's where most TE/H-back types are taken) isn't.

And let me get this straight...you're saying the '08 draft is bust because they didn't shore up the line? In that case EVERY draft of the last 10 years is bust because they haven't done that since Chris Samuels was taken top 3. A draft shouldn't be graded on need, it should be graded on how good the players you took are for your team. I mean, the one guy everyone is saying ISN'T a bust is Fred Davis, and that's the guy we needed the absolute least.

However, I will agree 100% that we should be growing our own...which is why I'm desperate for DT to develop into a solid WR. But if you look around the league you do sometimes have to poach skill position players from wherever you can get 'em. Drew Brees wasn't drafted by the Saints. Nor was Randy Moss by the Pats. Doesn't make 'em any less important and hasn't made their respective teams win any less...

Posted by: brownwood26

I think it is lucky in that they actually go it right. They drafted at the right place and he was the player they expected or hoped he would be. Seeing as how they missed on everything else I would say that pick was luck and not talent.

Adding a skill position here and there works for augmenting your homegrown core. Drew Brees is an anomaly not the norm. I can't think of another pro bowl caliber QB that was let walk at 25 or 26.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

But, they do have mauling types of OL that like to beat you up. Esp. the Giants. With Philly, they are getting younger and moving away from that. Dallas is just OLD. Hopefully we can take advantage of the shift in both Dallas and Philly (also, Giants has a few concerns...). We are the only team that upgraded our OL big time.

Posted by: merajc86 | July 15, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I think we've been conditioned by the media to believe that a small amount of picks = a bad draft. I mean, let's REALLY think about this here...if you only have 3 picks in a draft and you get an All-Pro and two solid starters, do you count that as a bad draft?

I wouldn't.

GMs will tell you the reason why it's considered so much better to have as many picks as possible is because you've got more chances to get it right. Even the best teams don't go 10 for 10...if they get only 4 starters out of those 10 picks, that's a good draft.

That's why I'm not in favor of chalking up the '08 draft as a failure...there's still 9 players on the roster from that draft and all of them have a chance at being contributors here (to varying degrees). Considering no less than 4 players from that draft already have starting experience, there's no way you can say that this draft is a bust.

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm hoping that our special teams and defense can give us some scores this year.

I'm excited about this Austin kid.

How nice would it be for an interception to be returned for a score.(I'm looking at you DeAngelo)

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Not in the NFC East, it ain't.

Posted by: TheCork | July 15, 2010 11:28 AM


Um, this ain't 1988, dude. Three of the four teams in this division run what would be considered passing offenses...or at least run their offense thru the QB.

There just aren't many smashmouth offenses left in the league, my man. And none of them are in the NFC East.

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I think we've been conditioned by the media to believe that a small amount of picks = a bad draft. I mean, let's REALLY think about this here...if you only have 3 picks in a draft and you get an All-Pro and two solid starters, do you count that as a bad draft?

I wouldn't.

GMs will tell you the reason why it's considered so much better to have as many picks as possible is because you've got more chances to get it right. Even the best teams don't go 10 for 10...if they get only 4 starters out of those 10 picks, that's a good draft.

That's why I'm not in favor of chalking up the '08 draft as a failure...there's still 9 players on the roster from that draft and all of them have a chance at being contributors here (to varying degrees). Considering no less than 4 players from that draft already have starting experience, there's no way you can say that this draft is a bust.

Posted by: brownwood26

It would be a great draft but you have to be Nostradamus to bat .1000 on the draft. It is also not good long term plan as you do need to backups and role players on your team

If DT and Rhino do not become legitimate productive starters this year, the draft is a failure in my mind. Thomas has to have about 70 catches and close to if not over 1000 yards. Rhino has to step up and beat out Hicks for the G spot and there be no questions that he is the man moving forward.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I've always thought of Shanahan's offense as run-oriented.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that our OL looked worse than it was, due to the high school offense we ran.

Not to mention, having that atrocious simpleton behind center didn't help.

Our OL will look dominant, compared to what we saw last year.

Having a QB that doesn't wait for the next full moon to throw the ball will help too.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Drew Brees is an anomaly not the norm. I can't think of another pro bowl caliber QB that was let walk at 25 or 26.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 11:40 AM


Good point...especially since Brees was about 30 when he left SD.

Look, even the worst GMs get good players. Vinny drafted Chris Samuels and Chris Cooley and brought in London Fletcher. Just because he's got 3 or 4 monumental screw ups for every one of those good transactions doesn't mean he shouldn't get his due for what he did right. As bad as the Bengals have been in recent years, they got it right with Carson Palmer and Ochocinco. The Cardinals sucked for the vast majority of their existence...yet they nailed it when they got Boldin in Round 2 of the '03 draft and got Fitzgerald high in the next year's draft. Then they got it right again when they got Kurt Warner. At the end of the day, they developed those guys and used them properly.

So it's not about luck...it's about getting it right more often than not.

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Thomas has to have about 70 catches and close to if not over 1000 yards"

So if he doubles his production from last year, has over 50 grabs, and over 800 yards, 5td's, thats disappointing??

yikes..

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | July 15, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"No...it is below what you would have were you to close your mind to any other way of acquiring players other than the draft. If your basic philosophy has been acquiring players via FA, 6 is a great number."

First of all, I never said anything regarding "building through the draft," or referred to this in any way.

Second of all, if your basic philosophy has been acquiring players via FA, 6 is still below average (not a great number in any sense), since acquiring players via FA has zero effect on your ability to retain draft picks.

"To say that we would have been better off if we had 'built through the draft' glosses over the fundemental problem, which is that the organization has had issues, to say the least, with identifying talent."

The fundamental problem has not been identifying talent (in fact, identifying talent has been a relative strength since Gibbs 2.0 took over), it's been the lack of an underlying, long-term plan for the organization as a whole. If one year you're preparing for a power-run-oriented, playaction-based offense and the next you're preparing for a pass-oriented, short-drop timing offense, you will never achieve a cohesive roster of players that fit your system. The same goes for the transition from blitz-oriented 4-3 to conservative, gap-oriented 4-3 to blitz-oriented 3-4 defenses.

The other less-fundamental problem with having a lack of draft selections is the dearth of cheap talent that allows you to acquire adequate depth without having the constraints of the salary cap that's been typical to this franchise in recent years (thankfully this isn't a constraint this season). Rather than relying on the Ed Williams', Stephon Heyer's, and D'Anthony Batiste's of the world, utilizing an adequate number of draft picks allows real NFL-caliber talent to fill out your depth chart.

Check out the number of draft picks used from the most successful teams of the last decade. See where the Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers, and Eagles fall in comparison to the Redskins, regardless of how much they may or may not rely on FA as well.

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

We ALL agree tht Vinny was a debacle, especially on the offensive side of the ball, in both the draft AND free agency. I don't think there is a single Vinny supporter on this blog. The hole he left the Skins in is deep, especially on the O-line.

That being said, a hole that deep can't be climbed out of in one year. Allen has done a good job putting together an O-line that should at least be respectable. He has kept around our question mark players to see if they can be salvaged, while bringing in seasoned vets at those positions just in case they are busts. At other positions where we had nobody, He has brought in still more cheap vets to patch things up until they can be addressed for real. But there is still a long way to go before things are completely fixed.

Will we be better this year? Almost certainly yes.
Will we be a playoff team? Only if everything goes according to best possible scenario.
Are we Superbowl contenders? Almost certainly not.

If the Skins can be a competitve, mid-level team this year, I will be happy. I don't think we can reasonably expect more than that.

Posted by: kaasmaster | July 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

If DT and Rhino do not become legitimate productive starters this year, the draft is a failure in my mind. Thomas has to have about 70 catches and close to if not over 1000 yards. Rhino has to step up and beat out Hicks for the G spot and there be no questions that he is the man moving forward.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 11:53 AM


I half agree...I think DT and Rhino can be effective starters and I'd say that Davis, Horton, and Moore would be nice backups/fringe starters. Anything beyond that is gravy, IMO. That's 5 useful players out of 10 selections...I'll take that and do so gladly.

However, your definition of what would be a good season for DT differs from mine...if he put up 70 catches for 1,000+ yards, I'd be thrilled. But I think a 50 catch season would be a decent season from him, considering he'd be no better than the 3rd option in the passing game (barring injury).

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Good point...especially since Brees was about 30 when he left SD.

He was 27 his first season for the Saints. He will be 31 this year.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"But I think a 50 catch season would be a decent season from him, considering he'd be no better than the 3rd option in the passing game (barring injury).

Posted by: brownwood26"

Are we now setting the bar for DT at Randle-El levels?

Yikes...

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't there any reports on this site about Justin Trylon? I was a little surprise to read this report that I ran across and thought I would share!(ESPN Insider)
It's hard to make much of an impact in the Washington secondary. Over the past few years, no team has dedicated more resources to the defensive backfield -- both draft picks and free agent cash -- than the Redskins. Yet, while DeAngelo Hall allows countless completions and LaRon Landry overruns play after play, the team unearthed a bona fide starting corner in the fourth round of the 2008 draft. Tryon only started two games during his second year in the league, but he played like he belonged in the Millionaires' Club. According to the Football Outsiders game charting project, Tryon allowed 5.8 adjusted yards per attempt, nearly a half-yard better than any other Redskins corner. Despite spending time in the slot, Tryon didn't allow receivers to get open deep; passes at him were only thrown an average of 7.8 yards away from the line of scrimmage, the lowest figure -- by far -- among Redskins corners. He took Fred Smoot's job away during the year, and while he has to beat out Phillip Buchanon for the nickel job in camp (spoiler: he will), he may have Carlos Rogers' starting job in his back pocket by the end of the season.

Posted by: Spanglerg | July 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

psp, how many grabs did DT have this past year, 25?? jumping to 50...thats disappointing?

considering that the passing offense will probably run through the TE's, and then moss.....help me understand your logic....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | July 15, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The thing about building through the draft is that current NFL rules reward that behavior. Drafting and drafting well begets more picks, either via trade of players looking to upgrade a rookie contract or via compensatory selections for having a net negative flow of free agents.

This increases your talent pool and the chances of having a better team.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Thomas has to have about 70 catches and close to if not over 1000 yards"

So if he doubles his production from last year, has over 50 grabs, and over 800 yards, 5td's, thats disappointing??

yikes..

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

It would be disappointing. 50 catches would not have ranked in the top 65 last year. Yardage and TDs are decent. Last year Jabar Gaffney had 54 and 732 yards. Would you call Jabar Gaffney a success? Hakeem Nicks had 47/790/6 as a rookie. I expect a third year guy to out perfom those guys.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

If the Skins can be a competitve, mid-level team this year, I will be happy. I don't think we can reasonably expect more than that.

Posted by: kaasmaster | July 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse
--------------------------

I would expect an early bump because people don't have tape on us yet. Heck, even Zorn went 6-2 before Dick Lebeau handed the league Zorn's playbook.

Then, down the stretch, expect a team with new leaders in place to fade and injuries to erode the initial euphoria. On paper, this team has playoff leadership and coaching, but with depth issues and first year jitters, I think we'd be lucky to get 9 wins.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

1117, agree to disagree...if he ends up with 50 grabs, and is a viable part of what hopefully will be a very successful offense, thats not good enough...check..

Hakeem Nicks had Tom Coughlin as a coach.

Who did DT have as a coach again?

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | July 15, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I would expect an early bump because people don't have tape on us yet. Heck, even Zorn went 6-2 before Dick Lebeau handed the league Zorn's playbook.

Then, down the stretch, expect a team with new leaders in place to fade and injuries to erode the initial euphoria. On paper, this team has playoff leadership and coaching, but with depth issues and first year jitters, I think we'd be lucky to get 9 wins.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

But, unlike Zorn, Shanahan can adjust his offense at the midpoint of the season.

Instead of running CP to the left twice for 1 or 2 yards, a 5 yd completion and a punt, we will be throwing something different at everybody.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

1117, agree to disagree...if he ends up with 50 grabs, and is a viable part of what hopefully will be a very successful offense, thats not good enough...check..

Hakeem Nicks had Tom Coughlin as a coach.

Who did DT have as a coach again?

Posted by: BeantownGreg1

We are talking about this year right? DT will have Mike Shanahan as a coach. Nicks was a rookie last year and the #3 WR on the team. Giants also have a good running game and an excellent receiving TE.

So I do think it will be disappointing if he only matches Nick's numbers from last year.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Offensive line looks better ... not as decrepit ... however age continues to be an issue with this team starting at QB. Relying on the skills of aging veterans only got George Allen to one superbowl, which he lost by starting Billy Kilmer and running an ultra conservative offense.

This team looks too much like the noveau over-the-hill gang Danny put together in 1999 for Norv Turner. And I've always really liked Donovan McNabb the SYR alum.

I'm not sure this is the right direction. In today's game you build through the draft, this team appears to have gone in a different direction ... at least for this year.

Posted by: periculum | July 15, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Are we now setting the bar for DT at Randle-El levels?

Yikes...

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 12:15 PM


No...just at realistic levels for a guy learning a new offense, playing for a new coach, and catching passes from a new QB. If he jumps to 70 catches I'll be thrilled...just not saying he's a failure if he doesn't.

Posted by: brownwood26 | July 15, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

On paper, this team has playoff leadership and coaching, but with depth issues and first year jitters, I think we'd be lucky to get 9 wins.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

agreed that nine wins will involve luck, but also some hard work and football savvy from coaching staff, players, etc.

realistically, a competitive team w/ nine wins would be great.

non sequitur from earlier threads: it isn't "win-now" versus "rebuild".... what we're looking for this year is "win more"!

shuffling of pieces in a transition season isn't necessarily a good predictor of what the team will look like after two or three years of steady and competent management.

not sure, but hoping the latter happens... patience.

although maybe the geniuses at Ashburn could crack the SSFFF.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | July 15, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BeantownGreg

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse


Success is relative right? Frankly, if DT11 can open the season ahead of Galloway, Wade and Furrey on the depth chart, then I'd say that is a "success".

Considering it took him about a year and half to learn Zorn's Baby Einstein playbook, it would be pretty successful if he learned this much much more complicated playbook right off the bat, eh?

Here's hoping we don't have to wait another year and half for DT's next 100 yard game.

Posted by: p1funk | July 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"The Redskins have replaced 3-4 starters with McNabb, Williams and whoever starts at Guard and wins the RB compition. I hope it works, but I am a pessimist and doubt it will."

"Works" is a relative term. Are we going to go from where we were last year to being as good as the Colts or the Saints on offense? No. Can we go from being one of the worse offenses in the league (22nd overall, 26th in scoring) to a middle-of-the-pack or even a top 10 offense, one that can actually score touchdowns in the red zone rather than constantly attempt FGs? Yes. We're upgrading at the most important position, QB, and replacing almost half of last year's offensive starters (5), including 3 on the o-line. And we're getting coaches who have very successfully led offenses with other NFL teams.

Posted by: rufus_t_firefly | July 15, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Good point...especially since Brees was about 30 when he left SD." - Brownwood26

He was 27 his first season for the Saints. He will be 31 this year.

Posted by: srobert1117

Uh, I'm no mathematician, but what's three measly years? 27 is "about" 30, IMO but that's just me... Sorry one of my pet peeves. Like when someone tells me it's 5:32... wtf, just tell me it's 5:30.


Carry on.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Considering it took him about a year and half to learn Zorn's Baby Einstein playbook...

Posted by: p1funk | July 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse
--------------------------

So Zorn's playbook is suddenly the gold standard for measuring player development? Really?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I would expect an early bump because people don't have tape on us yet. Heck, even Zorn went 6-2 before Dick Lebeau handed the league Zorn's playbook.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 12:40 PM

Unlike with Zorn, The Shanahans at least have a past history for other teams to study. I don't think the early season mystery bump will be all that large.

Posted by: kaasmaster | July 15, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

red, its 1:15...where is that coffe you owe me....

the departed was on last night...no matter how many times its on, still a GREAT movie....

"dis ain't reality TV"....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | July 15, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

lol, Matt & iH8!

I just got a picture of Zoron as Fonzie in Waterboy when confronted by Jerry Reid! hahahahahah!

Breakdown!

Posted by: DikShuttle | July 15, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"psp, how many grabs did DT have this past year, 25?? jumping to 50...thats disappointing?"

Yes. Just because he started his career playing like a sixth round pick doesn't mean I'll consider him a success for reaching a standard set by another disappointing #2 WR.

If DT hits around 60 receptions for 800-900 yards, I'll consider him an OK draft pick.

Otherwise, he's just another forgettable receiver that can be easily replaced, just like his predecessor ARE.

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

mistamayor

"Redskins unlikely to make a pick in the supplemental draft"

A year ago, the Redskins were the only team that made a move in the supplemental draft, making Jeremy Jarmon a third-round selection.

And so, how does that selection seem now?

It sure would've been nice to have had that 3rd rounder this past draft.

You wonder now if Jarmon will even get on the field considering the new scheme and players brought in to implement it.

And whereas we know Vinny could not have foreseen his leaving the team's management (or anything thing else that made sense), you have to ask, in hindsight, of course, if the Jarmon selection made sense?

a.) yes

b.) no


Moe says even if Zorn/Blache had remained in charge, the Jarmon pick made no sense as the kid not getting to play last Fall means he probably could've been had in the '10 draft in a much lower round.

And after drafting B Orakpo, and already having P Daniles, R Jackson and C Wilson, did the team even need another d-end?

I say no.

Let's not burn any picks this summer, please.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Uh, I'm no mathematician, but what's three measly years? 27 is "about" 30, IMO but that's just me... Sorry one of my pet peeves. Like when someone tells me it's 5:32... wtf, just tell me it's 5:30.


Carry on.

Posted by: RedDMV

3 years is a huge deal when you are talking about football players. Not a big deal when you are talking about everyday people you see on the street. Getting a star QB at 27 vs getting them at 30 gives you 3 more years in the players prime.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

By Rich Tandler
Redskins Blogger
CSNwashington.com

After Shanahan came on board as the Redskins coach and surveyed the 2009 season stats put out by the team, he no doubt saw a target-rich environment when it came to areas for improvement. Only three teams allowed more than the 46 sacks that they gave up last year. Washington was 22nd in yards gained and 26th in points scored. They gave up 1,799 rushing yards, 16th in the league, and they were in the bottom-half of the league in points allowed, ranking 18th.

Shanahan has not said what specific areas he is targeting for improvement this year, but it’s a pretty good bet that he is looking to increase the number of takeaways and, as he did in Denver, improve the performance of the rushing game.

The Redskins mustered a mere 17 takeaways last year, dead last in the NFL. And this is not a one-year issue. The three previous years their NFL ranks in turnovers were 28th, 25th, and 32nd, respectively. During the entire two-year Jim Zorn era, they failed to score a touchdown off either an interception or fumble return.

The switch to the 3-4 defense is all about generating more turnovers. At least on linebacker blitzes on every play, and the offense does not know where the pressures is coming from. This forces the opposing quarterback to throw the ball up for grabs, giving the secondary opportunities to make interceptions.

That’s how it works on paper, anyway. We will see how well the defense makes the adjustment to the new scheme on the field.

The problems in the running game are a relatively recent issue. In 2008 the Redskins were a respectable eighth in the league in rushing with 2,095 yards. Last year, however, the line fell apart, the team went through four starting running backs and the rushing game output fell to 1,510 yards, 27th in the league. Washington averaged just 3.9 yards per rushing attempt.

Shanahan’s game plan for fixing the running game is obvious. He cut every running back with a carry in 2009 with the exception of Clinton Portis. The offensive line has been revamped with the addition of three new starters in Trent Williams at left tackle, Artis Hicks at right guard, and Jammal Brown at right tackle. Most importantly, Shanahan will bring in his zone-blocking scheme, the system that worked so well for him in Denver.

Improvement in one area often leads to a better performance in others. If the Redskins can improve their rushing performance, they should allow fewer sacks since they will be facing fewer long-yardage situations. Almost by definition, takeaways lead to fewer points scored.

It all looks good but you never know what is going to happen on the field. Redskins fans should be comforted by the fact that Mike Shanahan has done it before.

Posted by: abxinc | July 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Considering it took him about a year and half to learn Zorn's Baby Einstein playbook...

Posted by: p1funk | July 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse
--------------------------

So Zorn's playbook is suddenly the gold standard for measuring player development? Really?

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse


The gold standard??

By many accounts, Zorn's schemes in the passing game were about as basic, simple and vanilla as they come. It's one of the things he was much criticized for - no creativity, no wrinkles, everyone knew what was coming, easy to defend.

Apparently Zorn's plan was to put the very very basic stuff in first, and then add layers as they went on - but the whole "adding layers" part never worked, because the initial stuff was getting blown up and was unsuccessful because it was so simple and easy to defend.

During this, the issue with Devin Thomas is that he did not understand the basic schemes - where to line up, where to run to, etc. etc. The coaches said this, Campbell said this, his FATHER said this, we all saw it early on which was why Malcolm Kelly and Randle El were ahead of him on the depth chart for a while.

So, if Devin Thomas took so long to grasp the basic fundamentals of Zorn's Mickey Mouse Club House plays, there is going to be an even steeper learning curve with Shanny's schemes - where all the receivers are expected to learn ALL the routes so that they can line up interchangeably.

DT, unfortunately, is dumb as a rock. Great athlete. But stupid as they come.

So, while other folks out there are talking about 50-70 catches and 700 yards, I'd be delighted just to see him in the starting line up in Game 1, because that would tell me that he's made great strides impressing the coaches and learning/preparing for the season.

Posted by: p1funk | July 15, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Moe says even if Zorn/Blache had remained in charge, the Jarmon pick made no sense as the kid not getting to play last Fall means he probably could've been had in the '10 draft in a much lower round.

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------------

He wouldn't have been there in the '10 draft if other teams were serious about moving on him in the 4th round of the supplemental draft.

I'm willing to let the Jarmon pick ride because he had a knee injury that first year and he might very well turn out to be a solid value for a 3rd rounder.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure this is the right direction. In today's game you build through the draft, this team appears to have gone in a different direction ... at least for this year.

Posted by: periculum | July 15, 2010 12:59 PM

I would say that Allen did a good job of building through the draft with the few picks he had available to him.

For once we used our #1 pick at our position of greatest need, picking T. Williams. Plus he drafted two more O-line players in Cook and Capers.

Perry Riley as a potential future replacement for an aging Fletcher. Dennis Morris as a potential replacement for an aging Sellers.

Terrence Austin as a potential replacement at KR/PR for the departed Cartright and Randle-El.

That's all the draft picks we had. Every one addressed a current or near future need. What more can you ask?

Posted by: kaasmaster | July 15, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

psps23

"If DT hits around 60 receptions for 800-900 yards, I'll consider him an OK draft pick."

40 to 55 catches makes sense to me as another receiver taken in the same draft as him, D Jackson, posted in '09:

62 catches

1,100 yards

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Is this a discussion about the upcoming season? A lot would have to fall right for the Redskins to be competitive. Also count me as someone very unimpressed with high 2008 picks like Rhino and Devin Thomas. But my take away from this essential truth isn't bashing Vinny or criticizing Zorn -- that's water under the bridge. Anyway blaming those two + Campbell merely enables pathetic fantasies about how improved this team will be. Redskins don't have enough good players in their prime.

The draft is a crap shoot but vital to lock in depth and youth -- and that is why it is always wise to try to stockpile picks and draft for need. Redskins aren't doing that and I maintain they will at best be Gibbs II-like until they get religion.

Posted by: Pepper5 | July 15, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

It would be disappointing. 50 catches would not have ranked in the top 65 last year. Yardage and TDs are decent. Last year Jabar Gaffney had 54 and 732 yards. Would you call Jabar Gaffney a success? Hakeem Nicks had 47/790/6 as a rookie. I expect a third year guy to out perfom those guys.

Posted by: srobert1117 | July 15, 2010 12:30 PM |

How many receptions did VJackson have? To get a good idea of how many ball I'd think you'd want to consider who the primary receiver is, and the style of offense (run or pass oriented). From all indications, the Skins will be a run first team. Last year Schaub attempted about 37 passes/game. That was on a team that was more pass oriented. If you look at the potential top 5 receiving options on the skins we would rank it Cooley, Moss, Davis, Thomas, Kelly. Thomas will be no more than the third option. If McNabb attempted say 35 passes per game how mannt looks will DT get.. 4 or 5/game. Let's say 5 grabs at 2/3 success rate would give you about 54 receptions. IMO 50-60 catches is a realistic goal. Anything beyond that would be great because it would mean that DT would be one of the top two receiving options on this team.

Posted by: TWISI | July 15, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

mattsoundworld

"I'm willing to let the Jarmon pick ride because he had a knee injury that first year and he might very well turn out to be a solid value for a 3rd rounder."



But he's a 3rd rounder who's just a guy in the RDE rotation with Carriker, AH, and P Daniels.

He's a 3rd rounder who'll have to have special teams value.

Who sees that as a good thing when that 3rd round pick in April could've been anything from another o-lineman or linebacker?

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

3 years is a huge deal when you are talking about football players. Not a big deal when you are talking about everyday people you see on the street. Getting a star QB at 27 vs getting them at 30 gives you 3 more years in the players prime.

Posted by: srobert1117

I hear that, but these are QBs were talking about, not RBs. They are the ones that seem to fall off, and fall off hard when they hit 30. Only time 30 spells doom for QBs are when they're the athletic type and they aren't too many of those.

Damn, looks like the scrambling QB died with Vick's career.


Beans, when I tell ya to fetch me a cup of coffee by da maharsh, you fetch my cup of coffee BY da maharsh....!!!!


Listening to various morning shows on the way in this morning... I have one question: What the hell is wrong with Mel Gibson? Scolding his ex-wiz because he couldn't get top piece in the jacuzzi???

LMAO, ol' Willie Wallace has officially went ape AND bat sh*t.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

If Jarmon becomes a quality future replacement for Andre Carter it will have been worth it.

Posted by: kaasmaster | July 15, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Even if DT develops which I hope he does too, we still get another wr next year.
Shanny has been lookin at every upgrade on the block.
Don't forget this is Moss last year with us...
Wr is a big area of need for us

We got alllottttt of postions that need youth...... EVERY ONE

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | July 15, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

What the hell is wrong with Mel Gibson? Scolding his ex-wiz because he couldn't get top piece in the jacuzzi???

LMAO, ol' Willie Wallace has officially went ape AND bat sh*t.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

When you want some dome, you want some dome.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I'll amend my statement.

DT's (and MK's) success will be relative to the success of the offense.

If we have a screaming offense that is lighting up scoreboards and box scores, then 90-100 receptions combined will make them successful (think Devery Henderson and Robert Meachem for NO).

If, however, we have an offense remotely close to what we had last season, then 40-50 receptions from either will be nothing more than the same old thing we've seen from ARE and Rod Gardner before.

Posted by: psps23 | July 15, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

LMAO, ol' Willie Wallace has officially went ape AND bat sh*t.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

When you want some dome, you want some dome.

Posted by: iH8dallas


Good domeage is the ish, but yelling at her while giving props to himself for not waking her up to get his duck quacked, well that's a little, um... uh... NUTS.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I just want us to be able to score 28-35 points if need be.

I don't care if they put Maake at WR, as long as the job is getting done.

Plus McNabb seems to spread the ball around pretty evenly, so I don't see us having an 80-100 catch guy on the team.

But we will all be buying Fred Davis jerseys this year....watch.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Good domeage is the ish, but yelling at her while giving props to himself for not waking her up to get his duck quacked, well that's a little, um... uh... NUTS.

Posted by: RedDMV | July 15, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of an old South Park episode, where Mel Gibson is running around in her underwear and squeezing his nipples.

He's begging the boys to torture him, because he can take it.

That was like 6 years ago, they were spot on with that assessment of this guy.

They also had Big Ben in an episode for sex-rehab, before the whole bathroom incident came out.

Posted by: iH8dallas | July 15, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

beeeeeeep-beeeeeeep

Posted by: MistaMoe | July 15, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Statement 1: "[Zorn] was much criticized for ... no creativity, no wrinkles, everyone knew what was coming, easy to defend."

Statement 2: "DT, unfortunately, is dumb as a rock. Great athlete. But stupid as they come."

Posted by: p1funk | July 15, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------

So if DT were smarter he would have been able to make Zorn's scheme work?

I really don't follow your logic that Zorn's D III playbook was betrayed by a dumb receiver. You are saying that DT is dumber than the coach who felt that sprinkling some 'work' sauce on his plays made a difference?

If you want to argue Zorn's playbook stank, fine. If you want to argue DT should be in the special Olympics, fine.

But saying that DT is stupid because it took him 1.5 years to have a half decent game in a broken system? That's just not thinkin with yer dipstick.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | July 15, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Moe u n me are on the same page...

It doesn't matter how you bring guys in but who you bring in.

The new regime is bringing in young talent.. not expired milk like we used to

Posted by: brandon_in_cali | July 15, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"If DT and Rhino do not become legitimate productive starters this year, the draft is a failure in my mind. Thomas has to have about 70 catches and close to if not over 1000 yards. Rhino has to step up and beat out Hicks for the G spot and there be no questions that he is the man moving forward. Posted by: srobert111"

LOL I suspect the draft is a failure in your mind already.

Posted by: Samson151 | July 15, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse


brownwood26

Wouldn't it be nice if we all thought alike. This board is for folks opinions. I see plenty of other folks criticize $nyder and casting their doubts about the upcoming season, and not just myself. Due to the response from posters in regards to BOYCOTT $NYDER, I have cut back on my request, and I'm now concentrating on the upcoming season. I'll continue to post how I feel and I'm sure you will too.

Posted by: hessone | July 15, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Cut MAC KELLY and sign MARKO MITCHELL. Install COLT BRENNAN as the #1 Q-back and breeze to the Super Bowl.

Posted by: glawrence007 | July 15, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company