2010 Draft Thread

Post #21 » by **Rafael122** » Wed Apr 7, 2010 11:39 pm

We're not in a position to take best player available because we only have 4 picks. If we had 11, like the Eagles, fine, I don't care.

verbal8 · Post #22 » by **verbal8** » Thu Apr 8, 2010 7:03 pm

Rafael122 wrote:We're not in a position to take best player available because we only have 4 picks. If we had 11, like the Eagles, fine, I don't care.

The McNabb trade was the Redskins BPA "pick". Now the other picks have to be used on areas of need especially O-Line. I doubt that both Okung and Suh will be available at 4. Hopefully Okung is there since he fills a big need.

NbdyBeatsTheWiz · Post #23 » by **NbdyBeatsTheWiz** » Thu Apr 8, 2010 8:46 pm

I've heard we're debating whether we pick Trent Williams over Okung since his 40 time was significantly better and he'd fit better in Shanny's zone run blocking scheme. Not saying we take him over Okung necessarily, but even if Okung is off the board I bet we still go LT. Passing on Suh or Mccoy may hurt to watch if they blow up, but watching McNabb get blown up from his blindside would hurt in more ways than one.

Post #24 » by **LyricalRico** » Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:44 pm

Latest mock from RealGM:

http://www.realgmfootball.com/src_wiret ... ersion_90/

The most interesting part is he's got Bradford, Claussen, McCoy, and Tebow (in that order) all going in the first round. If that happens, I really hope the Skins are able to trade back into the second round because some real quality guys are going to be there.

daddyfivestar · Post #25 » by **daddyfivestar** » Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:16 pm

We're mocking on draft board and Skins are up- gone are Suh, Okung, GMccoy so far.

Who do you take? OT?

Post #26 » by **LyricalRico** » Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:39 pm

daddyfivestar wrote:We're mocking on draft board and Skins are up- gone are Suh, Okung, GMccoy so far.

Who do you take? OT?

Wow, tough call. Are you doing trades, or just straight picks? My first choice is to take Bradford and shop him to the highest bidder. But if you're not doing trades, I'd probably go with Trent Williams as a Plan B.

Post #27 » by **Rafael122** » Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:40 pm

Agreed.

Trade back, maybe with Seattle for their 6th and 14th. Take Trent Williams with the 6th pick, and then take Bulaga with the 14th pick if he's still there.

NbdyBeatsTheWiz · Post #28 » by **NbdyBeatsTheWiz** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:16 pm

Absolutely trade down. If that's not an option draft Trent Williams, but there's no way we'd do that, we'd take Sam Bradford in reality for sure.

verbal8 · Post #29 » by **verbal8** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:38 pm

I know the Redskins have a desperate need to upgrade the O-Line. However Eric Berry seems like a can't miss pick. The current 1st is a little high, so what about trading down. It also makes Landry tradeable which hopefully could net a pick or a lineman.

If Okung is there I think the Skins should just take him, but if their is not a lineman that justifies the pick, a modified BPA might be the best approach.

daddyfivestar · Post #30 » by **daddyfivestar** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:02 pm

2nd round coming... you

Nevermind. Forgot the Eggs have your 2nd.

NbdyBeatsTheWiz · Post #31 » by **NbdyBeatsTheWiz** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:05 pm

I've heard Trent Williams would be better than Okung in a zone blocking scheme more and more leading up to the draft, this is the first time I've heard somebody straight up say he's better than Okung and it's not even close...

Okung isn’t a franchise left tackle
Teams like Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung, but he’s not a nasty mauler with great upper body strength. And he’s not consistent. When teams describe him in relation to other offensive tackles, he always comes in a clear notch below the Cleveland Browns’ Joe Thomas(notes), and some think he won’t even be a left tackle in the NFL. Not exactly what you want to hear if you’re drafting in the top five and want a Pro Bowl anchor on the left side.

Said one personnel man, “Okung is the consummate pro and a good soul, but ultimately that guy would be nice around 15 through 19. When you’re talking about the single digits [with Okung], people are concerned about that.”

Williams is actually the most highly skilled tackle available
Like Okung, Trent Williams of Oklahoma is not overly nasty, either. But he is extremely athletic, and teams think he could sustain that even if he got into the 320-pound range. He’s got great balance, great feet, good arm length and has at times punished defenders with his hands. Essentially, he’s got a maximum amount of tools and ability to work with to become a true franchise left tackle.

Said an NFC source: “If you’re just looking at skill, and take away all the other stuff, he’s far beyond Okung. [Williams] has much more skill and athleticism. He’s definitely a left tackle and he could also play right.”

...then again it is Yahoo!

Post #32 » by **Rafael122** » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:00 pm

Okung can step in and start from Day 1. The problem is, he doesn't have a high ceiling, while Trent Williams does. Williams could also start day one as well. It's why Ive read some prefer Anthony Davis and Williams over Okung. All 3 can be productive right away, but Okung is the only one who seems to have maxed out on his potential.

pancakes3 · Post #33 » by **pancakes3** » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:16 am

i've read the same thing regarding williams and okung. as an armchair GM i want us to roll the dice on williams. locking up the next orlando pace/jonathon ogden would potentially add 2 wins/season to whatever okung would have brought us.

Post #34 » by **LyricalRico** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:22 am

All this disagreement over Okung vs Williams almost makes me want to trade down, get more assets, and draft Brian Bulaga.

Post #35 » by **Rafael122** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:29 am

Thing is Bulaga doesn't project as a left tackle. He projects as a right guard or tackle.

NbdyBeatsTheWiz · Post #36 » by **NbdyBeatsTheWiz** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:59 pm

Yeah his measurables are pretty bad, he's not exceptional in any area, and the fact he's graduating from Iowa makes me think of him as the next Robert Gallery. I'd rather argue about two guys who seem to be a sure thing.

Post #37 » by **LyricalRico** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:48 pm

Sources told FanHouse on Wednesday night that the Washington Redskins are still in discussions with the Rams and trying to make a deal for Bradford, who would then sit for a year in Washington behind Donovan McNabb and develop under new Redskins coach Mike Shanahan.

One of the sources said that Washington was the only team still in the mix to trade for Bradford, who has told the Rams he won't sign a contract until after he is drafted.

<snip>

What the Redskins would have to surrender in such a deal (in addition to their current pick, which is No. 4 overall) is unclear. Washington has some current players it has been trying to trade, such as DT Albert Haynesworth, safety LaRon Landry and deposed starting QB Jason Campbell. The Redskins could conceivably package one or more of those players along with their first-round pick in a deal for Bradford. Such a deal would only seem to make sense for the Rams if they're not sold on Bradford or don't want to give him the contract he's seeking (more than the $41.7 million guaranteed that last year's No. 1 pick, Matthew Stafford, got from the Lions).

But Shanahan apparently does love Bradford, and McNabb is signed for just one more season, so Washington will continue to try, possibly even after the Rams have selected Bradford and right up until it's their turn to pick at No. 4.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/04/22/sour ... -bradford/

Wow, that would make the McNabb deal look REALLY bad because there’s no way they extend him after taking Bradford. They might as well have just started Campbell for another year rather than giving up 2 picks to rent McNabb for one season.

A co-worker thinks this might be a way for them to get around a cool trade market for guys like Haynesworth, Campbell, and Landry. Maybe they can't get picks for them, but if they can package them with the #4 for the #1, maybe they can then flip the #1 to somebody else for a slew of picks. Pretty convoluted but I thought it was interesting.

NbdyBeatsTheWiz · Post #38 » by **NbdyBeatsTheWiz** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:01 pm

^ yeah if that worked or not on the field I'd still have to give them an A for effort. I just don't see it getting pulled off.

I've also read multiple reports we could draft Eric Berry. While I think he's pretty much the surest thing in the draft, it would make NO sense if we can't trade Landry, Fat Al, or JCam for picks to use on O-linemen. The anxiety just keeps building, can it be tonight already??

verbal8 · Post #39 » by **verbal8** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:27 pm

I hope the trading up for the no 1 pick is just a smokescreen by the Redskins. The Rams pretty much telegraphed their pick when they go rid of Bulger. It would not make much sense for them to trade down to 4th, because that is probably too high for Clausen.

verbal8 · Post #40 » by **verbal8** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:34 pm

Maybe the talk about the Redskins and Rams talking is part of a 3 way trade.

The Steelers could be the 3rd team. The 1st overall is too much for Big Ben, but maybe the skins pick and Big Ben goes to the Rams, the 1st goes to the Steelers, the Skins get the Steeler's pick and extra picks. The Rams could still pick Claussen with the Skins pick.