Stand pat with Okung or trade down for a lesser OT?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Most people have Okung as the #1 offensive lineman in this year's class, and are convinced that any team that takes him will lock down their LT spot for the next decade. He is also a polished prospect that seems ready to step in now, similar to how Chris Samuels adjusted quickly to the NFL. With the acquisition of Donovan McNabb, it seems clear that filling that LT spot will be the focus, as we suddenly look ready to compete NOW, and with a steady LT, the flux at the other OL positions will be easier to put into place.

But we are also lacking in draft picks. And there are some who think that Bulaga or Anthony Davis are better prospects, or at least have more upside.

So - let's say Oakland calls us, and offers to trade the draft rights to Anthony Davis (a LT prospect with possibly more pure upside than Okung, but possibly a lower floor), a 2nd round pick, and a late rounder (let's say 5th or 6th), with maybe a future 2nd in the offing?

Now, let's say the option isn't Okung or Davis, but, say, Okung at #4, and trading down with the Niners for their 13 and 17, taking Iupati at #13 (to convert to LT), and another lineman like Pouncey to solidify either a G or C spot? Still looks good?



Do you take that deal running away? Or do you just stand pat with the knowledge that you have your LT of the future and will deal with getting more picks another way?

[blue collar]

We need to draft the best possible lineman and from what most are saying, it's Okung.

[HOGnificent]

if Okung is there you have to take him, if not get a package and trade down

[Probos]

I suppose just stand pat and take Okung, but if the Skins can't get some extra picks before the draft in trades for Campbell, or others I'd wouldn't mind trading down and getting an extra pick.

[kevinklein]

I vote take Okung. With Samuels now gone we need a young stud to anchor the line.

[Warriorzpath]

I think the best options would be in this priority.
1. Get Okung (if he's as good as everyone has said)
2. Trade down to get multiple 1st rounders and get the next best OT and next best available offensive lineman to protect McNabb.
3. Stay put and take best available OT.

This way even if the OT isn't as good as hoped -- he still could be moved to RT and fill that need. And then try to get another OT next offseason.

If you were strictly looking at BPA and the impact they would have on the team, I would look to take Eric Berry (if he was good as advertised), which would be a very unpopular choice. My reason is just a personal opinion that great safeties have a great defensive impact on today's game. It's not on the same level that qbs impact the game, but it's because of it.

Great defenses usually have great safeties.One example is Polamalu. When he was out last year, Pittsburgh struggled to stay in contention. I know this is a big gamble, but huge rewards. Even if he isn't as great as hoped, it would fill a desperate need. I think there needs to be more of a ballhawk at free safety for the redskins. I consider this a need because of the number of times the redskins were burned for big gains and touchdowns last season. Getting Berry would at the very least help that.

[Chump Bailey]

Trade down. There's good value at OT and not too much of a steep drop-off in talent.

[USS Redskins]

Trading down - is there anyone even willing to do this for this draft? Past Bradford and Suh, I really dont see anyone else worth giving up multiple picks to acquire...
Now if Vinny suddenly became a GM somewhere, then maybe there is a deal to be made..

[Hooper]

There are lots of "experts" who think Trent Williams fits Shanny's blocking scheme better than Okung does.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

If you were strictly looking at BPA and the impact they would have on the team, I would look to take Eric Berry (if he was good as advertised), which would be a very unpopular choice. My reason is just a personal opinion that great safeties have a great defensive impact on today's game. It's not on the same level that qbs impact the game, but it's because of it.



We have the deepest safety rotation in the entire NFL, and you want to draft ANOTHER one because our Pro Bowl safety had a bad year? We have FOUR legit starting NFL safeties, 3 of them taken in the fifth round or later; we really need to trade one and pick up another developmental guy.

Landry is a good to excellent player - he just had a bad year and is prone to being undisciplined.

Just like this guy after his third year.
(http://blogs.sohh.com/sports/SeanTaylor1.jpg)


Trent Williams is a bust waiting to happen. Let me know when he produces at LT, as opposed to having a nice junior year at RT and then getting beaten by a drum at LT.

[ST is my boy]

If Detroit takes Okung, and we cant trade down.......I expect a disaster.

If the draft goes

Bradford
Okung
Suh/Mccoy

And there is no trade down partners.......who the crap are we going to take????

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'd just take Davis at that point. Davis has more (as in Ogden/Jones/Roaf) upside, but a higher floor and some attitude issues.

[MattFancy]

Trading down - is there anyone even willing to do this for this draft? Past Bradford and Suh, I really dont see anyone else worth giving up multiple picks to acquire...
Now if Vinny suddenly became a GM somewhere, then maybe there is a deal to be made..

That is always a problem. I'm sure Shanahan and Allen would love to trade down, but you have to find someone who is willing to move up and give you good value in return.

If Okung is there we should take him. We need someone to anchor this line for the next 10 years like Samuels did.

[fdarugar]

If Detroit takes Okung, and we cant trade down.......I expect a disaster.

I think we just suck it up at that point and take Buluga or Williams. I really hope we can trade down no matter who is there though, even Bradford/Okung.

[ST is my boy]

We will probably take Berry, and have Flozell/Heyer be our bookends for years........lol

[Master Blaster]

If the coaches believe Okung is the best LT, we need to take him at #4 unless someone is willing to give up a lot of value to move into that spot. Earlier I was a big fan of taking Suh or Berry, but with what we have done so far this off-season and Samuels retiring, we need to get OL.


Sign Flozell to play RT and draft Okung. Look for an athletic OL in the later rounds to groom for the future.

[Soup's Uncle]

^Disaster...

[Hooper]

If Detroit takes Okung, and we cant trade down.......I expect a disaster.

If the draft goes

Bradford
Okung
Suh/Mccoy

And there is no trade down partners.......who the crap are we going to take????

We will try to trade down if possible or take Trent Williams. Again, lots of folks think he's a better fit for the zone blocking scheme than Okung. In fact, guys like Mike Mayock think we might take him over Okung.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

There are lots of "experts" who think Trent Williams fits Shanny's blocking scheme better than Okung does.

+1

Okung would be great, but his contract at the #4 spot may not be worth it. We could trade down, and get someone who fits our system better for cheaper.

[Hail Gibbs]

I would be happy with taking Okung at 4 or trading down. I would prefer the trade back though IF the Skins could add a couple picks in rounds 2-4 and still have a shot at T. Williams. Not convinced that Okung is a lock to be the best OT.

[ST is my boy]

Is trading back going to be that easy though? I dont think it will be.....it takes two to tango, and some team will have to be willing to shell out a lot of dough for one player at the #4 pick.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

NO. NO. NO. MAKE IT STOP PLEASE

Trent Williams sucks. He's a pure workout warrior. We might as well take Bruce Campbell at #4.

But well, it's all about getting value for the pick. If you think that another OT can be as much of an anchor as Okung projects to be, and you can get him after a trade down, do it. However, I don't think there's an option as "safe" as simply taking Okung.

[Oldskool]

If Detroit takes Okung, and we cant trade down.......I expect a disaster.

If the draft goes

Bradford
Okung
Suh/Mccoy

And there is no trade down partners.......who the crap are we going to take????

That scenario is becoming less and less plausible every day.

Even if Okung goes to Detroit (which won't happen, the Lions beat writer already called the race), then there is going to be a trade partner for McCoy/Suh/Berry/Clausen etc... It's all going to come down to what compensation Allen will accept.

If I were the GM and Okung was gone at #4, id be trying to make a deal with Seattle for their 14th, 2nd and 3rd round picks for our #4 so they could get Berry or McCoy.

or

Swapping #4 to the Browns for #7 and a 3rd round pick so they could go after Berry or McCoy.

[Veretax]

"If he's there Mr. Gerald... if he's there." That's what I keep seeing that one seen from Wing Commander.

[terrifNick21]

NO. NO. NO. MAKE IT STOP PLEASE

Trent Williams sucks. He's a pure workout warrior. We might as well take Bruce Campbell at #4.

But well, it's all about getting value for the pick. If you think that another OT can be as much of an anchor as Okung projects to be, and you can get him after a trade down, do it. However, I don't think there's an option as "safe" as simply taking Okung.


Ummm. I'm a Sooners fan, and I don't know where you're getting this "Trent Williams sucks" from. He was a consensus All-American last year. And you have to take into account that the Sooners offensive line was in shambles the entire seasons, and you not having continuity along the line sometimes makes you not play as well. And as I said, despite the offensive line problems, Williams was an All-American.

[RunClintonRun26]

If Okung isn't there you certainly have to entertain any possible offers for the pick, and hope that any trading back will still net you one of the top 5/6 projected tackles of the draft (Okung, Bulaga, Davis, Williams, Campbell, or even Iupati if he moves outside) in addition to getting valuable extra picks.

If however Okung is there, I think you have to take him.

[That Redskins Fan]

Trade down and aquire more picks

as much as Okung may remind shanny of clady

he is not a Joe thomas, boseli, Ogden, Munoz or jake long franchsie tackle imo

[jthor99]

Aren't all of the draft guru's preaching this is a well rounded Tackle draft?

If this is the same opinion of many GM's around the league then why wouldn't Washington do all they can to trade back?

I've always felt the teams that draft well and two teams off the top of my head would be New England, and Baltimore. Both teams are flexible with their picks, and they also like to trade back (More so New England, Baltimore has shown aggressive by moving up several times).

But, I'm just looking at big picture here and I believe the Redskins need to try to re-coup as many draft picks BACK as possible. If this team can somehow get a 2nd round pick by trading back then it makes that Donovan McNabb trade, strictly from a value perspecitve, a great move.

Either way this draft class is deep at the OL position, which is exactly what the Redskins will in my opinion target with their selections.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Ummm. I'm a Sooners fan, and I don't know where you're getting this "Trent Williams sucks" from. He was a consensus All-American last year. And you have to take into account that the Sooners offensive line was in shambles the entire seasons, and you not having continuity along the line sometimes makes you not play as well. And as I said, despite the offensive line problems, Williams was an All-American.

The tape doesn't lie. He got beaten like a drum in several games last year, is a very soft run blocker, and has a very passive attitude. Maybe he'll fit in a ZBS - but there is no way I use a top 15 pick on him. He got AA based on name recognition and the fact he plays at Oklahoma.

[Oldskool]

Aren't all of the draft guru's preaching this is a well rounded Tackle draft?

Either way this draft class is deep at the OL position, which is exactly what the Redskins will in my opinion target with their selections.

In the general sense, this is a "deep" class for tackles. What it isn't is a deep class for left tackles and especially ZBS left tackles.

[mcgraw238]

That scenario is becoming less and less plausible every day.

Even if Okung goes to Detroit (which won't happen, the Lions beat writer already called the race), then there is going to be a trade partner for McCoy/Suh/Berry/Clausen etc... It's all going to come down to what compensation Allen will accept.

If I were the GM and Okung was gone at #4, id be trying to make a deal with Seattle for their 14th, 2nd and 3rd round picks for our #4 so they could get Berry or McCoy.

or

Swapping #4 to the Browns for #7 and a 3rd round pick so they could go after Berry or McCoy.

Just curious, where do you stand if Okung is there: (1) select Okung or (2) trade down to select one of the other OT's and acquire some extra picks?

I'm leaning toward trading down a couple times to acquire several additional picks in rounds 2-4 and then grabbing an OT with the first round pick. I'm not so sure the gap between Okung and some of the other top rated tackles is so huge to mandate picking Okung over solid trade down options.

[Oldskool]

Just curious, where do you stand if Okung is there: (1) select Okung or (2) trade down to select one of the other OT's and acquire some extra picks?

I'm leaning toward trading down a couple times to acquire several additional picks in rounds 2-4 and then grabbing an OT with the first round pick. I'm not so sure the gap between Okung and some of the other top rated tackles is so huge to mandate picking Okung over solid trade down options.

Just my 2c but the drop off in talent between Okung and the other tackles in the first round of this class is enough that a trade back wouldn't be worth it. The only way I'd personally be OK with trading back is if Okung is already gone or if the team somehow knew that other teams would pass on him for a Berry or Clausen and were able to still trade back and take him.

[zoony]

If I were the GM and Okung was gone at #4, id be trying to make a deal with Seattle for their 14th, 2nd and 3rd round picks for our #4 so they could get Berry or McCoy.

or

Swapping #4 to the Browns for #7 and a 3rd round pick so they could go after Berry or McCoy.


I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo mid 1st round last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.

[Devastate]

I'd like Okung but I wouldn't mind trading down recooping some picks and picking up an RT or RG as well

[BigHerc]

I know it is difficult when we are all starving for some roster movement but be patient. The closer the draft gets the more itchy teams will become to get 'their guy' and the greater the pressure will be from their local media and fan-base. We are so used to our organization tipping their hand WELL before they should that folks are getting nervous nothing is happening in the background.

I would love to see a trade back for additional picks and draft more than one OL prospect. If not, I just can hope for the best.

At least all the other teams out there have no idea of our plans at the moment, maybe that means we won't be stripped clean by anyone who wants to do business with us.

[BlackBush]

I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14 too, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.
I'd like us to trade back to add picks unless Bradford is there. I think we could do well to move back and maybe still get a Davis or Bulaga in the first. Shoot I'd even want to swap with NE to get #22 and a couple 2nd rounders.

[The Consigliere]

I would take the deal immediately. Okung simply isn't ranked nearly as high as elite level OT's like Boselli, Pace, and Ogden were, not even as high as D. Ferguson was in some quarters. I don't want to pay 4 slot money for a guy who isn't elite level in a draft filled to the gills with other "very good/borderline blue chip" OT's in it. We absolutely have to trade down if Okung is the last of the Big 4 left. Absolutely have too. There are several OT's worth building around, its far more important to land two very good pieces for the team to build around than one very, very good piece (who still isn't great). Particularly when you add in the cap savings you'd have (which would be enormous). That kind of flexibility is why teams these days are more averse to trading up.

[lou4gehrig]

Everybody is projecting Okung, Bulaga, Trent Williams to be gone by picks 6. So if we trade down, we're going to settle for one of Campbell (workout warrior), Davis, Saffold, Brown, etc.

I think we need a franchise type LT in this draft. We don't need more depth which trading down will provide. We need quality. If Okung is there, it's pretty straight forward. He's got the most potential to be a star lineman.

Bulaga seems to be slightly behind and wouldn't be a bad consolation. He's likely to go 5th overall anyways. So you really can't trade down and pick this guy.

I can see a trade down if Suh or McCoy are still there and somebody comes in with a stupid Mike Ditka - Ricky Williams type trade offer. Otherwise you have to land one of Okung or Bulaga.

[MartinC]

I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo mid 1st round last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.

Not so sure about there being a stud tackle at 14. There will be a good tackle available and you might get lucky like the Ravens did with Oher last yearbut I think Okung, Williams and Baluga will all be off the board by #14.

If Okung is there at 4 just pick him and move forward is my view.

[mcgraw238]

I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo mid 1st round last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.

I agree. I think moving down allows us to fill multiple needs. I feel that some here are rating Okung a little to high in the grand scheme. I think a couple of the other OT's in this draft may turn out to be just as effective, maybe moreso.

[Orakpophobia]

I'd like us to trade back to add picks unless Bradford is there. I think we could do well to move back and maybe still get a Davis or Bulaga in the first. Shoot I'd even want to swap with NE to get #22 and a couple 2nd rounders.

I'd have to agree with you. Doubt NE would do it, but a swap of #4 for #22, #44 and #47 would be incredible.
OT Rodger Saffold or Charles Brown at #22
FS Nate Allen at #44
RB Montario Hardesty at #47

If the draft goes Bradford, Okung, Suh, then I look to trade down. If we can't get out of the spot, I'd take Bulaga.

[lou4gehrig]

I would take the deal immediately. Okung simply isn't ranked nearly as high as elite level OT's like Boselli, Pace, and Ogden were, not even as high as D. Ferguson was in some quarters. I don't want to pay 4 slot money for a guy who isn't elite level in a draft filled to the gills with other "very good/borderline blue chip" OT's in it. We absolutely have to trade down if Okung is the last of the Big 4 left. Absolutely have too. There are several OT's worth building around, its far more important to land two very good pieces for the team to build around than one very, very good piece (who still isn't great). Particularly when you add in the cap savings you'd have (which would be enormous). That kind of flexibility is why teams these days are more averse to trading up.

Something to consider is that teams are alot smarter than they were even 10 years ago. Key positions like QB and OT get overdrafted meaning you have to draft higher to get an equivalent level talent. That's just how it is.

Ogden, Boselli and Pace are all hall of fame level players. You're saying since Okung is not that level we should trade back and pick up a player a level below Okung? Doesn't make sense. Is Okung going to be a hall of famer? Probably not. Is he going to be a solid starter with all-pro potential for the next 10-12 years. Probably.

That's what the new regime is all about. It's a process to develop a great team. You incrementially improve at each position a little bit at a time. Too many teams try to hit homes runs all the time and end up with mediocre teams.

[sikizler]

Am I the only one who thinks we're still considering going QB at 4 and using McNabb as a bridge to him?

[zoony]

Am I the only one who thinks we're still considering going QB at 4 and using McNabb as a bridge to him?

Yes

[Oldskool]

I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo mid 1st round last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.

I trust Shanny's judgement on this 100%. I see Okung as a better version of Clady, which he used a #12 overall pick on a few years ago.

If he thinks he can get the same production out of a Rodger Saffold, Charles Brown or Anthony Davis and still pick up a few draft picks, I wouldn't be opposed at all.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Actually, I see both Davis and Bulaga as closer to Clady; the former is a massive yet athletic LT with huge upside, the latter is a athletic and fundamentally sound LT with experience in the ZBS (which Clady played in at Boise).

Okung is more of a D'Brickashaw Ferguson - great finesse player, great pass blocker, but you don't think of him as a dominating mauling blocker in either the run or pass, the same way that Bulaga or Davis are (just ignore Williams)

[Charlied72]

Im all down for drafting him, if we traded down it would have to be pretty low the trade value from 4-8 isnt that much maybe a 3rd or 4th rounded with it, but if you would trade the 4th pick for the 17-20 you could with ease get the 17th a 2nd and 4th rounder, if we could pull a trade like that off im down

[jfr3ek]

expect the unexpected. who know's...we may pick up Jared Gaither and not even have anything to look forward to in the draft...lol.

[justice98]

I say trade down and maybe take two tackles. Is the difference between Okung and Bulaga or Williams really THAT great? I think Bulaga or Williams and the extra pick is worth investigating to see if it's worth more than Okung by himself.

[The Tris]

There are lots of "experts" who think Trent Williams fits Shanny's blocking scheme better than Okung does.

Williams is getting a lot of late buzz based on the combine and his Pro Day. That is a big red flag to me. Base it off the tape, and not the post season workouts.


Trent Williams is a bust waiting to happen. Let me know when he produces at LT, as opposed to having a nice junior year at RT and then getting beaten by a drum at LT.

Nodding. He the guy I am most afraid of drafting to be our LT.


Not so sure about there being a stud tackle at 14. There will be a good tackle available and you might get lucky like the Ravens did with Oher last yearbut I think Okung, Williams and Baluga will all be off the board by #14.

I personally think that Charles Brown will most certainly be there at 14. And he is an excellent LT, with a high floor (safe pick).


expect the unexpected. who know's...we may pick up Jared Gaither and not even have anything to look forward to in the draft...lol.

Not for the #4 pick. Maybe we trade next years 2nd, but then, with such a rich OT draft, why do that? I could have seen Gaither if we were going Clausen/Bradford...now that we are not, I don't see it happening.



I think trading back is a great idea in theory, but if Bradford, Suh and McCoy are all off the board, I don't see anyone needing to trade up to our pick. Clausen isn't going that high, Seattle or Cleveland can't be scared of us taking Berry, and I don't think anyone is willing to trade up for Okung in such a deep tackle draft.




Though I do know one crazy Cowboy fan who is convinced they are trading into the top 5 to get Berry...

:silly:

[jasjhughes]

if okung is there you have to take him, if not get a package and trade down

+1

[The Consigliere]

If Detroit takes Okung, and we cant trade down.......I expect a disaster.

If the draft goes

Bradford
Okung
Suh/Mccoy

And there is no trade down partners.......who the crap are we going to take????

Happily take Suh or McCoy and deal Haynesworth. Suh and McCoy are both projected to be basically "best of the decade" caliber DT talent. Immense talents. You take them, you get stop gaps for the OL, and you fix the OL in the future. The trade for McNabb insured that we'd be leaving some area in dire need of young help, unaddressed, we just have to decide for ourselves where that area is. No way in hell do I reach for an OT that doesnt belong at slot 4, over a HOF caliber talent DT. Besides, dealing Haynesworth should garner a pick capable of addressing our OL needs anyway, i hope. The only major problem crops up if that happens and Haynesworth is still on the roster, but at that point, I'd field all trade up offers (we should definitely hear them) and either deal down, or just pick us a young superstar DT. Our OL will be bad in '10 no matter what we do, you can't fix it overnight, and you shouldn't spit in the face of elite once in a generation talent, just because you want the OL to be below average, rather than "utter manure".

[ohioskins]

Most people have Okung as the #1 offensive lineman in this year's class, and are convinced that any team that takes him will lock down their LT spot for the next decade. He is also a polished prospect that seems ready to step in now, similar to how Chris Samuels adjusted quickly to the NFL. With the acquisition of Donovan McNabb, it seems clear that filling that LT spot will be the focus, as we suddenly look ready to compete NOW, and with a steady LT, the flux at the other OL positions will be easier to put into place.

But we are also lacking in draft picks. And there are some who think that Bulaga or Anthony Davis are better prospects, or at least have more upside.

So - let's say Oakland calls us, and offers to trade the draft rights to Anthony Davis (a LT prospect with possibly more pure upside than Okung, but possibly a lower floor), a 2nd round pick, and a late rounder (let's say 5th or 6th), with maybe a future 2nd in the offing?

Now, let's say the option isn't Okung or Davis, but, say, Okung at #4, and trading down with the Niners for their 13 and 17, taking Iupati at #13 (to convert to LT), and another lineman like Pouncey to solidify either a G or C spot? Still looks good?



Do you take that deal running away? Or do you just stand pat with the knowledge that you have your LT of the future and will deal with getting more picks another way?

I like your thinking. Someone get Al on the phone. Oakland wants a couple of things. 1. a runstopper/penetrator to go with their defensive backfield. 2. a QB that doesn't consistantly throw(pun) games for them.

Let me introduce Big Al, Andre Carter and JC. Al and Carter would solve d-line problems, and Campbell is as big of an upgrade for Oakland as Mcnabb was for us.

In return we need the 1st and 3rd picks they have in the draft. #8 and #69 overall. At 4 we get OKung or Williams. We use #8 to pick up DT Dan Williams Tenn, or Anthony Davis, or trade back to pick up picks. Or swap and take SUH and Balaga/Davis with 8

I know, but I can dream.

[RWJ]

#NFL Source : Trent Williams - OT - Oklahoma is visiting the Washington #Redskins. No other details available right now!

‎Russellmania09‎ - Twitter - 3 minutes ago

[The Consigliere]

Something to consider is that teams are alot smarter than they were even 10 years ago. Key positions like QB and OT get overdrafted meaning you have to draft higher to get an equivalent level talent. That's just how it is.

Ogden, Boselli and Pace are all hall of fame level players. You're saying since Okung is not that level we should trade back and pick up a player a level below Okung? Doesn't make sense. Is Okung going to be a hall of famer? Probably not. Is he going to be a solid starter with all-pro potential for the next 10-12 years. Probably.

That's what the new regime is all about. It's a process to develop a great team. You incrementially improve at each position a little bit at a time. Too many teams try to hit homes runs all the time and end up with mediocre teams.

If you are paying 4 slot money for someone, they have to be elite. It's a huge SB for that slot. In my view, it makes more cap sense to move down unless you can get a guy that has "franchise player" written all over him. The franchise players in this draft are Suh, and McCoy (Bradford is being graded that way by some, i say there's too much risk and unknown with him, and I just dont believe in ever giving FS's that much slot money), other than them, I don't think any of these guys are worth top 5 money, and I think that's why the trading into the top 5 or so to land players has really slowed down in recent years, sometimes there is trading within in the top 5 or so, but not nearly as much trading up into it, because it's such a massive salary cap obligation to draft a guy in top 3-5, that he has got to be worth it, from an evaluation point, and I don't think Okung is. If he's not got HOF capable, and is not Samuels caliber (pro bowl consistently) and I think Okung is even a step below that, than is he really worth four slot money? I dont think he is.

I understand your point, and you have added ammunition in the fact, that slots 5, and 6 both badly need an OT, so the big 3 can and probably will be gone (though I dont want Bulaga period, sketchy on Iowa's rumored "system OT problem), but 4 slot money is substantial. Last year Curry got 34 mill in guaranteed money, with a potential to make 60 mill. That's an insane portion of your salary cap, and for a veteran player, that would be a player of All Pro value, yet your giving it to a guy who doesn't have an All Pro ceiling.

I see your points, and you have good ones, especially w/the fact that the roof will cave in on blue chip OT talent before we can use our traded (down) for 1st rounder, but I still think that if our OT is slated to get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 25-30 million dollar SB, and more than 35 mill guaranteed, he has got to have massive potential or we shouldn't select him. Since Okung appears to have a ceiling of (6th to say 12th best OT in the league if EVERYTHING works out for him), I simply don't think it's worth it. I'd rather trade down for a lesser tackle or an interior lineman or figure out other area's to address. Rebuilding this team will take time, the OL alone to get to "good-great" quality is at minimum a 2 year program, and probably a 3 now that we threw away a second rounder on McNabb. If your right about incremental progress, than the team would probably be more interested in trading down, not less. I think Terry over at CPND is probably right, the team is trying to build now, and in the future, and as such, i expect that they'll go Okung or trade down, and the trade down is far more likely if we can't recoup a quality draft pick for Haynesworth/or a player.

We'll see though. Regardless, at least we aren't selling everything but the mail box for Bradford. That's a plus.

[MrJL]

I vote take Okung. With Samuels now gone we need a young stud to anchor the line.

Lions might take Okung.

[jasjhughes]

I like your first scenario better. Actually, I like that one even if Okung is there.

I keep hearing this draft is very deep on OL. I mean, we got a guy like Orakpo mid 1st round last year- there has to be a stud tackle available at 14, right?

Then, we can take a linebacker/oline in the 2nd and 3rd. Maybe even a RB like Hardesty.

I'd love the #14, 2nd and 3rd scenario too, but I'd draft OT, OT, G!

[Oldskool]

Lions might take Okung.

Ndamukong Suh-DL- Player Apr. 7 - 1:18 pm et

Lions beat writer Brian VanOchten believes that the team is locked in on Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh at No. 2 overall.
"I would be stunned (if the Lions drafted Russell Okung)...because they went out and got the left guard (Rob Sims)," says VanOchten. "I think that removes any chance of Jeff Backus getting moved inside." The other reality is that Suh is a better football player than Okung, and remains Detroit's odds-on pick.
Source: MLive.com
Related: Lions

[Timmy Smith]

Assuming Bradford goes 1, obviously then we're guaranteed either Okung, McCoy, or Suh. I'd take the BPA of those 3. If it's Okung, fantastic - we fill our need. If it's one of the defensive guys, then great - we know Haynesworth may not last long here anyway. It would be painful not to address the o-line, but we'd have to spend the rest of our picks on o-line, sign some free agents, and make do for another year.

[ACW]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8Pq5rg-4dco/S0vTrrrIZqI/AAAAAAAAABo/SG8RT4As_nM/s320/w280.jpg

[skins2victory]

I think we could trade down sand still get a quality O-lineman this draft, not the best, but quality, and still get another pick out of the deal. I would love to see us trade down. If not, I will still be cool with Okung though for sure.

[HigSkin]

Ndamukong Suh-DL- Player Apr. 7 - 1:18 pm et

Lions beat writer Brian VanOchten believes that the team is locked in on Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh at No. 2 overall.
"I would be stunned (if the Lions drafted Russell Okung)...because they went out and got the left guard (Rob Sims)," says VanOchten. "I think that removes any chance of Jeff Backus getting moved inside." The other reality is that Suh is a better football player than Okung, and remains Detroit's odds-on pick.
Source: MLive.com
Related: Lions

Geez, there's so much stuff flying around...

http://twitter.com/LanceZierlein

Once again being told to keep Okung at 2 by a league source. Not sure what to do there now

@RealRedskins (http://twitter.com/RealRedskins) yes. My source wouldn't say he is getting it from them. He just said he feels good about okung at 2. Kind of vague

[The Consigliere]

Assuming Bradford goes 1, obviously then we're guaranteed either Okung, McCoy, or Suh. I'd take the BPA of those 3. If it's Okung, fantastic - we fill our need. If it's one of the defensive guys, then great - we know Haynesworth may not last long here anyway. It would be painful not to address the o-line, but we'd have to spend the rest of our picks on o-line, sign some free agents, and make do for another year.

I suspect that's what will happen, I don't think you can say no to any of the DT's. I'd be inclined to say no to Okung for the reasons already stated, I think he'll probably be a very good, to good OT at the next level, but 4 slot money (somewhere around 30-38 mill guaranteed) is a helluvalot to pay for a guy who doesn't have elite level potential. My big bummer is that I'd love to deal down for a OT rated in that Sam Baker class (a guy i loved as a value a few years ago, my favorite target on draft day are guys that were great year after year, had a rough last year, and then drop like a rock, Vince Wilfork, Kiwanuka, and Baker are recent guys projected to be top 10-15 talents who ended up going way later, and were huge value (Kiwanuka fell off big time recently), but there doesn't seem to be an OT that fits that class. Barring that I'd love to target a guard in a major trade down to 15-20 area, get the #1 rated guard, and then target OT help in round 2 with a draft pick picked up in that deal, but there isn't a guard that fits that kind of value.

I'm not really sure what we do. The only thing I really know, is that I'm fairly certain after several years of getting underwhelming guys after awful seasons (Rogers and Campbell in '05, Rocky and Campbell in '06 (the Campbell trade), Landry in '07), getting Orakpo and Okung back to back would be outstanding, we'd be giving first round money to two guys who almost definitely will be very good (in Orakpo's case, outstanding potential, in Okung's, probably just "very good") and considering the whiffs we've had in certain trades, and horror draft picks, landing that sort of value is a good thing.

I'd just still prefer to trade down though, as there are some definitive guys i like in this draft, and its sickening to have a draft this deep, and have zero ammo to use on it.

[Veretax]

Why is Suh a more sure fire bet than Okung, and if we are transitioning to a 3-4, where does Suh fit in that scheme? I've not heard anyone explain that yet on this board. It does no good to select a guy if he may not fit.

[seantaylor=god]

If we get the opportunity to trade down with Okung on the board, its something to consider based on what we get.

If he's gone you take one of the top DTs for the reasons already stated. But if they are gone and the trade downs won't net you excellent value I say take Okung at 4.

He's probably the 6-7th best player in the draft, so its really not a reach. Its true that the money we'd have to pay him will be beyond his "value", but thats just the nature of the beast. I think Okung will end up being a solid starter at LT, which is hard to find outside the top 10, and he really does have Chris Samuels like potential. He's a hard worker with great size and good tools. Not much more you can ask for from a college prospect. If he was a Jonathan Ogden/Orlando Pace freak of nature we wouldnt be able to get him at 4 anyway, so no use crying over spilled milk.

[seantaylor=god]

Why is Suh a more sure fire bet than Okung, and if we are transitioning to a 3-4, where does Suh fit in that scheme? I've not heard anyone explain that yet on this board. It does no good to select a guy if he may not fit.

This a really good opinion piece based on his metrics, that explain why Suh is so good. I think he could play the 5 tech (3-4 DE) and be really good. He can take on double teams, is strong against the run, and has a great motor, although he is slightly undersized (would like him to be more like 320-330).

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft10/insider/news/story?id=4702790

ne of the rarest things to find in a defensive player is the ability to dominate a game. In seven seasons of breaking down NFL games, I have seen multiple skill position players carry their teams, but in that time I have seen only two defensive players -- Dwight Freeney in 2003 and Jason Taylor in 2006 -- impact the game like the Tom Bradys and Peyton Mannings of the world.

After looking at tape from six games of Ndamukong Suh's season (vs. Texas Tech, vs. Iowa State, vs. Oklahoma, at Kansas, vs. Kansas State and at Colorado), I can now add a collegiate-level defender to that list. To say that his performance in these games was superb doesn't even do it justice.


To illustrate the specifics, let's start with running game. The fifty runs directed at Suh's Point of Attack (POA) gained a meager 116 yards, or only 2.3 yards per attempt. That is impressive enough -- but Suh also won 18 of the POA blocks. That equates to an outstanding 35.3% POA win rate overall, but it gets even better when the 23 double-team blocks are taken out of the equation. Suh won 14 of 32 POA blocks when single teamed, which equates to a ridiculously high 43.8% one-on-one POA win rate.

It didn't even matter what kind of run teams directed at him. He won seven of the nineteen slant play POA blocks and six of the fifteen counter play POA blocks. Iowa State got the bright idea to try to trap him but he won two of the four trap POA blocks and the Cyclones ended up gaining only four yards on those runs.

As lights out as his run totals were, it was his consistent impact against the pass that stood out the most. To get a sense of just how great Suh was here, consider the splash play totals of the two other defensive tackles covered in the Draft Lab series up to this point (splash plays being defined as when a defender does something to negatively impact a passing play). Gerald McCoy had 10 splash plays in five games and Marvin Austin had three splash plays in five games; both ended up getting TFS Draft Lab seals of approval.

Suh had 25 splash plays in his six games, or double the combined total of McCoy and Austin over a 10-game period. As insanely impressive as the overall total is, what was most amazing was Suh's per game consistency in this metric. He posted three splash plays against Texas Tech, four against Iowa State, five against Oklahoma, two against Kansas, five against Kansas State and six against Colorado.

The overall splash play numbers are great, but it also worth noting that ten of them came against some form of a double or triple team. That indicates Suh can beat multiple blockers but the fifteen single-blocking splash plays he racked up proves it is simply foolhardy to attempt to keep him out of the backfield with one blocker.

Suh also had an impact on special teams with two blocked field goals and a blocked point after touchdown attempt.

That should be enough, but my scouting eye also noted that -- believe it or not -- Suh may actually have some untapped upside potential as a pass rusher. He has a good swim move but he leans on the bull rush very heavily. It's almost as if he wants to do the bull move every time out and then decides to add a couple of extra moves on the fly if the bull isn't working. A guy like Albert Haynesworth can get away with that type of approach in the NFL because he's 6-foot-5 and 350 pounds. Suh is 6-foot-4 and 300 pounds, which is big in real life but isn't overwhelming for a pro defensive tackle. Suh will need to learn mastery of other pass rush moves, but when he does that he'll be even better than he is today.


The Football Scientist Lab Result: Suh is hands down the best player I have graded in the Draft Lab series. It is said that this is one of the deepest defensive line drafts in NFL history and the metrics say Suh is head and shoulders above his positional competition. He should be the No. 1 pick in the draft and, if I had a vote, I would nominate him for the Heisman Trophy without hesitation. He easily gets a TFS seal of approval.

[tml6157]

Why is Suh a more sure fire bet than Okung, and if we are transitioning to a 3-4, where does Suh fit in that scheme? I've not heard anyone explain that yet on this board. It does no good to select a guy if he may not fit.

Suh would make an outstanding 3-4 DE (5 tech) A 3-4 DE is similar to a 4-3 DT. Its fantastic if they can put pressure on a QB and have pass rushing skills but its not a must like a 4-3 DE. A 3-4 DE MUST be stout at the point of attack and very very solid against the run. Both Haynesworth and Suh are very very solid against the run. Both are also hell of pass rushers for their size and position. Basically you are looking at the best defensive lineman in the NFL and the most talented defensive lineman to come out of college in the past couple decades on the same team. IF we can land Suh (which I dont think is impossible because I thought Orakpo at #13 was impossible) we would have hands down the best 3-4 front in the NFL period!

[The Consigliere]

Why is Suh a more sure fire bet than Okung, and if we are transitioning to a 3-4, where does Suh fit in that scheme? I've not heard anyone explain that yet on this board. It does no good to select a guy if he may not fit.

Suh is considered the best DT to come out in a draft since the nineties. He's a once in a generation talent (and oddly, McCoy might be too). Okung doesn't hit that profile, he just fits the "best OT in his draft" profile. I disagree about the fit. We continually drafted guys that fit Greg Williams scheme and it got us nowhere. I think you get the best guy on the board, and you utilize their talent. As I argued in '07, "why are we drafting a third DB in four years for a Williams defense when he'll be gone the moment Gibbs leaves?" Likewise, you draft Suh if he's there, and just tell Haslett "Utilize this guys talent". Noone will regret Suh, what you regret on draft day is forcing system picks with players that usually wont even be incorporated in said system very long, and may not be worth the slot.

[hailskins11]

If we get the opportunity to trade down with Okung on the board, its something to consider based on what we get.



It would be amazing if we could trade down a few spots and still land Trent Williams. We have no idea who Shanny prefers and I would think he would love to have Williams to fit into his ZBS.

[gkekoa]

You trade down and take the best tackle at that spot. The reason is this: Trent Williams fit better in Shanny's scheme than Okung. A guy like Davis has a better ceiling. Baluga could be very solid for years but allow us to pick up a RT in the second via trade. Okung in one piece on a horrible line...we need several pieces.

[tml6157]

Suh is considered the best DT to come out in a draft since the nineties. He's a once in a generation talent (and oddly, McCoy might be too). Okung doesn't hit that profile, he just fits the "best OT in his draft" profile. I disagree about the fit. We continually drafted guys that fit Greg Williams scheme and it got us nowhere. I think you get the best guy on the board, and you utilize their talent. As I argued in '07, "why are we drafting a third DB in four years for a Williams defense when he'll be gone the moment Gibbs leaves?" Likewise, you draft Suh if he's there, and just tell Haslett "Utilize this guys talent". Noone will regret Suh, what you regret on draft day is forcing system picks with players that usually wont even be incorporated in said system very long, and may not be worth the slot.

Totally agreed! If Suh or perhaps McCoy is there at #4 then they have to be the pick hands down. Im really starting to wonder IF we are sitting at #4 with Suh or McCoy on the board and we take them, will we stick with a 4-3 base mostly? We did say we are going to go with a mix of 3-4/4-3 but you would think if Carter is still here we will be running more 4-3.

[cphil006]

read the three other threads about Okung in the past week. They debate the same thing.

[Larry Gude]

Trade down. There's good value at OT and not too much of a steep drop-off in talent.

Yup. No one is winning Super Bowls these days because they have the best LT in the league and no one is winning SB's because they have LT locked down for the next decade.

An opinion on the top ten current LT's;

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/best-left-tackles-in-the-n-f-l-the-top-10-list/

It's important but, in a deep draft at the position, maybe not as important as getting two good young players rather than one perhaps great LT.

[HigSkin]

Mayock thinks Williams is the better fit for the Skins.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/04/07/williams-could-be-mcnabbs-protector-at-no-4/

Mike Mayock
Williams could be McNabb’s protector at No. 4

Posted: April 7th, 2010 | Mike Mayock | Tags: Donovan McNabb, Russell

Okung, Trent Williams, Washington Redskins

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the effect the Donovan McNabb trade will have on the draft, and the more I think about it the more I believe the Redskins will be a factor in the NFC East. They have a veteran quarterback now and they’re going to draft a left tackle with pick No. 4. And keep in mind, they could have a choice between Oklahoma State’s Russell Okung and Oklahoma’s Trent Williams, the two top tackles in the entire draft.

If so, they could go with Williams, even though he is generally regarded as the No. 2 left tackle behind Okung. Williams fits Washington’s scheme better. He’s a little bit more athletic for the Redskins’ zone-blocking scheme. I think Williams makes more sense for the Redskins at pick No. 4.

The other McNabb effect is on the quarterback situation with Jimmy Clausen, whose pro day I will be at on Friday in South Bend. He had a shot at going to the Redskins before the McNabb trade, but not anymore. The medicals and how he is evaluated off the field will go a long way in determining if he is going to be a top-10 pick.

[Blue Collar Skins]

What I don't get, is a lot linemen who go to the Probowl is not selected in the first round, but rather in later rounds. So, a lot of times, linemen are over-hyped and do not live up to expectations. Now, why is it so important to draft Okung when we could get more value by draft a lineman later in the draft?

[HailGreen28]

Try to trade down for a better deal than the "draft chart".

If nobody bites, I'd be happy with any of these guys at 4. Okung, Clausen, Suh, Gerald McCoy, Bradford if he takes a drop like Leinart did.

[Ryko]

I think the best options would be in this priority.
1. Get Okung (if he's as good as everyone has said)
2. Trade down to get multiple 1st rounders and get the next best OT and next best available offensive lineman to protect McNabb.
3. Stay put and take best available OT.

This way even if the OT isn't as good as hoped -- he still could be moved to RT and fill that need. And then try to get another OT next offseason.

If you were strictly looking at BPA and the impact they would have on the team, I would look to take Eric Berry (if he was good as advertised), which would be a very unpopular choice. My reason is just a personal opinion that great safeties have a great defensive impact on today's game. It's not on the same level that qbs impact the game, but it's because of it.

Great defenses usually have great safeties.One example is Polamalu. When he was out last year, Pittsburgh struggled to stay in contention. I know this is a big gamble, but huge rewards. Even if he isn't as great as hoped, it would fill a desperate need. I think there needs to be more of a ballhawk at free safety for the redskins. I consider this a need because of the number of times the redskins were burned for big gains and touchdowns last season. Getting Berry would at the very least help that.

I agree with everything you jsut said. I think Berry is going to be an incredible player, so my ideal situation would be to take Berry at #4 if Okung is gone. Trading down to get more picks would be a good option as well, but we wont end up with the stud that we need in either Okung or Berry

[MrJL]

Here's a thought. What if Okung is taken by Detroit?

[theboomking]

What I don't get, is a lot linemen who go to the Probowl is not selected in the first round, but rather in later rounds. So, a lot of times, linemen are over-hyped and do not live up to expectations. Now, why is it so important to draft Okung when we could get more value by draft a lineman later in the draft?

This is not true however when considering left tackles. Most pro-bowl left tackles have been taken in the first two rounds, many in the top 15 picks of the first round.

Now, a better argument might be that most recent SB champions haven't had an elite LT, but had great QB's and serviceable OL's.

[Enter Apotheosis]

What I don't get, is a lot linemen who go to the Probowl is not selected in the first round, but rather in later rounds. So, a lot of times, linemen are over-hyped and do not live up to expectations. Now, why is it so important to draft Okung when we could get more value by draft a lineman later in the draft?

I would imagine that part of that is that the teams drafting the premier LT prospects are mostly terrible. However, if you look only at the tackle position Pro Bowlers come overwhelmingly from the first two rounds of the draft. It's the interior OL where you see more 3rd-5th round picks.

[Oldskool]

I would imagine that part of that is that the teams drafting the premier LT prospects are mostly terrible. However, if you look only at the tackle position Pro Bowlers come overwhelmingly from the first two rounds of the draft. It's the interior OL where you see more 3rd-5th round picks.

Add that to the fact that Shanny has a history of taking Tackles early in the draft.

1995, Jamie Brown, 4th round (121st)***
1996, Leslie Ratliffe, 7th round (213th)
2003, George Foster, 1st round (20th)
2007, Ryan Harris, 3rd round (70th)
2008, Ryan Clady, 1st round (12th)


*** Broncos had no selections in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round in 1995.

[[[ghost]]]

I would rather have Two late first early 2nd round prospects then One Okung.

[ABSTRACT]

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_news.aspx?sport=NFL&majteam=WAS

We can get Chris Chester from the Ravens...
He is a 27 year old unrestricted Free Agent....He can swing between center and guard...
plus he is an ideal fit for the zone blocking scheme....

If we can get him without giving up a draft pick or giving up a very low draft pick...I would be content.

[Oldskool]

];7441716']I would rather have Two late first early 2nd round prospects then One Okung.

The drop off between Okung and Rodger Saffold/Charles Brown/Jared Veldheer etc.. is huge. None of those guys could start day 1 at LOT; but Okung can and most likely will.

[Wyvern]

For some reason, I keep thinking that Bryan Bulaga has the most upside as the LT in our zone-blocking scheme. That said, I don't think he slips past KC (5).

So would we pick him at #4 even if Okung was also available? (Hmmm, maybe our threat of picking Bulaga might coax KC to offer us something for staying away from their LT of choice.)

At #4, there are some other picks --Berry, Clausen, etc.-- who are intriguing. However, I think the McNabb deal almost locks us into using our first pick on an LT. It's now only a matter of when in that first round we pick our LT.

I see the draft going Bradford (1); Suh (2); DT McCoy (3) ... and then the Redskins picking their highest-rated LT at 4, unless someone offers a lot for the Skins' drafting slot.

And should there be no trade offer for their 4th pick, you'll probably see the Skins pulling out the stops to try to obtain another pick in 2nd or 3rd round. If it comes down to that, I just hope the Skins don't appear too desperate and still manage to get value for our trades -- because we really need to start working in more youthful players soon.

Bottom line: I think Okung has great talent, but he's not an elite LT, nor does he tower over the rest of this year's LT crop. But I suspect there are a few teams wanting Okung badly -- and we might be able to leverage that.

[tml6157]

Here's a thought. What if Okung is taken by Detroit?

Suh or McCoy at #4.

[Orakpophobia]

Here's a thought. What if Okung is taken by Detroit?

Assuming Bradford, Okung, Suh....

We have to trade down. There's going to be someone who wants to trade up. I'm not worried about that at all. There's several high quality players that will be available.


It's worth noting that the Eagles are a very strong candidate to trade up. With all of these picks they could be making a move for a blue-chip prospect like Eric Berry or Gerald McCoy. It'll be interesting to see what unfolds on April 22.
WalterFootball (http://walterfootball.com/draft2010_2.php)

How sweet would it be to trade #4 for Philly's first, second and our former second (and possibly another pick)?

#24 OT Charles Brown or OT Rodger Saffold
#37 FS Nate Allen or OLB Jerry Hughes
#55 DE Tyson Alualu or OT Jared Veldheer
#103 RB Montario Hardesty
#135 OT Selvish Capers
#211 DE Clifton Geathers

I think I'd wet myself if we came away with a draft like that - especially after adding DM5.

But.... If we cannot move out of #4 and Okung is gone, I would have to select Bulaga.

[IHOPSkins]

Okung

I want to DOMINATE the line

Its starts with an elite lineman (hopefully)

[Forever21]

I know a lot of people want us to recoup that 2nd rounder we just traded away but if Okung is on the board we absolutely take him.

The only circumstances under which we trade down should be if we get 2 1st rounders. Say if Suh falls and SF wants him badly. Take their 2 first rounders.

I just don't think we should be passing up on a prospect like Okung for the second most important position on our team even if it means getting a 2nd round pick.

[Forever21]

The drop off between Okung and Rodger Saffold/Charles Brown/Jared Veldheer etc.. is huge. None of those guys could start day 1 at LOT; but Okung can and most likely will.


Booyah.

[tml6157]

Assuming Bradford, Okung, Suh....

We have to trade down. There's going to be someone who wants to trade up. I'm not worried about that at all. There's several high quality players that will be available.


WalterFootball (http://walterfootball.com/draft2010_2.php)

How sweet would it be to trade #4 for Philly's first, second and our former second (and possibly another pick)?

#24 OT Charles Brown or OT Rodger Saffold
#37 FS Nate Allen or OLB Jerry Hughes
#55 DE Tyson Alualu or OT Jared Veldheer
#103 RB Montario Hardesty
#135 OT Selvish Capers
#211 DE Clifton Geathers

I think I'd wet myself if we came away with a draft like that - especially after adding DM5.

But.... If we cannot move out of #4 and Okung is gone, I would have to select Bulaga.


Im not sure how smart, football wise, it would be to trade back with Philly. Do you really want Berry, Suh or McCoy on the Eagles? Tho I would LOVE to have Hughes and Alualu. I think we would have a complete defense with Hughes and Alualu.

Alualu - Kemoeatu - Haynesworth
Hughes - Fletcher - McIntosh - Orakpo
Hall - Rogers - Landry - Horton

[VaBeachRedskin]

Take Trent Williams instead of settling for the lesser Russell Okung.

[onnie007]

Take Okung and stand pat. You have to take the best player available. I wish we traded back up into the first round and grabbed Michael Oher. He was a beast from Day One.

[JoeKnowsBest]

Mike Mayock said on NFL.com/NFL network that he thought there was a chance Trent Williams could be the first OT taken in the draft, selected by us: The Washington Redskins.

He sounded like he is actually considering ranking Trent Williams as the best OT in the draft. Not just yet, but he had Trent Williams sky rocketing up his board and is currently the 2nd best OT.

[Oldskool]

Mike Mayock said on NFL.com/NFL network that he thought there was a chance Trent Williams could be the first OT taken in the draft, selected by us: The Washington Redskins.

He sounded like he is actually considering ranking Trent Williams as the best OT in the draft. Not just yet, but he had Trent Williams sky rocketing up his board and is currently the 2nd best OT.

Mayock is going crazy simply because of his combine workout. The film on Williams and his play at LT last year tell a completely different story.

The difference between Okung and Williams is that Okung is a LT. Williams is a RT that can get by playing some LT.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Take Trent Williams instead of settling for the lesser Russell Okung.

hahaha oh wow

let me know when trent williams actually does anything more than suck playing left tackle

he couldn't beat out PHIL LOADHOLT at LT - a guy who was a 6th rounder at RIGHT TACKLE

and we're supposed to take him with a top 5 pick?

Ridiculous.

Williams shouldn't even be drafted in the first round. We might as well draft Bruce Campbell - they're the same player, which is WORKOUT WARRIOR.

[VaBeachRedskin]

hahaha oh wow

let me know when trent williams actually does anything more than suck playing left tackle

he couldn't beat out PHIL LOADHOLT at LT - a guy who was a 6th rounder at RIGHT TACKLE

and we're supposed to take him with a top 5 pick?

Ridiculous.

Williams shouldn't even be drafted in the first round. We might as well draft Bruce Campbell - they're the same player, which is WORKOUT WARRIOR.

Check your facts on when Loadholt was drafted.

If you think that Williams and Campbell are close to the same players you aren't paying any attention to anything but their 40 times. You would be wise to check out some other things before comparing players. Williams was a two time All-American (1st team his senior season).

[Oldskool]

Check your facts on when Loadholt was drafted.

If you think that Williams and Campbell are close to the same players you aren't paying any attention to anything but their 40 times. You would be wise to check out some other things before comparing players. Williams was a two time All-American (1st team his senior season).

Williams = Robert Gallery. Shorter arms than you need to be a LT in the NFL.

Also the OL that he played with at OK made those All American selection sort of automatic, especially since he was playing his natural RT position. His play at LT was decent but not what you'd like from a prospect in the NFL.

He is in no way a true NFL LT and ideally would be a mid 1st round OT that a team uses at RT.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Williams = Robert Gallery. Shorter arms than you need to be a LT in the NFL.

Also the OL that he played with at OK made those All American selection sort of automatic, especially since he was playing his natural RT position. His play at LT was decent but not what you'd like from a prospect in the NFL.

He is in no way a true NFL LT and ideally would be a mid 1st round OT that a team uses at RT.

34 1/2 in. arms are more than adequate for the LT spot. Plus him having the best feet amongst all the tackles helps him more than anything else. I would prefer him to play RT as he should excel at that position. Williams is the best OT in this draft.

[Oldskool]

34 1/2 in. arms are more than adequate for the LT spot. Plus him having the best feet amongst all the tackles helps him more than anything else. I would prefer him to play RT as he should excel at that position. Williams is the best OT in this draft.

His agility is his greatest saving grace, as he will excel as a RT in a ZBS, but there is no way that his agility makes up for the difference between his 34 1/2 arms versus Okung's 36. Okung is also much stronger and has more experience at LT than Williams.

Okung is the consensus best OT overall for a reason. Williams as the best OT in the draft is definitely a minority opinion.

[michiskin]

Ndamukong Suh-DL- Player Apr. 7 - 1:18 pm et

Lions beat writer Brian VanOchten believes that the team is locked in on Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh at No. 2 overall.
"I would be stunned (if the Lions drafted Russell Okung)...because they went out and got the left guard (Rob Sims)," says VanOchten. "I think that removes any chance of Jeff Backus getting moved inside." The other reality is that Suh is a better football player than Okung, and remains Detroit's odds-on pick.
Source: MLive.com
Related: Lions

Do you really want to take the word of Brian VanOchten... a man who rocks the most blatant comb-over in the history of the universe?

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/opinion_impact/2008/05/vanochtencol.png

Just sayin...

[VaBeachRedskin]

His agility is his greatest saving grace, as he will excel as a RT in a ZBS, but there is no way that his agility makes up for the difference between his 34 1/2 arms versus Okung's 36. Okung is also much stronger and has more experience at LT than Williams.

Okung is the consensus best OT overall for a reason. Williams as the best OT in the draft is definitely a minority opinion.

Okung doesn't play strong though. He has impressive weight room numbers, but they don't carry over on to the football field. He is consistently pushed back in the running game and does not possess the anchor necessary to succeed at it. I will take functional, football strength over weight room, gym short strength all day.

[illone]

Okung is the blue chipper in this draft.

I will be shocked if the Skins pass on him if he is avail when they pick.

[prinzeofmoval]

Trade down. There's good value at OT and not too much of a steep drop-off in talent.

Trade down..but in the real world we can grab a first and second possibly Oakland or Buffalo because of stellar workout clausen had. This only works if Bradford is picked first.

[HighOnHendrix]

Considering how woeful our offensive line has been the last few years and that the QB situation is taken care of with the McNabb trade, how do we pass on a player of Okung's caliber? If our FO would use the lower first rounder and the likely second or third round pick packaged with it to draft TWO linemen, I'd be in favor of trading down. But the way things seem to be shaping up, standing pat seems best. If Okung is not there at 4, that means either McCoy or Suh will be. And there's always Berry. I'd rather have a LT, but wouldn't shed a tear over getting a guy that talented to play safety for us.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Okung doesn't play strong though. He has impressive weight room numbers, but they don't carry over on to the football field. He is consistently pushed back in the running game and does not possess the anchor necessary to succeed at it. I will take functional, football strength over weight room, gym short strength all day.

hahahahhahahahahahaha oh ****ing WOW

"bash okung for having combine numbers that don't translate to the football field"
"support TRENT WILLIAMS who is rising almost SOLELY because of combine numbers
"

i am rofling so hard right now

who cares btw about williams' all american nod - it is irrelevant to the fact that TRENT WILLIAMS SUCKED AT LEFT TACKLE AS A SENIOR. PERIOD.

blue-chip schools get all americans for the fact they are blue-chip schools. Trent Williams was good at RT, not good at LT. Therefore you DONT take him as a LEFT TACKLE with a top 5 pick!

Also, I'm willing to believe Okung's combine numbers translate more to actual play than Williams's 40 yard dash.

[VaBeachRedskin]

hahahahhahahahahahaha oh ****ing WOW

"bash okung for having combine numbers that don't translate to the football field"
"support TRENT WILLIAMS who is rising almost SOLELY because of combine numbers
"

i am rofling so hard right now

who cares btw about williams' all american nod - it is irrelevant to the fact that TRENT WILLIAMS SUCKED AT LEFT TACKLE AS A SENIOR. PERIOD.

blue-chip schools get all americans for the fact they are blue-chip schools. Trent Williams was good at RT, not good at LT. Therefore you DONT take him as a LEFT TACKLE with a top 5 pick!

Also, I'm willing to believe Okung's combine numbers translate more to actual play than Williams's 40 yard dash.

Williams as a RT >>>>>>> Okung as a LT

Williams is by far the better OT prospect. Williams is rising because his tape is dominant, he has shown position flexibility, has the best feet in the draft, interviewed extremely well, and was stellar in positional workouts.

Okung is going to remind a lot of people of Stephon Heyer.

[HighOnHendrix]

Williams as a RT >>>>>>> Okung as a LT

Williams is by far the better OT prospect. Williams is rising because his tape is dominant, he has shown position flexibility, has the best feet in the draft, interviewed extremely well, and was stellar in positional workouts.

Okung is going to remind a lot of people of Stephon Heyer.

So you're saying they're both actually better suited to RT? Heyer went undrafted, so that's a heck of a comparison.

[Brett81]

I'd just take Davis at that point. Davis has more (as in Ogden/Jones/Roaf) upside, but a higher floor and some attitude issues.

Ok, I've been seeing this a lot recently on here...what the hell is a "higher floor"? Wouldn't the floor be where they are right now, and the ceiling where the players could possibly achieve?

That being said, if Davis has a higher floor, wouldn't that mean that he's better than Okung right now which isn't being said?

I say hope for a trade back scenario and take Roger Saffold who's just as likely to be as good as either of these guys...and then hope you can trade an extra acquired 1st rounder from moving back to pry away Brandon Marshall from Denver.

Not criticizing you Imperium, just seen this a lot and decided to pose my question based on your post.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Williams as a RT >>>>>>> Okung as a LT

Williams is by far the better OT prospect. Williams is rising because his tape is dominant, he has shown position flexibility, has the best feet in the draft, interviewed extremely well, and was stellar in positional workouts.

Okung is going to remind a lot of people of Stephon Heyer.

At right tackle. In his junior year. Surrounded by future NFL starters. With Sam Bradford at QB.

You do not take right tackles with top 5 picks. PERIOD. Unless your QB of the future is a lefty or something.

Do you really care that your franchise LT can play multiple positions? Or that he's better suited to RT? He is going to be drafted as a FRANCHISE LEFT TACKLE at a position that is not supposed to bust. So what if he can transition to guard after busting as a LT? People consider Gallery a bust after doing that, and he's playing guard at a Pro Bowl level!

And the combine is pretty meaningless. His tape as a left tackle was pathetic. That's all I need to know. And you don't prioritize junior tape over senior tape, unless there's a health issue.

If he's as good as Jeff Otah, then I'd take him in the mid to late round. A right tackle should never go top 10, period.

Also, I meant to say a LOWER floor with Davis, or that he has more bust potential.

Also, comparing Okung to Heyer is just ridiculous beyond belief.

[stevemcqueen1]

I think I'll opine here and say that this year's group of OTs reminds me a great deal of the WR class from 2008. There is a lot of raw talent, but every single prospect has some notable questions or flaws that could cause them to drop like a stone. Consider:

- Okung: seems like the consensus top guy but has serious questions about his limited base strength, ordinary footspeed and agility, and average tape against his serious competition

- Williams: a late riser with great athleticism who has a good deal of bad tape at LT as a senior and some concerns about his focus and commitment to football

- Bulaga: a relatively "safe" prospect with fairly ordinary measurables (for a first round pick anyway) and a few games of bad tape from early in the year after he missed a month with a mysterious thyroid disease

- Davis: an exceptionally gifted prospect who, again, has some pretty bad tape from the beginning of the year and is also being heavily questioned for a lack of work ethic

- Brown: an underrated prospect and great athlete who has the best and most consistent tape from the year, but probably lacks the strength throughout his entire frame to be a profficient run blocker in anything other than a strict zone scheme. Also has only two years of experience playing OT

- Campbell: a ridiculous athlete with a rare combination of size, speed, and strength who's got minimal starting experience and a very troubling injury history

- Saffold: a limited athlete with inconsistent awareness--really a guy who went through most of his career wildly underrated until now, where he has become wildly overrated as a first or early second round pick

- Ducasse: an extremely raw small school prospect who's got a fantastic physical skill set but lacks the football experience and starts against elite competition to have anything but a rough transition to the NFL

- Fox: a tough but one dimensional player who's ordinary physical measurables will probably keep him from ever being an elite pass protector or run blocker, but he could be a solid starter nonetheless

This is an impossible group to nail down, just like the receivers of 2008 were. Hell, even the OTs of 2008 were difficult. Jake Long was a fairly consensus top choice, but there was a huge debate on who the best guy after him was. A lot of people loved Clady (I wasn't super impressed with him at the time but I didn't know as much as I do now), but I remember that a lot of people also loved Chris Williams, Branden Albert, and Jeff Otah too. I remember Chris Williams was my favorite of the group, and I'll feel a little validated if he ends up as the best one after Long.

At any rate, I decided a long time ago that Davis was my favorite of the bunch and I don't trust anything I read to change that opinion now. And I am willing and ready to admit I am wrong in my assessment if someone can give me a compelling or trustworthy argument otherwise. At this point, I just can't wait for the draft and the offseason to be over so I can start watching college football again.

P.S., as an aside, let's do a comparison of this year's OT group to 2008. If I had to try and match the skill sets of the prospects, I'd say:

Jake Long ~ Bryan Bulaga
Ryan Clady ~ Bruce Campbell / Russell Okung
Chris Williams ~ Anthony Davis
Branden Albert ~ Mike Iupati / Bruce Campbell
Jeff Otah ~ Trent Williams?
Gosder Cherilus ~ Trent Williams
Sam Baker ~ Rodger Saffold / Russell Okung
Duane Brown ~ Charles Brown

Some of the comparisons aren't all that great since no one really comes close to either Bruce Campbell or Jeff Otah IMO. Also Okung doesn't fit well because there isn't a D'Brickashaw Ferguson style tackle from 2008. But some of the comparisons actually work pretty well like Davis to Chris Williams, Charles Brown to Duane Brown, and Bulaga to Jake Long. Something to ponder...

[MartinC]

Jake Long ~ Bryan Bulaga
Ryan Clady ~ Bruce Campbell / Russell Okung
Chris Williams ~ Anthony Davis
Branden Albert ~ Mike Iupati / Bruce Campbell
Jeff Otah ~ Trent Williams?
Gosder Cherilus ~ Trent Williams
Sam Baker ~ Rodger Saffold / Russell Okung
Duane Brown ~ Charles Brown

Some of the comparisons aren't all that great since no one really comes close to either Bruce Campbell or Jeff Otah IMO. Also Okung doesn't fit well because there isn't a D'Brickashaw Ferguson style tackle from 2008. But some of the comparisons actually work pretty well like Davis to Chris Williams, Charles Brown to Duane Brown, and Bulaga to Jake Long. Something to ponder...

Interesting post and comparisons. I guess there are question marks about everybody until they have actually shown it against NFL competition over a period. There is no such thing as can't miss prospect at any position IMO.

I have no idea which tackle we should take though Okung seems the consensus and if he ends up being similar to Sam Baker or Ryan Clady I will be content. We have been spoiled as Redskins fans over a long period with Jacoby/Lachey/Samuels for most of the last 30 years.

I'm interested in the comparison you made above with Albert and Iupati. I watched Iupati a couple of times last year playing LG and was super super impressed. He was dominate at the College level and is a guy who I think will be a 10 year plus pro bowl player if he is allowed to play guard and not moved to tackle. Albert is a similar player who I think would be excellent at guard but is average at tackle at least at LT.

If we could pick up a second 1st round pick in the 20's (for Haynesworth say) a draft of Okung and Iupati (to play LG/RG not RT) would make me a very very happy man. I'll settle for just Okung though.

[FrFan]

Okung looks like a potential Chris Samuels, don't pass on him. I hope we can get extra draft picks through AH and JC trades.

[Geneva]

if Okung is there you have to take him, if not get a package and trade down

I'm with you we stand pat at 4 and pick Okung. Anyone that seen the blind side understands the true need for a top (OT), to protect your QB and give him time to pass the ball.

[MartinC]

I'm with you we stand pat at 4 and pick Okung. Anyone that seen the blind side understands the true need for a top (OT), to protect your QB and give him time to pass the ball.

Anyone basing a suggested draft strategy on a film with Sandra Bullock in needs to hand in their pass for the war room :D

[Darrell Green Fan]

Okung would be a safe pick. He is the most NFL ready and will probably have a 15 year career. However good and safe with the #4 pick in the best draft to come along in decades just doesn't excite me. If he was Ogden that would be a different situation. But the #4 pick on another Tre Thomas? Nah, I hope they can trade back. I'm fine with Williams.

[Blue Collar Skins]

Do you really want to take the word of Brian VanOchten... a man who rocks the most blatant comb-over in the history of the universe?

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/opinion_impact/2008/05/vanochtencol.png

Just sayin... Hahahahaha. Seriously, just shave it buddy!

[Chump Bailey]

Trade down with Buffalo. They get Clausen and we get Bryan Bulaga and their #41 overall. I would also love to ship them JC for their #107. We would then have #103 and #107 picks in the 4th round, which is a great place to be IMO.

[Kosher Ham]

I think they may trade up. A team like Seattle could use Campbell and Haynesworth.

It's going to be interesting. I would stand pat if you couldn't make the trade happen.

[VaBeachRedskin]

At right tackle. In his junior year. Surrounded by future NFL starters. With Sam Bradford at QB.

You do not take right tackles with top 5 picks. PERIOD. Unless your QB of the future is a lefty or something.

Do you really care that your franchise LT can play multiple positions? Or that he's better suited to RT? He is going to be drafted as a FRANCHISE LEFT TACKLE at a position that is not supposed to bust. So what if he can transition to guard after busting as a LT? People consider Gallery a bust after doing that, and he's playing guard at a Pro Bowl level!

And the combine is pretty meaningless. His tape as a left tackle was pathetic. That's all I need to know. And you don't prioritize junior tape over senior tape, unless there's a health issue.

If he's as good as Jeff Otah, then I'd take him in the mid to late round. A right tackle should never go top 10, period.

Also, I meant to say a LOWER floor with Davis, or that he has more bust potential.

Also, comparing Okung to Heyer is just ridiculous beyond belief.

Andre Smith was drafted 6th by the Bengals to be their RT.

[VaBeachRedskin]

I think they may trade up. A team like Seattle could use Campbell and Haynesworth.

It's going to be interesting. I would stand pat if you couldn't make the trade happen.

Carroll has already hinted that he will trade wins in order to stockpile talent for a run in 3-5 years. Seattle is not going to trade up with anybody. Carroll's biggest fear is that Seattle will get stuck in the 7-9 win rut and miss out on the prime talent while also still being a bad team.

[tml6157]

Okung doesn't play strong though. He has impressive weight room numbers, but they don't carry over on to the football field. He is consistently pushed back in the running game and does not possess the anchor necessary to succeed at it. I will take functional, football strength over weight room, gym short strength all day.

You lose all credibility with this statement. Okung's most impressive talent is that he is a MAULING run blocker. Its his strength.

[HailGreen28]

Carroll has already hinted that he will trade wins in order to stockpile talent for a run in 3-5 years. Seattle is not going to trade up with anybody. Carroll's biggest fear is that Seattle will get stuck in the 7-9 win rut and miss out on the prime talent while also still being a bad team.Stuck in a rut like we've been. Ouch.

[MrJL]

If Okung is gone, do we take Williams or Buluga?

[Blue Collar Skins]

I am all for trading down. Now some are saying the drop off in skill from Okung to other Tackles in the draft, is huge, but I am not sure that is the case.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Andre Smith was drafted 6th by the Bengals to be their RT.

How'd that work out for them so far?

[The Tris]

Andre Smith was drafted 6th by the Bengals to be their RT.

He was draft to be a LT, just as Jason Smith was.

Neither was able to take on that role their first year.

No team drafts tackles in the top first round with the intention of playing them at RT. Players that end up there (see Levi Brown) are busts.

[wildbill1952]

Now, let's say the option isn't Okung or Davis, but, say, Okung at #4, and trading down with the Niners for their 13 and 17, taking Iupati at #13 (to convert to LT), and another lineman like Pouncey to solidify either a G or C spot? Still looks good?Taking Okung at #4 protects the QB's blind side, and although a necessary component of a good offense, it is by no means the only component of a good offense. In that, truthfully, the Skins need at least 4 OL, five if Rinehart continues to fail to live up to his draft pick, then you have acquired two of the best possible OL you could get. Not enough to make the Skins an overnight winner, but a very, very, very tempting draft rewarding the Skins with years of payback. Plus you can always use a TE or the running back to help out one OT. I would be tempted to say Iupati + Pouncey > Okung.

The only stumblng block is getting SF to agree. But the thought is a good one.

I think the best options would be in this priority.
1. Get Okung (if he's as good as everyone has said)
2. Trade down to get multiple 1st rounders and get the next best OT and next best available offensive lineman to protect McNabb.
3. Stay put and take best available OT.

This way even if the OT isn't as good as hoped -- he still could be moved to RT and fill that need. And then try to get another OT next offseason..Actually, this makes sense. Adding one player to the defense, even a Suh or a Berry or a Gerald McCoy, is not going to translate into a lot of wins. No defensive player ever does. But improving the OLine, even if it takes a couple of years, will. The thing you have to avoid is forcing the draft to go after 5 OL. It'll never work. Even as bad as our OL is, don't force the picks on your draft. Not addressing the OLine at some point this year forces the draft next year to concentrate on OL and completely abandon BPA.


I would take the deal immediately. Okung simply isn't ranked nearly as high as elite level OT's like Boselli, Pace, and Ogden were, not even as high as D. Ferguson was in some quarters. I don't want to pay 4 slot money for a guy who isn't elite level in a draft filled to the gills with other "very good/borderline blue chip" OT's in it. Of those ratings I have seen with a 100 point scale, Okung is consistently at the 96 to 97 point mark. I don't think any OL to be drafted will ever rank up there with the guys you mention, because they are all proven products. But Okung will probably be as good as a guy named Chris Samuels, who didn't make your list, so Okung's not in bad company.


It would be painful not to address the o-line, but we'd have to spend the rest of our picks on o-line, sign some free agents, and make do for another year."Making do" is what has put the Redskins OLine in the shape it is in. "Making do-do" is a more apt description of the Redskins aptitude has been at addressing the OLine. I hope Shanny is better than Vinny was and has a better solution than "making do".

[theboomking]

I'm not sure Iaputi has ever been seriously considered as a LT prospect. The guy is a great guard prospect who might be able to move out to right tackle.

[Oldskool]

I'm not sure Iaputi has ever been seriously considered as a LT prospect. The guy is a great guard prospect who might be able to move out to right tackle.

Iupati is a RG that can play some RT. He also isn't a prospect for a ZBS but a fit for a power scheme such as Dallas and San Diego play.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

He's pretty athletic for a LG. He's not a pure ZBS prospect, but Shanahan gave a massive RT in George Foster a shot, and while he didn't stick, he wasn't awful.

[stevemcqueen1]

You lose all credibility with this statement. Okung's most impressive talent is that he is a MAULING run blocker. Its his strength.

No he isn't and no it isn't. His run blocking is ordinary to weak but still has a good deal of room for improvement IMO.

[Agent23]

I'm hoping for Okung. I'll be very disappointed if they don't draft him, I've had my heart set on him for awhile now.

[stevemcqueen1]

Okung looks like a potential Chris Samuels, don't pass on him. I hope we can get extra draft picks through AH and JC trades.

I agree with you although I think Samuels was slightly more athletic in terms of lateral speed. If I were going to compare Okung to anyone, it would either be Samuels or Ferguson and that is a compliment. Okung is one of those guys who seems to have it all going on upstairs and he consistently maximizes his talent. He does his job even if he never really dominates. That's really all you need out of your LT, and Okung has rare toughness and durability which is valuable in and of itself.

But if our coaches and scouts are confident, I wouldn't mind seeing us take a risk on a more physically talented guy like Williams, Campbell, or Davis. If they think they can coax new levels of performance from one of those guys that they didn't really demonstrate in college, we'll end up with a dominating force at LT (or RT if they choose to play him there)--someone who can win his individual matchups just about every week. It's hard to say what I would do in their situation.

[Laxpunk2006]

Maybe someone who is better informed than I can help me out with this.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2010/04/08/draft-prospect-trent-williams/

Here the author is saying that Trent Williams would be a bad fit for the Raiders because they play a ZBS. Whereas everything else I've read is saying he fits us because we do. Seems very contradicting so I'm curious who I should be believing and if this guy is way off base.

[stevemcqueen1]

He was draft to be a LT, just as Jason Smith was.

Neither was able to take on that role their first year.

No team drafts tackles in the top first round with the intention of playing them at RT. Players that end up there (see Levi Brown) are busts.

I'm not so sure. Jason Smith's situation might be a little different, but the Bengals seemed pretty set on playing Smith at RT early on. They already had Andrew Whitworth playing at a high level at LT and had recently lost an annual pro-bowler in Willie Anderson at RT.

Brown is a bit of a funny circumstance because the plan for him at RT was to be Leinart's blindside protector. He and Leinart have both underperformed since then, so that situation looks like it might be over with.

I disagree that RT is significantly less important than LT these days. I think the position was only undervalued in the draft, and in recent years that has changed since a lot of starting RTs are first round picks. You still need a good tackle playing on the right side because with all of the new wide open offenses teams are running, RTs get very little help from TEs in pass protection now. This will also be the case with us, since we prefer to run patterns with our TEs and will probably use a lot of 3 wide. So a RT has to be able to hold the edge against elite rushers AND be a strong enough guy to get push in the running game. It's a pretty unique skill set, and as such, RTs will have to be drafted higher than they were in the past.

Also, we need to keep in mind that 15 teams now use a 3-4 as their base set. Plus you have several 4-3 teams like the Giants and Colts who use undersized, pass rushing specialists at LE. So you've got to figure that over half the league uses speed rushers to get pressure on the right side of the pocket, and so a RT has got to be athletic enough to handle speed on the edge. It's the lay of the land now.

A sack is still a sack and a pressure is still a pressure whether it comes from the strong or weak side of your formation.

[stevemcqueen1]

Maybe someone who is better informed than I can help me out with this.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2010/04/08/draft-prospect-trent-williams/

Here the author is saying that Trent Williams would be a bad fit for the Raiders because they play a ZBS. Whereas everything else I've read is saying he fits us because we do. Seems very contradicting so I'm curious who I should be believing and if this guy is way off base.

I'm just going to take a guess at this and say that there is a lot of disagreement on the subject because people value different things for the ZBS.

I think the common argument for Trent Williams being a good fit in a ZBS is because he's got an elite level of footspeed and agility and is physically capable of a lot of movement (getting to the second level and trapping and reaching). People see a raw skill set and they know that a ZBS involves a lot of quick lateral movement in the running game and so that's why they think of Williams as being a good fit. There is definitely some salt to this line of thinking.

HOWEVER, I can also see the validity in arguments for why Williams is poorly suited to playing in a ZBS. The other most important qualities for success in a ZBS IMO are initial quickness and explosion and read and react ability. Williams flashes an elite burst sometimes but others he'll look slow off the snap so its hard to tell where he's really at. Mainly though, it's his read and react abilities I'd have a few questions about. He played in an entirely man scheme at Oklahoma so he's got pretty much no experience in a zone scheme and might have to learn tricky concepts like off blocking from scratch. Compare this to guys like Charles Brown and Bryan Bulaga who have years of experience in the scheme already and will come in ready to rock. Also, I think Williams is a smart guy who shows good awareness most of the time, but I also caught him making incorrect reads the few games I watched him so I wonder if he doesn't suffer from an inconsistency of focus like Anthony Davis does. Making mental mistakes can be pretty disastrous since the ZBS relies on everyone making the correct read to keep a clean pocket and to open the correct holes in the running game. One blocker making the wrong decision can break a play.

Now all that's saying is that he doesn't have experience in a zone scheme already, not that he can't succeed in it or isn't necessarily a good fit. Take from that what you will. Also keep in mind that it's a probably a good deal easier to learn to play tackle than guard or center in a zone scheme from a mental standpoint. Line calls and reads get passed down the line from the inside outward, so tackles actually have less responsibility before the snap than the other guys do. That's why I think a rookie OT can come in and learn the scheme and be alright whereas the transition can be tough and time consuming for a guard. Luckily we have some viable veteran options along the interior if we're planning to run a heavily zone scheme. Still I would love to pick up a really smart interior prospect like Maurkice Pouncey or Jon Asamoah to start getting those kinds of guys in place.

[The Tris]

I'm not so sure. Jason Smith's situation might be a little different, but the Bengals seemed pretty set on playing Smith at RT early on. They already had Andrew Whitworth playing at a high level at LT and had recently lost an annual pro-bowler in Willie Anderson at RT.

Brown is a bit of a funny circumstance because the plan for him at RT was to be Leinart's blindside protector. He and Leinart have both underperformed since then, so that situation looks like it might be over with.

Whitworth was an injury replacement for the Bengals in 2008 for Levi Jones, who was the unquestioned starter heading into that season. While the LG was a great fill in, I don't know the thinking of the Bengals front office in selection Smith. I was under the impression that they had hopes that he would play up to his immense potential (certainly AS has a higher ceiling at LT than AW?) and relegate Whitworth back to his natural LG position.

I agree that Leinhart's trouble have magnified Brown's issues at LT, but the pre-selection hope was that the #1 tackle of that class would be able to play either tackle spot, depending on what QB was playing. He was not, and despite probably being pick to protect lefty-Leinhart's blindside, is viewed as a disappointing pick at #5.

While I am not trying to dispute the talent required for the RT position, the bottomline is that historically, RT is an easier position to fill than LT. No less important, but the sheer athletic ability required for the LT position makes it tougher to fill.

Now, maybe we are seeing a major change in how teams value and approach the RT position with the rise of the 3-4 and its unique pressures, but at this point I am not sure teams are allocating upper first round picks on pure RTs.

The bottomline for me, is that Shanny's line needs an elite LT rather than an elite RT, and we need to make sure that we don't make the mistake of selecting a T who does not fit that bill.

[HigSkin]

expect the unexpected. who know's...we may pick up Jared Gaither and not even have anything to look forward to in the draft...lol.

Gaither has a dark side. I doubt the Skins are interested.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2010/04/gaither_and_the_draft.html

.......The Ravens should have takers for Gaither, if, in fact, they have had enough of his half-baked work ethic. Gaither would have a better starting point than raw rookies coming into the NFL, but those top rookies probably have a better long-term projection.

[The Consigliere]

Okung

I want to DOMINATE the line

Its starts with an elite lineman (hopefully)

You know, its odd to say but this is reasonable. Simple, and yet very reasonable and true. Im on the side for trading down. But this is, in all fairness, probably the one shot we're going to have over the next five years to land a blue chip OT. If Okung lives up to his billing, he will be a top 3-5 OT in the NFC for ten years. This is our shot at a top OT in the conference, how many elite OT's were picked up outside that top 5-10 slot area? Not many, actually i cant really think of any right now (though Im guessing there are 1-2). He's our shot, I could see the reasoning behind that.

My problem with it is that I just don't think he's worth the slot, the guaranteed money, and we need more picks, badly. If we dont get them for Haynesworth, we aren't getting them, so I'd trade down, barring a Haynesworth for pick(s) trade. But I can see your point.

[dfbovey]

If as a front office, you're set thinking that Okung is the cream of the crop... that the other tackles rated behind him are FAR behind him. Then you've got to choose him if he's there at #4.

If you have Williams, Davis and Bulaga rated closely to Okung then you trade down.

IMO, Okung is the best chance in this draft for the Redskins to draft a top flight LT to anchor the offensive line for years to come. He's who I'd pick if he's there at #4.

[stevemcqueen1]

You know, its odd to say but this is reasonable. Simple, and yet very reasonable and true. Im on the side for trading down. But this is, in all fairness, probably the one shot we're going to have over the next five years to land a blue chip OT. If Okung lives up to his billing, he will be a top 3-5 OT in the NFC for ten years. This is our shot at a top OT in the conference, how many elite OT's were picked up outside that top 5-10 slot area? Not many, actually i cant really think of any right now (though Im guessing there are 1-2). He's our shot, I could see the reasoning behind that.


IMO, Okung is the best chance in this draft for the Redskins to draft a top flight LT to anchor the offensive line for years to come. He's who I'd pick if he's there at #4.

I think both of your expectations for Okung are unjustified and you'll be let down by Okung if that's what you're looking for and we draft him. He's certainly a good prospect but I'd hardly call him dominant or blue chip because he never really dominated at the college level. He's clean instead of bestial, smooth instead of explosive. I think there isn't a whole lot separating him from Charles Brown other than a greater level of experience.

People might be surprised when Okung has a bit of a rough transition to the NFL, especially when guys like Bulaga and Brown will probably come out the gate fast. He's reliable and steady, but I'd expect a career arc from Okung that's a lot closer to D'Brickashaw Ferguson or Jammal Brown's than Joe Thomas'. Okung won't be a top 3 OT in the NFC, and he'll make the odd pro-bowl as an alternate or when the other guys have down years. But he'll be generally reliable and win his match-ups most weeks except when he goes up against the Demarcus Wares of the league.

[dfbovey]

People might be surprised when Okung has a bit of a rough transition to the NFL, especially when guys like Bulaga and Brown will probably come out the gate fast. He's reliable and steady, but I'd expect a career arc from Okung that's a lot closer to D'Brickashaw Ferguson or Jammal Brown's than Joe Thomas'. Okung won't be a top 3 OT in the NFC, and he'll make the odd pro-bowl as an alternate or when the other guys have down years. But he'll be generally reliable and win his match-ups most weeks except when he goes up against the Demarcus Wares of the league.

I haven't seen anything that would justify your take. Okung has done very well against elite college pass rushers, including Orakpo who said he was his toughest individual opponent.

Not really sold on Bulaga. I do like Brown as a trade down option.

[Spade]

Trading down - is there anyone even willing to do this for this draft? Past Bradford and Suh, I really dont see anyone else worth giving up multiple picks to acquire...
Now if Vinny suddenly became a GM somewhere, then maybe there is a deal to be made..

Eric Berry got alot of teams after him

[VaBeachRedskin]

You lose all credibility with this statement. Okung's most impressive talent is that he is a MAULING run blocker. Its his strength.

You need to check those scouting reports a few more times. Most everyone agrees that Okung struggles in the run game.


How'd that work out for them so far?

They went from having the 6th pick in the draft to winning the AFC North.


He was draft to be a LT, just as Jason Smith was.

Neither was able to take on that role their first year.

No team drafts tackles in the top first round with the intention of playing them at RT. Players that end up there (see Levi Brown) are busts.

Most of what I have read has the Bengals keeping Smith at RT for the foreseeable future. He was drafted because he is a dominant run blocker and they want him on that right side with Bobbie Williams (though how many more years he has in the league is debatable).

[VaBeachRedskin]

http://rob-rang.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/13682485/20866717?tag=comBlogEntryListCnt;entry20866717

What do you know, we have Trent Williams rated higher than Okung.

[Enter Apotheosis]

http://rob-rang.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/13682485/20866717?tag=comBlogEntryListCnt;entry20866717

What do you know, we have Trent Williams rated higher than Okung.

According to who? Rang doesn't seem to want to name a source or even claim anonymous inside information. Not knowing much about the guy I'd just assume that he's misinterpreting information elsewhere regarding the possibility that we take Trent Williams.

[36HAMMER]

I'm still not completely sold on the fact that Okeung is so much better than all of them.Depending on who you read Balaga is bigger but faster and more technically sound blocker with a much nastier disposition than Okeung.Wiilliams from the Sooners is also climbing the charts as well so if they can trade down and still get one of those two Tackles and the Skins brass feels the same way about Balaga and T williams then by all means do it.If we could some how get Balaga or Williams and the center from Florida and Upoti from Idaho i would be soo happy.A pipe dream i know with no picks but it would be sweet.3 young stude to rebuild the oline with is what we need more than anything.but alot depends on the trades the skins make between now and then.Do they go all out and smoke all of next years picks to get the players they want now and then just use the fa market next year which is supposed to be the best ever or not trade.I have no opinion either way but i will say that you just don't trade for Mcnabb and not do whatever it takes to put a good to great oline in front of him.It just doesn't make any sense to get a guy like him and then tie his hands behind his back with a lousy oline.

[LaRonDontLikeUgly]

It's so hard to make a call right now because our draft pick situation is going to look way different come draft day.

Okung at 4 would make me happy, but Bulaga at 7 (and an extra 3rd or 4th) would be my ideal situation. He is my favorite player in this year's draft and I feel that aside from what he accomplished in college, Bulaga just has the personality/attitude/look of a player who will dominate consistently for at least 10 seasons.

[757SeanTaylor21]

i would love to trade down and get trent williams in the high teens, maybe 13th pick overall with the 49ers and get their second and a 5th rounder...and be able to trade back up to get pouncey. but that schweigmann guy we picked up in fa i wuoldnt mind seein what he could do as well.

[icbmayday]

If Oakland is giving up there 1st and 2nd plus a later pick you have to pull the trigger......thought I think this is pretty unrealistic

[REEGSKINS]

trade down. we need more picks.

[MartinC]

trade down. we need more picks.

What we need is more good players - a draft pick can not tackle, block or catch a pass. If you have more picks you might have more chance to do that based on the simple maths but if you trade down too far your chance of getting that starting tackle who can come on be the man from day one dimishes rapidly.

Me I'd rather have Okung and move on as opposed to 2 or 3 players who may be starters in time but also might just be backups. Okung may be a bust as well but far less chance of that than any tackle you take at the end of the 1st or early 2nd.

[redskin301]

Let's say we trade back with the browns and get a extra 2nd and we draft Trent Williams and trade that 2nd to the ravens for Jared gaither that way we have bookend tackels for 8+ years

[The Tris]

[/URL]
RT @[URL="http://twitter.com/AlfieCrow"]AlfieCrow (http://twitter.com/MoveTheSticks):Why is it you dont draft a RT early if you have a young LT? > B/c you can cover up a RT, not as valuable as the LT





As we have neither, obviously we need to focus on the LT, then worry about the rising value of RTs in today's NFL.

[stevemcqueen1]

As we have neither, obviously we need to focus on the LT, then worry about the rising value of RTs in today's NFL.

I'm not convinced by Jeremiah's reasoning. But on account of us having neither, I do agree with you that we absolutely need to prioritize getting a LT over a RT. We're picking at 4. Odds are we won't be here again under Shanahan and McNabb so that means we need to come away with either a good QB like Bradford or a good LT. Picking this high, you'd think we could be able to.

But at the end of the day, you can't fight the draft board. If we hate the LTs available at 4 and love someone else, I don't think we should be reaching to fill needs, especially when there are decent guys like Jason Fox who might be available much later in the class. It also won't be the end of the world if we go into next year without a LT. I'm not really expecting us to be any good, and next year has as many good OT prospects in the class as this year's does.

My personal hope for our draft has changed a lot since the McNabb trade. I'm now pretty convinced our best possible scenario is for Bradford to fall to us at 4, or else to trade down into the teens and draft Anthony Davis.

[maskedsuperstar]

The best option now is to trade out of the #4 pick. Can't pick Okung at #4, that would leave the Skins with 3 picks. Trade down.

[gorebd82]

My personal hope for our draft has changed a lot since the McNabb trade. I'm now pretty convinced our best possible scenario is for Bradford to fall to us at 4, or else to trade down into the teens and draft Anthony Davis.

I agree. If Bradford is there, you have to take him. I don't care if he has to sit for 3 years. If not, I'm really, really hoping that the key to trading down is a swap with Denver for Brandon Marshall. At #11, we should still be able to get Anthony Davis.

But even at #11, I'd be talking to the Ravens about Gaither. I know people don't see him fitting our scheme, but seems like he'd fit as well as Flozell. At #25, we might be looking at Pouncey or Iupati. Anthony Davis or Jimmy Clausen might even still be on the board.

Worse case scenario is that we might take Roger Saffold to play RG and eventually move out to RT. I'd be doing backflips if we turned the #4 into Brandon Marshall, Jared Gaither, and Roger Saffold. Gaither, Dockery, Rabach, Saffold, Adams looks like offensive line to me.

[prinzeofmoval]

We can trade down for mid to late first and second.. Its actually a great draft in regards to o-line, D-line and cb's

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

#4 + Dockery #12 + Clady. Why?

Well, it seems pretty clear that for whatever reason, Clady isn't a great fit for McDaniels's power-blocking scheme. Meanwhile, McDaniels seems to want to jettison as much of the Shanahan era as possible.

We can trade down to 12 and use the pick to take Pouncey, or trade down to #19 (and take Iupati).

Of course, I don't think there's any harm in using the #4 to trade for Clady and only get back a 2nd and a 2011 first, or something like that, especially since it's likely to be a high pick.