2013 Comprehensive NFL Draft Database

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

And I know this is the part where Aldon Smith gets bought up, but I'm always going to want to draft an every down player over a guy who only comes in to rush the passer. I won't say it's easy to do what he did his rookie year, but with a secondary that good and a d-line that dominant and fourth other linebackers to worry about, two of which are playing at an elite level, it's not a surprise Aldon Smith gets free rushes at the quarterback.

So if you flip Kerrigan and Smith then Kerrigan becomes a 12-15 sack guy? And what's to say Aldon Smith can't develop as a every down OLB? Orakpo looked on his way to doing so.

The Steelers have Harrison and Woodley as their two pass rushers. Clay Matthews got stonewalled in 2011 and the Packers made it a point to go out and draft Nick Perry to put opposite him this year. The Ravens have tried to put another player opposite Terrell Suggs while now; Jarrett Johnson was okay for them, then they tried to draft Sergio Kindle to come in and be the pass rusher opposite Suggs. There's an idea that's been floated around that the Redskins were "silly" for taking another outside linebacker. Quite frankly, that's bull****, since three of the best 3-4 defenses, two of which have the best 3-4 coordinators in the game, both have been trying to find two outside rushers.

Of course, the Ravens drafted Haloti Ngata and the Packers drafted B.J Raji with top 10 picks years before trying to draft Kindle and Perry, long before they started trying to chase a bookend pass rusher. And the Ravens and Packers invested much less trying to do so than we did (#24 pick, 2nd rounder)

If anything it proves Steve's case - those teams saw a bookend pass rusher as a luxury, and a disruptive down lineman as a priority.

The idea that you have to wait until the team gets good before you start to build depth on your football team is silly and misguided. Our depth wasn't just bad; it was wretched. That's the whole point. People shrug it off and say "okay, our depth may not have been good, but we would've had one player." Outside of quarterbacks (occasionally), how many teams completely turn on the addition of one player?

Okay, in a long-term rebuilding process, why must our depth be built in year 2? Nobody is poo-pooing the importance of depth - but who cares about depth, but a good organization can build depth, and furthermore, building it without having to take massive and easily predictable opportunity costs like passing on a Watt or Quinn.

People toss the logic of the trade down aside and then get on their high horse and say "WELL I KNEW WATT WAS GOING TO BE GOOD!". Hindsight is 20/20 and ignorance makes even those who think they're the smartest blind. There's a big combination of both going on in this thread----Watt's having a great season so it's easy to ask what might've been, and just about everyone who complains that trading down conveniently ignores how bad our depth was. They brush that aside and go "okay, well that would've fixed itself somehow but Watt would be a difference maker!"

Because Watt's college tape pretty much screamed difference maker. Watt's college tape and physical profile, like Brian Orakpo's college tape and physical profile, said "top 5 talent". College tape and physical profile isn't a perfect projection, but it's a great projection. So it is not hindsight to say "Watt was going to be a beast", because it should have been obvious. That's how you build a contending team - by getting talent above where you're picking. You're not going to get a great value pick by drafting a 3-4 OLB without elite speed or burst at #16. And it could have been worse - Kerrigan's really overperforming his talent.

Isn't it sad that the best value pick we've made in the last 5 years was made by Vinny ****ing Cerrato? And yet it's true, Vinny picked a top 5 talent when it fell into his lap at 13, and Shanahan outsmarted himself by trading down from two top 5 talents at 10. (and to be fair, Belichick has made the same error for years, which is why he only has 3 SB rings and not 5, 6 or 7)

News flash; Watt would (maybe, it's neglible with Haslett coaching this team) be a pretty good player still surrounded by mediocre talent on both sides of the ball. Most of the holes we have, we'd still have. But hey, we'd have Watt. Because one guy makes all the difference.

So we'd have the same amount of holes, and J.J Watt, and that's somehow worse than having the same holes, not having J.J Watt, and having mostly replacement level guys on the roster.

The fact is that almost every guy in this thread that everyone brings up as a guy we could've/should've bought in had okay production in their first full year as a starter. Robert Quinn was basically a non-factor and didn't even start until, what, halfway through his rookie season? Prince Amukamara was regularly victimized, Stephen Paea started maybe one game (according to Pro Football Reference he didn't start a single game his rookie season), Watt had similiar sack numbers to Adam friggin' Carriker and less passes defenses than Barry friggin' Cofield, in a defense that is completely different from ours.

Yeah, Brian Orakpo is a pretty good player. He made a lot of guys better than what they actually were. Orakpo was the only one creating mismatches and putting the rest of the players in position to make plays. At least that's what it looks like. Cofield and Carriker are solid players, but they're not individual mismatches, they played off individual mismatches that Rak created. I don't think Cofield's deflections or Carriker's sack numbers are a product of their talent as much as a product of a scheme that allowed them to deal with less defensive attention.

And the fact that Quinn or Paea weren't elite year one is irrelevant - it doesn't change that they had, and have far more upside than Kerrigan or Jenkins, based on their tape/what they showed at college.

This is Hankerson's first full year starting coming off injury. This Aldrick's first full year, and he didn't see the field at all. JJ is coming off an injury. Niles Paul is learning a new position. I'll give you Gomes, because at least that guy has a body of work and saw extensive playing time last year. I won't write off Helu yet. Royster might be playing himself out of job, but again; extensive playing time.

I have hope that Hankerson might become our Roddy White. Not a lot though. Aldrick is fast, but how is more PT going to make him magically develop hands? Like Steve said, JJ may be coming off an injury, but right now, he looks like the same guy he was in college - a run stuffer who doesn't disrupt.

I know it's not a perfect comparison, but it really sounds like the "Wish upon a star" thinking that led people to believe that Jason Campbell would eventually develop into something more than what he showed in college. Sure, they MIGHT overperform what they were in college - but they haven't so far.

And can I just say that the irony of someone (or someones) talking about how bad Hankerson's hands are when they advocate drafting Denard Robinson, who has never played a snap at receiver and developing HIM into a receiver or running back based purely on the fact that he runs fast in space and having patience with a guy like that is not lost on me.

You're not drafting Robinson to be a #1 WR though, you're drafting him based on pure physical upside and the ability to make plays in space. Worst case scenario? Quality KR/PR. I have no position on investing in a guy like that though. He's definitely better in space than Aldrick Robinson, who still can't beat out Brandon Banks for the KR/PR role.

This wasn't Orakpo or Raji falling, this was a guy getting drafted in his projected draft range and then outperforming every expectation.

2011 was a really, really, really strong top of the draft. Newton, Dareus, Miller, Green, Peterson, Jones, and arguably Aldon Smith were all A+ prospects. Tennessee reached for Locker. Dallas reached for Smith. Really, I can't think of a better comparison to Watt being there at #10 than Orakpo being there at #13.

[NLC1054]

You're not drafting Robinson to be a #1 WR though, you're drafting him based on pure physical upside and the ability to make plays in space. Worst case scenario? Quality KR/PR. I have no position on investing in a guy like that though. He's definitely better in space than Aldrick Robinson, who still can't beat out Brandon Banks for the KR/PR role.

Denard Robinson has never returned a kick or punt, and the only reason Aldrick's not returning kicks is because Brandon Banks is Danny Smith's pet project. Pretty much no one besides Danny Smith wants Banks on the team, but Smith has final say, no matter how bad Banks blows.

But you know what? I'm tapping out. Unlike some others I'd rather look towards the future then rehash the past over and over and over until the end of time.

[stevemcqueen1]

I find this Marquess Wilson situation fascinating. I wonder how much truth there is to claims of abuse. Given Leach's history, I wouldn't be surprised if every single word is true.

He's playing out like a cleaner, more talented, more productive Mike Williams (Syracuse).

[ArmchairRedskin]

What's funny about all this Watt vs Kerrigan talk is that some of the same people saying we should have taken Watt were actually whining after the first round because we didn't draft Gabbert.

Oh, it's your second year in, you absolutely have to draft a QB. Mike made a huge mistake passing up Gabbert.
Oh. Mike made a huge mistake trading Jeremy Jarmon.

Now all of a sudden everyone wanted Watt even though Shanahan made it crystal clear before the draft that they would target a guy to bookend Rak. Free agency brought in Bowen and Cofield. Carriker was brought in the year before. Haslett has also said he wanted his DE's to be over 300lbs. It was pretty clear that drafting a DE was not something that was being considered with the first pick.

Lets keep it consistent.

[darrelgreenie]

The idea that the defensive ends and nose tackle in a 3-4 defense typically aren't the primary sources of pass rush in a 3-4?

How is this post a response? Virtually every good 34 DL or any good interior DL in general has at least 1 DL that can rush up the middle. Even in 2-gap schemes. Off the top of my head the Steeler's have Aaron Smith, the Packers used to have Cullen Jenkins. Lack of a disruptive DL is part of the problem we have on defense right now.

And the idea that J.J Watt is in a 1-gap system where he's asked to penetrate
and get up field instead of a 2-gap season where he'd be asked to suck up blocks instead? And that he only had 2 (albeit very good) years of production?

Again, how is this a response to my post?

But if you think that JJ Watt can't play in a 2-gap 34 because he's a good pass rusher and overall disruptive player is imo absurd.

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 06:08 AM ----------

Maybe here is the disconnect. I was replying to Gore's post and your post just got sandwhiched inbetween:

Jarvis was a prospect gaining momentum after strong workouts and it was rumored that the Pats were really high on him. Jarvis was the logical choice.

What is logical about a 34 DL that doesn't pass rush being added to a bunch of other 34 DL that don't pass rush?

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 06:10 AM ----------

[stevemcqueen1]

What's funny about all this Watt vs Kerrigan talk is that some of the same people saying we should have taken Watt were actually whining after the first round because we didn't draft Gabbert.

Oh, it's your second year in, you absolutely have to draft a QB. Mike made a huge mistake passing up Gabbert.
Oh. Mike made a huge mistake trading Jeremy Jarmon.

You're taking shots at me. That's fine. I was wrong about Jarmon and our QB situation ended up working out for us, though we had to make an unprecedentedly expensive trade for it to happen. Oh and BTW, even though RGIII seems to be working out, Shanahan still finds himself on the hot seat. It's still a stupid thing for a regime to not draft its franchise QB in their first year.

And if we're taking shots at each other's history of projection, I also seem to remember you talking a lot of smack about RGIII last season.

Yes, we absolutely should have drafted Watt instead of trading down. Hindisght has pretty much made this indisputable. But I don't get the sense people are unhappy with the choice of Kerrigan now. It was the choice to trade down out of range for a lot of elite players all in the name of zealously acquiring depth.

To me that's a stupid ****ing thing to do. It was then, still is now.

Now all of a sudden everyone wanted Watt even though Shanahan made it crystal clear before the draft that they would target a guy to bookend Rak. Free agency brought in Bowen and Cofield. Carriker was brought in the year before. Haslett has also said he wanted his DE's to be over 300lbs. It was pretty clear that drafting a DE was not something that was being considered with the first pick.

You don't see problems with the bolded?

In the first case, locking in on a certain position in the first round is bad drafting (except when you're targeting a franchise QB). That's forcing the draft instead of letting it come to you, and that's how reaches get made.

In the second case, ruling out any DL because he's below 300 pounds would be absolutely horrible. Personally, I hope the sub 300 pound rule is something fans came up with and not something the FO actually believe. Justin Smith is listed at 285, Watt is listed at 295, and they're the best DLs in the league, let alone 34 DLs. Further, Aaron Smith was listed at 280-290 most of his career. Brett Keisel is listed at 285. There is no 310 pound prototype like many of our fans think and our FO would be incompetent if they believed that.

And in the final sentence, ruling out taking a DL in what will end up being the strongest DL class in maybe a generation because we just signed Carriker, Bowen, and Cofield and wanted an OLB, is really really bad drafting and teambuilding. You reap mediocrity and failure doing things like that.

Why is it so hard for so many to admit our FO screwed up the 2010 and 2011 offseasons so bad? We're reviewing the situation and, in some cases, using hindsight to figure out what went wrong. If you have a problem with hindsight, that's fine. But none of us criticizing the FO here by using hindsight expected perfection. And many of us (myself for certain) saw the moves as mistakes and criticized the opportunity cost being paid as they happened.

Shanny's 2010 and 2011 offseasons barely avoid being considered abject disaster. The success of Kerrigan and Trent keep them from being considered so. Shanny absolutely made his bed in those offseasons, and whether people realize it or not, they are the fundamental reason there is so much desire for firing him now.

And before anyone gives the pat excuse "Shanny needs five years to clean up the disaster we were before"--No. This is the NFL folks. It does not take five years to see signs of progress in your rebuild if you do it right. Until 2012, it wasn't even clear the FO believed we were rebuilding. SF and Detroit were trash and Detroit was so much more incompetently run than we ever were, and they're both in the playoffs within three years of putting the right people in charge and executing a good rebuild. Shanny doesn't get to use Vinny Cerrato as an excuse for all of the horrible decisions and terrible instances of mismanagement he's been guilty of in his time here.

What's funny is that I'm probably one of the only people left around here who thinks he's a truly great coach and thinks he absolutely must remain the HC here for years, even beyond his original deal. But I see no need to ignore his mistakes and deny the fact he was pretty terrible his first two years here.

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 11:16 AM ----------

And another thing about Jarmon--the issue is not so much whether he succeeded or failed. The issue is that we still don't have a DL that can pass rush, and we have no DL with the potential to become a pass rusher currently in the fold. Are we better off sans Jarmon?

[NLC1054]

And another thing about Jarmon--the issue is not so much whether he succeeded or failed. The issue is that we still don't have a DL that can pass rush, and we have no DL with the potential to become a pass rusher currently in the fold. Are we better off sans Jarmon?

Seeing as though he couldn't succeed in Denver when given a golden opportunity to become that guy and retired at the age of 24, and we couldn't figure out a place to put him in this defense, then yeah, I'd say we're probably better off without him.

And given the quarterbacks available in 2010, who was Mike supposed to draft, given how it was a 95% guarantee that the Rams were going to take Bradford? Was he supposed to rest his hopes on Clausen, or McCoy, or even Tebow? How can you say "it was dumb to not draft a quarterback in the first year of the rebuild" when all the evidence suggests that not overdrafting a quarterback and taking Trent Williams was the right move?

As other have said, you clearly ripped the front office a new one for not drafting Blaine Gabbert. You didn't get on them for not drafting Watt; you got on them for not drafting Gabbert. Gabbert, who was hideous in his rookie season to the point of near hilarity if not cringe inducing disgust. Gabbert, who despite improving tremendously in his second year, is still absolute garbage.

Hindsight can make people blind. People have given you perfectly logical arguments for why they traded down, and you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "No no no, it doesn't matter what any of the logic of the situation was, the fact that Watt is dominating right now PROVES that I am right!". No one was complaining about not drafting Watt last year when Ryan was playing well, and if people "second guessed" the move then they sure didn't speak their mind about it when it appeared to be a good move.

Now that the team is struggling it becomes much easier to say that, for whatever reason.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

As other have said, you clearly ripped the front office a new one for not drafting Blaine Gabbert. You didn't get on them for not drafting Watt; you got on them for not drafting Gabbert. Gabbert, who was hideous in his rookie season to the point of near hilarity if not cringe inducing disgust. Gabbert, who despite improving tremendously in his second year, is still absolute garbage.

Actually I just checked the 2011 draft thread, Steve hated not taking one of Gabbert/Watt/Fairley/Quinn and then having them all go off the board forcing us to take Kerrigan (and not a guy like Cam Jordan)as a panic pick (and I think LL56 outright said it was a panic pick). And without Orakpo to create one on one matchups for Kerrigan, Steve seems to have nailed Kerrigan pretty well - a hustle, power player without top end speed and burst. So far, Quinn, Jordan and Watt are more impactful rushers than Kerrigan. Fairley's been hurt, but if you want to use Jenkins being hurt as an excuse, you have to give Fairley the benefit of the doubt. Now, could this be because of Haslett not being able to scheme up pressure, or Rak not being on the other side? Sure. But do you think that Quinn needs Chris Long to physically dominate opposing tackles? Do you think J.J Watt needs Brooks Reed to be a force? Do you think Watt would suck under Haslett?I doubt it. Yet Kerrigan seems to need Rak to be the playmaking turnover machine he was last year.

Sure, he personally wanted Gabbert, but the thrust of the criticism is that we passed on potential impact talent in order to build depth - which is what he's arguing right now.

Hindsight can make people blind. People have given you perfectly logical arguments for why they traded down, and you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "No no no, it doesn't matter what any of the logic of the situation was, the fact that Watt is dominating right now PROVES that I am right!". No one was complaining about not drafting Watt last year when Ryan was playing well, and if people "second guessed" the move then they sure didn't speak their mind about it when it appeared to be a good move.

Personally, I was thrilled we weren't drafting Gabbert, and I knew Watt would be a better player, but I wasn't excited about Kerrigan at all. I just wanted to draft anybody not named Blaine Gabbert.

But a lot of people, not just Steve, said that we passed up a chance to take true impact-caliber players by trading down. I saw Kerrigan as a solid starter, and I thought Watt and Fairley were going to be studs, though I did buy into the Jenkins koolaid for a while (though I hated the Jenkins pick at the time, and I was praying they'd be putting him as a run stuffing NT which is what his skillset seemed to scream).

I think what's happening now is that everyone's just regressing towards the mean. Pretty much our entire draft class outperformed what one could have projected, even Jenkins looking like a physical monster last year in TC, and Helu looking almost as good as DeMarco Murray when healthy and then Royster getting 320 yards in 2 games to close out the season.

[Laron Burgundy]

Because Watt's college tape pretty much screamed difference maker. Watt's college tape and physical profile, like Brian Orakpo's college tape and physical profile, said "top 5 talent". College tape and physical profile isn't a perfect projection, but it's a great projection. So it is not hindsight to say "Watt was going to be a beast", because it should have been obvious. That's how you build a contending team - by getting talent above where you're picking. You're not going to get a great value pick by drafting a 3-4 OLB without elite speed or burst at #16. And it could have been worse - Kerrigan's really overperforming his talent.

Isn't it sad that the best value pick we've made in the last 5 years was made by Vinny ****ing Cerrato? And yet it's true, Vinny picked a top 5 talent when it fell into his lap at 13, and Shanahan outsmarted himself by trading down from two top 5 talents at 10. (and to be fair, Belichick has made the same error for years, which is why he only has 3 SB rings and not 5, 6 or 7)

Now this is just absolutely absurd. Yes, Watt screamed top 5 talent, so professional draftniks like mel kiper had him going 18 to San Diego after guys like Kerrigan, Liuget, Wilkerson and Jordan. McShay had us taking him at 10, but after Fairley. To say he was considered a top 5 talent is revisionist history.

And to Steve's point, yes we can say the FO messed up those drafts, but let's not act like we, as a community, did a better job than they did. By these standards any draft ever was a failure and huge mistakes were made. Why didn't we draft Tom Brady in the 5th, or Rodgers over Rogers, or Revis over Landry? Clearly those were all the right choices and every one knew it! Some people can't seem to separate hindsight from actuality. I know the point of this thread is always yearly debates, but how many people here liked Clausen or disliked RG3 or wanted Gabbert or Bradford or complained about the Morris or Trent picks? Let's be honest with ourselves, if most of us were drafting we would have Okung and Gabbert.

[gorebd82]

I think that when you look at the whole picture, the FO targeted quantity and low risk, good upside players who we can't give a final grade to at this point. We went into 2011 needing a NT, DE, OLB to solidify our 3-4. It was a weird offseason with FA after the draft because of the lockout. We needed a plan to fill those positions and looking ahead to FA, Woodley and Cullen Jenkins were the top guys. The thing is though that Cofield and Bowen were out there too as options. Woodley was the only 3-4 LOLB out there and got franchised.

We had to go BPA with consideration of need. If we had taken Watt, we might have come out of the draft without a LOLB. Looking back, that wouldn't have been the end of the world because Watt is truly elite and we couldve taken Reed or Houston, but at that point in the draft, getting a player that is now looking just a notch below elite and another 2nd round pick was a safe, calculated decision with upside to solidify a position that was identified as a cornerstone of our team. Clearly Shanny feels that QB, LT, and the two OLB spots have to have plus players for his offense and defense to be successful and he made sure to secure them with his first 3 drafts.

We were also lacking depth and competition, so our FO went with quantity over quality. This philosophy does miss out on some stars, but it also avoids leaving gaping holes on the roster. IMO, we are now finally at the point where we can gamble a bit on upside. To be honest, if we had gone with upside, our 2011 class would be Fairley and Bowers. That's the other side of the "standout talent who drops" coin. Like I said, I'll let you know next fall whether our class was a success when we have a solid evaluation on Hank and JJ. Could it have been better, yes. But it also could've been way worse.

------

To Steve, you are absolutely right about one thing for certain. Clay is way better than Kerrigan. Ryan is probably the 3rd best LOLB in a 3-4, but we probably have the 2nd best tandem after Pittsburgh (also depending on if Harrison is facing drastic decline). I personally wanted Pierre Paul in 2010 and Aldon Smith (I think its unfair mentioning him in these convos since he was off the board) or Quinn in 2011 because they have Demarcus Ware type talent that would've pushed Orakpo to the left side. I'm on the same page about game changing talents, but I also can accept the FO getting plus players that are safer picks and more well rounded, better fits for their specific role in the defense. Kerrigan can't pass rush like the elite guys, but he's solid in coverage, good against the run, still a plus pass rusher, and has a nose for the football. Those are perfect fits for LOLB which involve more TE coverage, runs to the strong side, swing passes, etc. ROLB allows the guy to pin his ears back from the weak side. So we got an ideal position fit while trading back (which most fans clamor for, I personally prefer trading up for elite talent).

------

We should keep our fingers crossed that Jammal Brown isn't cooked because then we'll be in a similar situation of needing a RT in the draft because FA presents solutions in the secondary, but not RT for us. I am certain that our top FA priority will be a top CB and there's multiple options available. For example, I could see us passing on Amerson for Fluker because we signed Talib and don't want to start Polumbus.

I'm hoping that Brown does show something's I we can go OT in the 4th or 5th to develop a guy rather than go OT in the 2nd for an immediate starter.

[NLC1054]

Now this is just absolutely absurd. Yes, Watt screamed top 5 talent, so professional draftniks like mel kiper had him going 18 to San Diego after guys like Kerrigan, Liuget, Wilkerson and Jordan. McShay had us taking him at 10, but after Fairley. To say he was considered a top 5 talent is revisionist history.

Mike Mayock had J.J Watt going at number 18 to the San Diego Chargers.
Mel Kiper had J.J Watt going at number 18 to the San Diego Chargers.
Todd McShay actually did have the Redskins taking Watt at 10. (So that's one.)
WalterFootball had J.J Watt going at number 20 to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Greg Cox of WalterFootball had him going 18 to the Chargers
SBNation had J.J Watt going number 17 to the New England Patriots.
Peter King had J.J Watt going 27th to the Atlanta Falcons
Pat Kirwan had Watt going 11th to the Texans.
Brian Baldinger and Charles Davis had him going 16th to the Jaguars
Bucky Brooks had him going 18th to San Diego.
Draft Countdown had him going 17th to the Patriots
DraftTek had him going 18th to the Chargers
Peter Schrager had him going to the Chargers
Mocking the Draft had him going to the Chargers

Where are all these mock drafts that were talking about how high J.J Watt was supposed to get drafted in the top 5, or even in the top 10?

For the sake of argument...

Mike Mayock had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars.
Mel Kiper had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars
Todd McShay had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars
WalterFootball had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars
Greg Cox had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars.
SBNation had Ryan Kerrigan going at 20th to the Bucs.
Peter King had Ryan Kerrigan going 16th to the Jaguars
Pat Kirwan had Ryan Kerrigan going 14th to the St. Louis Rams
Bucky Brooks had him going to the Jags.
Draft Countdown had him going to the Jags

You see where I'm goin' with this, don't you?

[gorebd82]

You're not drafting Robinson to be a #1 WR though, you're drafting him based on pure physical upside and the ability to make plays in space. Worst case scenario? Quality KR/PR. I have no position on investing in a guy like that though. He's definitely better in space than Aldrick Robinson, who still can't beat out Brandon Banks for the KR/PR role.

Since I don't comment on this thread consistently (but read it religiously, best on ES for years btw), I try not to harp on the Denard thing because my stance has been clear. But I the point needs to be made that Denard might not be our #1 WR or starting RB, but IMO he could be our best offensive player and weapon not named RGIII. That's why I'd personally would spend a 3rd to secure him. I'd do backflips if we get him in the 4th.

To those who say that he's never played WR or returned kicks or would be a reserve/not get enough touches, I have two responses. The first is that we should stay miles away from him if he is bent on being a QB. If he doesn't want to do it, he'll fail i.e. Pat White, Crouch, kinda Tebow.

If he embraces it, we have the ideal offense in place for him to be successful. We already have plays that we use frequently which fail because we're running them with backup caliber talents. We have the most creative offense in the league and its completely based in misdirection. That misdirection is because of RGIII's skillset and Robinson on the field at the same time doubles the unpredictability. He can already throw and run so his needed growth would mostly be required at WR, but he'd likely only run part of the route tree. Any KR/PR ability is just gravy.

First, the Pats have utilized Welker as their top weapon out of the slot and the Saints have utilized Sproles as one of their main weapons (he touches the ball just as much as Graham or Colston). As our slot WR and third down back, Denard would essentially be a starter and could touch the ball 15 times a game, maybe throwing 3-4 times. That's less touches than a lead RB, but more than a top WR.

All of those plays run for Banks, screens for Royster, WR screens, and some of RGIII's designed runs can be allocated to him. Throw in a couple of carries (mostly stretch, toss, jet sweep, reverses, and draws) and short passes (mostly drags, slants, ins, outs, hitches) and he becomes the most versatile weapon you have. Based on the personnel I'm projecting, Denard, Alfred, Pierre, Hank, and Fred if healthy would be my base personnel skill players.

You can put him on the field with any 4 skills players and the defense wouldn't be able to guess our formation. If I send out Davis, Paul, Paulsen, and Morris, what are we running? Is it a jumbo package with 3 tight, 2 backs or 3 wide single back shotgun? What personnel group does your defense put out there?

In a system with ZBS, zone read option, vertical west coast passing with spread elements, lots of shifting, and lots of motion, a Griffin-Robinson duo is impossible to gameplan for. You can do nothing but hope your players make the right decision when they react. The more often players are forced to react rather than read tendencies, the more likely they are to make a mistake. It's really the same philosophy as defenses pressuring a QB into making mistakes. Only difference is that defense target one guy to force a mistake, this offensive approach makes all defenders have to react and creates a high probability that someone blows there assignment.

[NLC1054]

In a system with ZBS, zone read option, vertical west coast passing with spread elements, lots of shifting, and lots of motion, a Griffin-Robinson duo is impossible to gameplan for. You can do nothing but hope your players make the right decision when they react. The more often players are forced to react rather than read tendencies, the more likely they are to make a mistake. It's really the same philosophy as defenses pressuring a QB into making mistakes. Only difference is that defense target one guy to force a mistake, this offensive approach makes all defenders have to react and creates a high probability that someone blows there assignment.

It's easy to gameplan for because you know what the play is likely to be once Danard Robinson is on the field.

It's the same issue we have when we put Banks on the field; it's either going to be a gimmick, a screen, or a go. You catch teams off guard at first, but eventually they key in on your tendencies. And that's assuming teams buy that he's some sort of legitimate threat at all.

If you want a guy who you could line up anywhere and give the defense a headache, why in the blue hell would you pass up a guy like Tavon Austin? Tavon Ausin, you can line him up in the slot, you can line him up outside, you can line him up in the backfield, you can run your whole route tree with him. Or Ryan Swope; you might not be able to put him in the backfield, but again, you can line him up all over, run your whole route tree.

How many times does switching a guy from quarterback to receiver work? How many times has it ever works? What makes Denard such a special flower that despite the mountains of evidence against this sort of switch actually working that he'll be the different one?

A lot of people that are saying "this guy is only ever going to be the guy he was in college" will suddenly forget that axiom when it comes to a guy like Denard.

And this offense is only going to get less gimmicky, not more gimmicky, especially if Kyle leaves and we bring in a new OC.

[Laron Burgundy]

Since I don't comment on this thread consistently (but read it religiously, best on ES for years btw), I try not to harp on the Denard thing because my stance has been clear. But I the point needs to be made that Denard might not be our #1 WR or starting RB, but IMO he could be our best offensive player and weapon not named RGIII. That's why I'd personally would spend a 3rd to secure him. I'd do backflips if we get him in the 4th.

I've come around on the Robinson suggestion myself. I think it makes our offense extremely unpredictable, though I honestly wouldn't mind just Kenjon Barner either and nix the trick pass plays. Has a lot more experience with running and receiving and may go much later than Robinson. The oregon offense is fairly similar to our own as well.

I don't mind spending early draft picks bolstering our offense for two reasons. One, I believe our defense will be improved next year due to players getting healthy, and two I think we bolster it in FA. We can't just tilt full-scale in one direction just because it is the worst side of our team. Check out the patriots in 2010, despite desperately needing defense (and they certainly picked up some defenders) they still spent early picks on tight ends when previously they didn't feature tight ends.

[stevemcqueen1]

Now this is just absolutely absurd. Yes, Watt screamed top 5 talent, so professional draftniks like mel kiper had him going 18 to San Diego after guys like Kerrigan, Liuget, Wilkerson and Jordan. McShay had us taking him at 10, but after Fairley. To say he was considered a top 5 talent is revisionist history.

Here's the book on Kiper. He's not actually an NFL talent evaluator. He's the king draftnik. Kiper knows people in organizations that feed him information and he kind of pieces it all together to come up with what he thinks the general NFL draft board looks like. And he's shockingly accurate at parts of it considering. He may not get the specific range right. But he almost always has a very high success rate at predicting who the first rounders are. And if you notice, the guys Mel Kiper lists as first rounders throughout the year don't change a ton, and everyone else's draft boards slowly start to look like his as the early season outliers fall away.

Anyway, my point with that is that Kiper, and the draftnik community as a result, can be extremely slow to recognize what's obvious about certain prospects. Case in point, look at RGIII. Look how long it took people to figure out he was a top two talent. That was obvious in week 1 against TCU. I think it was the same with Watt the season before. Not to the same extent as RGIII, but he was a talent that popped, and keep in mind, his DL class was absolutely incredible.

For that matter, that entire top ten was incredible. Probably the most loaded top ten in a decade. AJ Green or Patrick Peterson would be the best player in most other classes the past ten years, and those guys were a little drowned out by some of the other talents that came out.

Watt didn't really slip past the people who were paying attention to him and had gotten to see him play. During February of that draft season, I had him ranked 9th on a Redskins specific draft board. Tris had him ranked 11th at that same point. Dukes had him ranked 15th, ahead of Clayborn, Heyward, Liuget, Kerrigan, and Wilkerson.

Tris had him ranked ahead of Bowers, Clayborn, Heyward, Houston, and Aldon Smith specifically. BTW, I'm impressed that he had Houston ranked so high. Good catch.

Here is how I had the DL/OLBs ranked just before the draft in April. Keep in mind this was a Redskins specific board that devalued players who I didn't see as a clean fit in 3-4 positions like Sheard and Kerrigan:

2 - Fairley
4 - Quinn
5 - Dareus
8 - Aldon Smith
10 - Watt
11 - Von Miller
13 - Bowers
14 - Jordan
17 - Clayborn
18 - Houston
21 - Liuget
22 - Heyward
23 - Wilkerson
24 - Paea
25 - Ayers
29 - Martez Wilson
38 - Reed
39 - Kerrigan
42 - Sheard
45 - Jurrell Casey
46 - Allen Bailey
48 - Phil Taylor
50 - Marvin Austin

The FO says we don't like Gabbert, we're not going QB this year. Alright, I can live with that, because Fairley, Quinn, Amukamara, and Watt are non QBs that are still on the board that I loved.

And if people actually read my posts from back then, they'll see I understood the decision not to take Gabbert and would have been perfectly happy if we'd ended up with one of my other favorite prospects. What was devastating to me was that immediately following our trade, all of those prospects got snapped up, and we ended up coming away with a lesser solution and a bunch of uninspiring depth. Look at my board and then look at how those 10-15 picks progressed: Gabbert (#1) goes 10th, Watt (#10) goes 11th, Ponder (#15, and my second ranked QB) goes 12th, Fairley (#2) goes 13th, Quinn (#4) goes 14th. It was a nightmare.

Watt would have been my third choice had I been in charge, behind Quinn and Fairley. So let's say the FO says to me, we don't want to take a DL, we want an OLB. Again, i don't like it, but I am glad to take Quinn and call it a day.

Watt wasn't a controversial ranking IMO. Far more controversial was Kerrigan TBH. None of us even had Kerrigan in our top 25. Their rankings stopped at 25, mine went to 50, and I had Kerrigan completely removed from my first ranking because of a perceived incompatibility with our scheme. In my final rankings I had him 39th and Watt ranked 10th.

Kerrigan exceeded expectations though. He's been a natural linebacker, and if I'd known how comfortable he was standing up, I'd have ranked him much higher. That said, his lack of elite edge rushing ability--which most of us actually identified at the time--would have kept me from getting too high on him.

And as good and surprising as Kerrigan has been, I would trade him for either Fairley or Quinn today, not just Watt. The upside is simply much higher with those guys, Watt has taken the fast track and is already delivering on his potential.

Fairley is kind of the forgotten man in all of this. People forget what a monster he is because he's been hurt and has come along slowly in comparison to guys like Watt and Von Miller. He and Cam were the most dominant players in CFB that year--by far. Fairley falling to 13 is probably the most inexplicable thing to happen in that class. He should have been a top three pick.

And to Steve's point, yes we can say the FO messed up those drafts, but let's not act like we, as a community, did a better job than they did. By these standards any draft ever was a failure and huge mistakes were made.

And?

We're not paid nor trained to do this. We're unpaid amateurs doing this with 0 resources in our free time. Saying we couldn't do better is not a defense of the competency of Shanny and his FO.

The fact that people even have to mention that doesn't speak well for his track record. We should be able to expect out FO to make picks and FA signings a lot better than we could.

Compare Shanny's drafts to some of the drafts produced by teams like the Bengals, 49ers, and Lions during roughly the same span and tell me you don't see the inferiority of Shann'y work. That's what great drafting looks like and what we should be able to expect from our FO.

Another thing, when you say people wanted Gabbert or Bradford--I'm one who liked and wanted both--It's not that I thought they were better than RGIII and would have rather had them than RGIII. RGIII wasn't really even a blip on the radar in 2010. It's that I wanted a dang QB for the regime to rebuild around ASAP.

The fact of the matter remains that no regime of the past decade or two has survived that didn't take a QB and successfully develop him into a franchise QB in the first offseason they came into power. Most regimes fail. The only ones that you could consider a success were the ones who got their QB in their first year. You know why? Because you need the honeymoon grace period a new hiring gets to take your lumps with a developing QB and transitioning roster.

For the sake of the survival of the Shanahan regime, I wanted us to get a friggin' QB. Instead Shanahan was foolishly in win now mode the first two years, burned his grace period with almost nothing to show for those two years, and is now on the hotseat despite the fact he may have actually found a transcendent talent to develop as a franchise QB.

On our current path, we might not actually break .500 before the final year of Shanny's deal--assuming he makes it that far. How many NFL teams put up with a coach going 4 for 4 on losing seasons his first years on the job?

Anyway, once again, I'm against firing Shanahan. For me, this is year one all over again. I view his disastrous first two years as a horrible and unfortunate sunk cost, a stain on our franchise's overall legacy, massive opportunity costs taken on, where the only good things that came out of them are Trent and Kerrigan. For me, the whole point of this is a post mortem to figure out how we screwed up so bad so as to try and avoid making all of those awful mistakes again.

I'm not confident in Shanny's ability to draft or sign the FAs to build a truly dominant team. I'm not confident in his ability to pick the best coaches to run his defense. I'm not confident in Shanny's ability to manage certain talented players without ruining their careers and running them out of town over petty & avoidable issues. I'm not confident in Bruce Allen to do anything a good personnel man should do either for that matter. I'm not confident he can break the streak of a regime surviving without successfully finding their franchise QB in their first offseason, or the streak of retread coaches winning SBs with their second teams.

And yet I still accept Shanny and support his regime because that's how damn important it is to properly develop RGIII. And I believe that if we successfully develop RGIII into the player he should become--the best player in the NFL--he'll win us a championship one day even if the FO keeps screwing up.