Washington Redskins Picks - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Hostile · 03-30-2007

Rd 1 - 006 - LaRon Landry S, LSU

BIOGRAPHY: Four-year starter awarded varying degrees of All-American and All-Conference honors since his freshman campaign. Led the team in tackles as a senior, posting 74/3/4 after 69/3/8 as a junior. Freshman and sophomore tackling totals were 80 and 92, respectively.

POSITIVES: Productive safety with a complete game. Instinctive, plays heads-up football and remains disciplined with assignments. Efficient, takes good angles to the action and goes for the knockout blow. Patrols centerfield, displays top sideline-to-sideline running ability.

NEGATIVES: Lacks hands for the pick and drops too many catchable interceptions.

ANALYSIS: Effective defending the run or covering the pass, Landry possesses the athletic skills and football intelligence to be used in a variety of defensive systems. An early choice who should quickly break into a starting

Rd 5 - 143 - Dallas Sartz, LB USC
Rd 6 - 179 - H.B. Blades LB, Pittsburgh
Rd 6 - 205 - Jordan Palmer QB, UTEP
Rd 7 - 216 - Tyler Ecker TE, Michigan

silverbear · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

Rd 1 - 006 - LaRon Landry S, LSU

BIOGRAPHY: Four-year starter awarded varying degrees of All-American and All-Conference honors since his freshman campaign. Led the team in tackles as a senior, posting 74/3/4 after 69/3/8 as a junior. Freshman and sophomore tackling totals were 80 and 92, respectively.

POSITIVES: Productive safety with a complete game. Instinctive, plays heads-up football and remains disciplined with assignments. Efficient, takes good angles to the action and goes for the knockout blow. Patrols centerfield, displays top sideline-to-sideline running ability.

NEGATIVES: Lacks hands for the pick and drops too many catchable interceptions.

[View Full Quote]

Landry is a top 6 talent, and will likely help the Skins for years to come...

At the same time, I have to note that the Skins were dead last in the NFL in sacks last year, and by a fairly wide margin (the 31st ranked team had six more sacks)... they were the first team since 2003 to not have at least 20 sacks for the season...

I ask you, what have they done to address this GLARING deficiency?? Why, absolutely nothing...

They should have traded down a way, adding a later first day pick, then gone after the best pass rusher available, IMO...

Ben_n_austin · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

Landry is a top 6 talent, and will likely help the Skins for years to come...

At the same time, I have to note that the Skins were dead last in the NFL in sacks last year, and by a fairly wide margin (the 31st ranked team had six more sacks)... they were the first team since 2003 to not have at least 20 sacks for the season...

I ask you, what have they done to address this GLARING deficiency?? Why, absolutely nothing...

They should have traded down a way, adding a later first day pick, then gone after the best pass rusher available, IMO...

Well, bear, my old friend that is quite an easy question to answer....

I think this guy:

... has been reading the wrong strategy book.

silverbear · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnyGivenSunday

Well, bear, my old friend that is quite an easy question to answer....

I think this guy:

... has been reading the wrong strategy book.

So, you're saying that he's brought a knife to a gunfight??

Ben_n_austin · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

So, you're saying that he's brought a knife to a gunfight??

I'm saying that he lacks skills in the area of strategery.

Yeagermeister · 04-29-2007

Shouldn't the title be pick instead of picks

SkinsHokieFan · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

Landry is a top 6 talent, and will likely help the Skins for years to come...

At the same time, I have to note that the Skins were dead last in the NFL in sacks last year, and by a fairly wide margin (the 31st ranked team had six more sacks)... they were the first team since 2003 to not have at least 20 sacks for the season...

I ask you, what have they done to address this GLARING deficiency?? Why, absolutely nothing...

They should have traded down a way, adding a later first day pick, then gone after the best pass rusher available, IMO...

It would have been the ideal scenario, and when Quinn fell to 6th I thought the deal with Miami was going to be made

But then Miami decided to make a bonehead move in picking Ginn and you guys got to take advantage of Quinn falling

If the value is not there, there is no reason to trade down for the sake of trading down

jrumann59 · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan

It would have been the ideal scenario, and when Quinn fell to 6th I thought the deal with Miami was going to be made

But then Miami decided to make a bonehead move in picking Ginn and you guys got to take advantage of Quinn falling

If the value is not there, there is no reason to trade down for the sake of trading down

to a degree you are right but with no picks after landry all of your 2nd day picks are nfle bound and will be on the bottom 10% of the roster. you guys could of had spencer or any other pass rush specialist plus extra picks. looking at your draft you guys could have 4 deion sanders and it wouldn't matter with your pass rush

SkinsHokieFan · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrumann59

to a degree you are right but with no picks after landry all of your 2nd day picks are nfle bound and will be on the bottom 10% of the roster. you guys could of had spencer or any other pass rush specialist plus extra picks. looking at your draft you guys could have 4 deion sanders and it wouldn't matter with your pass rush

We could have, but who was trying to move up? Do you move down from the number 6 spot to the number 21 spot and pick up a 3rd only for the hell of it?

The most ideal scenario was a trade down which yielded a few other first day picks. That scenario unfourtantley did not matieralize and thusly Landry was the pick

Yea, ideally it would have been nice to trade down with Miami and pick up a 2nd. Or a 3rd and 4th. But if Miami was only offering a 4th, do you make that trade, or take the best guy you can at the spot you are in?

Its clear the D coaching staff felt the bigger problem was with the back 7. Sending a house blitz with Mike Rumph covering clearly isn't going to cut it. The blitzing worked real well in 2004 and 2005 because the secondary was actually covering guys

The logic (you and myself may not agree with this) is the back 7 needs to be as strong as ever and versitile so we can bring different blitz and coverage packages. The d-line simply needs to be able to fill to stop the run, and the lb's make the tackles. The upgrade of Fletcher-Baker over Marshall should help. Highway 57 in Warrick Holdman is gone. Landry has the speed and hip movement to cover, unlike AA

Now I am one who feels a d-lineman would have been better served, just not at the number 6 spot. No d-lineman in this draft was worth a 14 million dollar bonus. Unfourtantley the trade down scenario did not matieralize

skinsngibbs4life · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsHokieFan

We could have, but who was trying to move up? Do you move down from the number 6 spot to the number 21 spot and pick up a 3rd only for the hell of it?

The most ideal scenario was a trade down which yielded a few other first day picks. That scenario unfourtantley did not matieralize and thusly Landry was the pick

Yea, ideally it would have been nice to trade down with Miami and pick up a 2nd. Or a 3rd and 4th. But if Miami was only offering a 4th, do you make that trade, or take the best guy you can at the spot you are in?

Its clear the D coaching staff felt the bigger problem was with the back 7. Sending a house blitz with Mike Rumph covering clearly isn't going to cut it. The blitzing worked real well in 2004 and 2005 because the secondary was actually covering guys

[View Full Quote]

why even try? some people just critize for the sake of critizing. No logic is used.

MossBurner · 05-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverbear

They should have traded down a way, adding a later first day pick, then gone after the best pass rusher available, IMO...

Last time I checked, it takes two teams to complete a trade. Clearly, no one wanted to trade up that high for Quinn or anyone else.

Others might argue that improving the secondary would give the the line more time to reach the QB. Or, like in 04 when the defense was a strength, allow Williams to send CBs and LBs in blitz schemes.

Bob Sacamano · 05-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MossBurner

Last time I checked, it takes two teams to complete a trade. Clearly, no one wanted to trade up that high for Quinn or anyone else.

Others might argue that improving the secondary would give the the line more time to reach the QB. Or, like in 04 when the defense was a strength, allow Williams to send CBs and LBs in blitz schemes.

that's a valid argument, but it's more effective if you're applying pressure, so to give the secondary less time to screw up

AmishGangsta · 05-17-2007

Personally, I think Landry was the right choice. The kid can play. They wanted to get the best player available. I think the Skins got the best bang for their buck, and he's as close to a can't miss candidate (none of them are locks) that you can ask for at #6.

Of course, that doesn't mean drafting a star running back when you already have Portis and Betts on the roster, drafting another QB when you already have a lot of time and money invested in Campbell or reaching for a project defensive end is a very smart idea; it's very risky - we're talking a lot of money - yeah, I know when have the Skins ever been wise with their money?

Last year, I think there was a lot more problems on the Skins defense than meets the eye. These media experts take one look at the Skins sack and interception totals and automatically assume that the defensive line was the biggest problem on the defense - they're wrong.

In Gregg WIlliams first year here in DC, the media here HOUNDED HIM, "Gregg what are you going to do with that godawful dline" "Gregg you can't compete in this league with those guys".

If you look at Williams defense during his tenure while he's been in DC, the defensive line has -- from a pass rushing standpoint -- always been the achilles heel of the defense. They've never really had any "stars" on the line - though, some might argue that Daniels and Carter are paid like they are. Yet his defenses produced at at least a top ten level in his first two years.

The biggest problems on the defense last year resided in the secondary.

Springs and Prioleau couldn't stay healthy, while Carlos Rogers was exploited; not to mention the whole mystery revolving around Adam Archuletta and his benching; apparently, he can't cover - I know, the rest of the league already knew this, but it was news to the Skins

What most people seem to forget is that, In the first two years of the Gregg Williams project, the group was solid against the run. Even last year, the line seemed to hold up against the run until later in the games - you know, after Wright and Rumph and ol' Carlos had been torched all afternoon.

He's been able to hide this weakness through blitzing linebackers corners and safeties in the past; when they tried to do that last year, their secondary was absolutely torn apart.

History shows that Gregg Williams defenses can compete at a top level in this league, and I have no reason to believe that the Skins defense will fall completely off the face of the planet, like they did last year, if the secondary can remain healthy and Landry can make an impact.

As far as the rest of the draft, the Skins traded away too many picks to get a good grade.

Bob Sacamano · 04-29-2007

so no pass-rushers?

I love it, nice going Gibbs!

skinsngibbs4life · 04-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Sacamano

so no pass-rushers?

I love it, nice going Gibbs!

considering you are not a fan of our team, and you don't know much about our defense, i'll give you a break