NFL DRAFT SCOUT 1/30 mock (Alan Branch, DT)

The key is not to consider the draft a quick fix. We aren't looking to use the sixth pick on a boom or bust prospect who is being brought in to save the Redskins next year.

I think we can both agree that the pick should probably be spent on the DL. Addressing why it would be better spent at Tackle then End is a bit more complicated. The most obvious reason would be that we just spent a boatload of money on a pass rusher in Andre Carter, who ideally will be our starting end for years to come. It makes little sense to draft his replacement one year after signing him. The guy is 27.

Perhaps you were thinking we draft a bookend for Carter. Someone who is more stout against the run. We could take Jamaal Anderson at 6 this season and start him accross from Carter (or have him compete with Wynn/Daniels). But a year from now, we are looking at maybe Griffin being cut, Saleve'as contract not being extended, and the top two DTs on the roster being Golston and Montgomery, a pair of late round 3rd year players. It seems like we'd have to make a big FA signing to be competitive, and we won't have the cap room in 2008 to do that. We have no talent in the middle whatsoever. Additionally, you run the risk of Carter having another sub par season, getting cut, and the only guy on the line at that point who is any good is Anderson. He has no tackle help and no bookend. And the only thing we can do about it is spend ANOTHER 1st rounder on the best available rush end in 2008.

But lets say we take Branch this year. A year from now, we opt not to extend Saleve'a's contract and for sake of cap room we release Griffin. Now we have a bona fide No. 1 tackle in the middle of the line who is only 23 years old (which assumes he pans out). We have Golston, a third year player, who can start at the 2nd tackle. We have Montgomery on the roster and we can get a 4th DT through FA without investing a lot of cap space. This team still sports Carter at an end, and while Wynn and probably Daniels will be gone by this point, you have Demetic Evans who can start in a pinch and you can spend a day one pick on a stronger, anchoring DE to compliment Carter. Because of the nature of this player, this could be something like a 3rd rounder. Even if Carter doesn't pan out for us, we can still cut him, and spend the 2008 pick on the best availiable DE, and be certainly no worse off than we would be with Anderson at DE. But because of the big money investment in Carter, I want to see one more year of him before I go back and pick at his position.

The simple response to your question is because DT is going to be a bigger problem than DE very soon if we don't address it right now. One pick can put us in a great situation for the future at the DT position.


All I can say is WOW! Way to break it down. There was only maybe one point in there I didnt agree with and that was about Wynn and Daniels being gone. I hope they BOTH dont leave....really, I hope niether leave.

I agree. If we draft Calvin Johnson I will be pissed. WE DO NOT NEED HIM. You don't take a player you don't need with a team that could contend. You take a guy who instantly improve you. I don't care how good he is he will not instantly improve us all that much. When there are other players who are clearly very quality players who can help you then you either trade down or take of the other guys. ANyways I still think CJ doesn't even get close to us. If he does we be trading baby. Someone will want him at 6. I would rather have Anderson but Branch will do if Anderson is gone.
I'll be even more pissed if Johnson is there, we settle for Branch, and Johnson ends up being the second coming of Jerry Rice. 6'5" 230 lb receivers with 4.4 speed, 40" vertical, and great hands come along once every 10 years or so. For those who say we don't need a WR, keep telling yourselves that we solved our #2 WR issues with Lloyd and/or ARE. Johnson could make Jason Campbell great the same way a young Randy Moss made Jeff George, Randall Cunningham, and Brad Johnson look pretty damn good in Minnesota once upon a time.

I'll be even more pissed if Johnson is there, we settle for Branch, and Johnson ends up being the second coming of Jerry Rice. 6'5" 230 lb receivers with 4.4 speed, 40" vertical, and great hands come along once every 10 years or so. For those who say we don't need a WR, keep telling yourselves that we solved our #2 WR issues with Lloyd and/or ARE. Johnson could make Jason Campbell great the same way a young Randy Moss made Jeff George, Randall Cunningham, and Brad Johnson look pretty damn good in Minnesota once upon a time.I don't think we have a great second receiver, but we are deep enough at reciever to warrent passing on a guy like Johnson.

Think of it this way, if we were to take Johnson and he became a great player for us, where do his receptions come from? Moss is better after the catch, so you don't want him taking his receptions. Cooley is a great target and leads all TEs in YAC, so you don't want him taking his balls. So where does Calvin Johnson become a big enough part of the offense to justify the 6th overall pick? We'd have to throw 50-55 times a game to get 30+ completions on a good day. On a day like this, Johnson could touch the ball 7-8 times and not cut in to Moss and Cooley's production. But then we are only running 10-15 times a game...thats not Redskins football.

Alternatively, we can throw 25-30 times a game, run it 35-40 times, and let Randle El have his patented 2-3 catch days and be satisfied with his role as our PR. Then we don't burn the 6th overall pick on improving an adequate situation.

Yeah, I'll agree with you on that it doesn't matter if he's not playing. But if we're trying to stay away from guys who are easily injured, why sign a bunch of older defensive lineman and a CB in springs who is injury prone. I just don't get it, and I think I'm not going to try to, lol.

older d-linemen? Griffin was like 27, Daniels 30, Joe Sal 29, Carter 27. One guy was 30.

And we have discussed Springs' 'injury prone' status and I think most agreed that he wasn't not injury prone rather he had one injury that bugged him over a two season period. He had the monkier totally undeserved. And he hadn't exactly missed a whole hell of a lot time for us until the hernia.

I'll be even more pissed if Johnson is there, we settle for Branch, and Johnson ends up being the second coming of Jerry Rice. 6'5" 230 lb receivers with 4.4 speed, 40" vertical, and great hands come along once every 10 years or so. For those who say we don't need a WR, keep telling yourselves that we solved our #2 WR issues with Lloyd and/or ARE. Johnson could make Jason Campbell great the same way a young Randy Moss made Jeff George, Randall Cunningham, and Brad Johnson look pretty damn good in Minnesota once upon a time.


2 Good points

1: I totally agree. His measurements and his skills are all there but, we are pretty deep at WR and the frickin D needs Mary Poppins type help.

2: Wha? Lloyd? Yea, ok, he's not all that but ARE is a whole diff story. He's talented in so many areas it's hard to confine him to WR. He throws, he runs, he returns kicks AND he seems to have gelled with the team a little and also seems to enjoy it here (sidenote:for THAT kinda money, I guess he would like it here!)

All in all, the D needs help WAYYYY worse than our receiving corps right now. If we pick him, we should trade for more picks, if we dont, its fine with me.

The key is not to consider the draft a quick fix. We aren't looking to use the sixth pick on a boom or bust prospect who is being brought in to save the Redskins next year.

I think we can both agree that the pick should probably be spent on the DL. Addressing why it would be better spent at Tackle then End is a bit more complicated. The most obvious reason would be that we just spent a boatload of money on a pass rusher in Andre Carter, who ideally will be our starting end for years to come. It makes little sense to draft his replacement one year after signing him. The guy is 27.

Perhaps you were thinking we draft a bookend for Carter. Someone who is more stout against the run. We could take Jamaal Anderson at 6 this season and start him accross from Carter (or have him compete with Wynn/Daniels). But a year from now, we are looking at maybe Griffin being cut, Saleve'as contract not being extended, and the top two DTs on the roster being Golston and Montgomery, a pair of late round 3rd year players. It seems like we'd have to make a big FA signing to be competitive, and we won't have the cap room in 2008 to do that. We have no talent in the middle whatsoever. Additionally, you run the risk of Carter having another sub par season, getting cut, and the only guy on the line at that point who is any good is Anderson. He has no tackle help and no bookend. And the only thing we can do about it is spend ANOTHER 1st rounder on the best available rush end in 2008.

But lets say we take Branch this year. A year from now, we opt not to extend Saleve'a's contract and for sake of cap room we release Griffin. Now we have a bona fide No. 1 tackle in the middle of the line who is only 23 years old (which assumes he pans out). We have Golston, a third year player, who can start at the 2nd tackle. We have Montgomery on the roster and we can get a 4th DT through FA without investing a lot of cap space. This team still sports Carter at an end, and while Wynn and probably Daniels will be gone by this point, you have Demetic Evans who can start in a pinch and you can spend a day one pick on a stronger, anchoring DE to compliment Carter. Because of the nature of this player, this could be something like a 3rd rounder. Even if Carter doesn't pan out for us, we can still cut him, and spend the 2008 pick on the best availiable DE, and be certainly no worse off than we would be with Anderson at DE. But because of the big money investment in Carter, I want to see one more year of him before I go back and pick at his position.

Longtimefan said it better than I possibly could have:


The simple response to your question is because DT is going to be a bigger problem than DE very soon if we don't address it right now. One pick can put us in a great situation for the future at the DT position.


Thanks for the response. I think where I differ fundamentally is that a) I rate Golston and Montgomery higher than most, and b) I rate Carter much lower. I think he is for now and all time a 3rd down player and a liabilty against the run. I didn't see the middle of the line getting overwhelmed as much as I saw Carter and Holdman getting picked on. That could be misperception on my part but I have never thought that Tackle was a weakness for us regardless of who was in the game.

You can say that we will have problems in the future at Tackle if we don't address it now, but we are in horrible shape NOW everywhere else and if we can't get an impact player to YES, "save" the Redskins next year, then I say trade the pick.

Thanks for the response. I think where I differ fundamentally is that a) I rate Golston and Montgomery higher than most, and b) I rate Carter much lower. I think he is for now and all time a 3rd down player and a liabilty against the run. I didn't see the middle of the line getting overwhelmed as much as I saw Carter and Holdman getting picked on. That could be misperception on my part but I have never thought that Tackle was a weakness for us regardless of who was in the game.

You can say that we will have problems in the future at Tackle if we don't address it now, but we are in horrible shape NOW everywhere else and if we can't get an impact player to YES, "save" the Redskins next year, then I say trade the pick.

How can you possibly rank Montgomery higher? He took what, 20 snaps? Also, Carter's success as an outside pass rusher is, in part, contingent on DTs getting an inside push. Third, if you didn't see us getting run on in the middle, go watch the Titans game. Finally, Holdman is not going to even be on the team next season (unless we re-sign him as a FA).

I think you've got a point about a need to fill holes at multiple positions on defense, but I have to disagree about which position is in better shape (DT or DE).

I didn't rate Montgomery higher than anyone specific, but his presence and youth add to our strength at tackle, it doesn't detract from it. Everyone acts as though Golston and Montgomery were awful. I thought they played great for rookies. Carter was awful. We can say that a better Tackle will make Carter a better end, but by the same measure we could say that a better end will improve our young tackles.

As for the Tenesse game, which I attended, I don't remember it being fundamentally different than the rest. Carter and Holdman getting overwhelmed.

Thanks for the response. I think where I differ fundamentally is that a) I rate Golston and Montgomery higher than most, and b) I rate Carter much lower. I think he is for now and all time a 3rd down player and a liabilty against the run. I didn't see the middle of the line getting overwhelmed as much as I saw Carter and Holdman getting picked on. That could be misperception on my part but I have never thought that Tackle was a weakness for us regardless of who was in the game.

You can say that we will have problems in the future at Tackle if we don't address it now, but we are in horrible shape NOW everywhere else and if we can't get an impact player to YES, "save" the Redskins next year, then I say trade the pick.I'm hoping we can build a DL around Carter that allows him to use his pass rush skills, and can force teams to bounce runs at him outside instead of getting up inside of him. I think the first step is drafting a dominant DT such as Branch (even Okoye might do). Carter can be effective against the run if teams are trying to run outside of him...he's just overmatched against an inside run.

If I am reading you correctly, you think its high time to give up on Carter already. I'm not totally in disagreement. However, it's unreasonable to give up on Lloyd, Archuleta, and Carter one year into each big money deal and expect to have any talent left. We have to find the best way to use these guys we signed. With Lloyd, IMO, thats as little as possible. But with Arch, and more importantly Carter, we have to alter our scheme to make sure we get production out of these guys. Without Carter on the DL in 2008, we are looking at having no talent whatsoever, short of course of anyone we draft this year. So the decision for me comes down to which pick can help us build around Carter the best. To me, thats a no brainer, and its Branch.

I didn't rate Montgomery higher than anyone specific, but his presence and youth add to our strength at tackle, it doesn't detract from it. Everyone acts as though Golston and Montgomery were awful. I thought they played great for rookies. Carter was awful. We can say that a better Tackle will make Carter a better end, but by the same measure we could say that a better end will improve our young tackles.

As for the Tenesse game, which I attended, I don't remember it being fundamentally different than the rest. Carter and Holdman getting overwhelmed.

I thought Golston played very well for a 6th round pick, but I would not trust him to start. As for Montgomery, again we saw so little of the guy (and considering the competition, that says something) that it is hard to evaluate him.

As for Carter, I thought he looked pretty damn good the last 5 games of the season. Four sacks and a lot of pressures and tackles is pretty damn good for any end. And when Griffin was out against Tennessee, we got run at up the gut and not around the edges.

I definately think we need improvement on the edges, but Carter showed enough in the latter part of the season to definately justify his starting position if not his salary. I think just about everyone concedes that we need help in the middle too. I just happen to think that we need more help in the middle than on the edges.

The reason why I think help at DT will have a far greater impact on Carter's performance than another end is based upon Carter's playing style. Carter is not a versatile end who can bull rush and outpower tackles. Carter is a speed rusher who relies on beating tackles by generally trying to go far outside. Outside rushers are generally ineffective if there is no push up the middle from DTs as the QBs can simply step up into a nicely formed pocket. Given that we got virtually no pass rush up the middle, it is not surprising that Carter didn't have a Pro Bowl season. Adding another DE who gets an outside push will not help collapse pockets, it will just push the pocket back inside. Moreover, if we need an upgrade at MLB (which we both think is the case), who is going to help stuff runs in the middle better, a DT or a DE?

Finally, I think that Holdman's departure and, hopefully, Rocky's rise will alleviate some of the problems we have with teams going outside to the left on our defense.

So, while I think you make a lot of good points and certainly agree that we need help at DE, I think we would get more bang for the buck with a DT.