What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

I certainly would love to get Branch, but my understanding is that he's not an effective pass rusher (yet).

I can't imagine a front four featuring Golston (290), Carter (265), Adams (258), and Griffin (305), being that great against the run. That's why the idea of drafting Adams and relying on Golston kinda scares me. If I had to choose between our front four being good against the run or good at getting to the passer, I'd prefer to be good at being good against the run. I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.As a counter arguement, its tougher to have a DL play the line worse than ours did this year. However, our defensive unit did pretty OK vs the run (at least when compared to the pass). I think this is because our secondary is full of a bunch of solid tacklers who consistently fly up to make the play on runs that take time to develop. It's possible that getting a bunch of smaller quicker players would actually HELP us to stop the run, because they could be good against quick hitting runs such as gut or trap plays. Our secondary is probably league tops vs the run, and already does a great job for us.

That's a farfetched arguement though. I still want Branch.

I certainly would love to get Branch, but my understanding is that he's not an effective pass rusher (yet).

I wouldn't think that's the first thing you'd look for in a D-tackle. Certainly, it would be an incredible bonus, but as long as he can stuff the run and collapse the pocket, thus creating a certain amount of havoc for the quarterback, you're getting just about everything you could hope for.

I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.^^^ Probably the understatement of the year.

If we are going to use our first round picks on DL over the next few years, I'd hope we can find guys that are good at both.

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.

Rarely do you find a guy with Branch's size who can also get pressure on the QB. That's the impressive thing, is that he's probably a better pass rusher than run stuffer. But as a player he prides himself on being able to stuff the run. Every team in the league could use a player like him.

he's not good against the pass, and he can disappear at times too. all three of those guys have knocks on them. I'd still probably opt for branch, but you've got to do the research to make sure he isn't going to be lazy before taking him. 1st round DTs tend to be one of the safest positions to draft and golston is better at the #3 DT spot anyways.

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.I never said anything about "making the safe pick". I was talking purely about positional value. For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Calvin Johnson is (presumably) a far better receiver than Randle El or Lloyd. But are we a better offense with Johnson starting instead of Randle El. Yes, but only by a very very slim margin. There just isn't much significance in the position.

Conversely, if we were to replace Saleve'a with Branch (assuming of course that Branch will be a dominant player just as we presumed Johnson would be), the defense will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger vs the run. The team would be much better off.

That's positional value. I don't think any position is "safer" than another position. I think that (4 year starting) seniors are always safer picks than underclassmen, simply because there is so much film on them. If a senior has bust potential, surely there will be red flags that scouts will find. If an underclassman has bust potential, there might not be adequate film on him, and some red flags may sneak beneath the scouts observations. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald was a safe pick though. He came out of school early, and thats never a "safe" thing. I remember him being regarded as the "best player in college football," and he was the 3rd pick--so don't say he wasn't highly regarded.

For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Supposing that Calvin Johnson is the next Jerry Rice, would you still stand by the above statements? There's no doubt a DT is worth more to OUR team than a WR, but that's not going to be true for a team with a good D-line and a poor WR-corps.

what's the big DE from florida's name?he looked like a walking mountain at the senior bowl.