Vinny Cerrato

I think the skins did a good job with the draft. Vinny has to get a lot of the credit. Also, the free agent signings included some possibilities.

My question is Fred Davis. Where does he fit in? Also, what role will Mike Sellers have in the new offense?

I also heard somewhere that Davis could be that "H-Back" type player...he's versatile. I like getting versatile guys. I think Vinny tries to go after versatile guys, and that's a good thing.

Lets be clear - defense wins championships but it isn't like you can't have any offense at all. Your offense has to be able to maintain possession to some extent and ultimately, score the ball -

Now, that can be mitigated to some extent by having elite special teams (which we didn't have in 2004) or if you have a defense that creates turnovers (which we didn't have in 2004).

If we had an elite special teams unit and created turnovers then we would have won in 2004. Unfortunately, what we had was a tough defense that limited opponents yards but did not get many takeaways. Our special teams were average.

Additionally, I think we had some questionable coaching that year to compound things.

In general though - defense will win you championships. And someone else on this thread made the comment - just look at the current NFL champs. If they were all built on one side of the ball there is no way they would have stopped the machine.

Incidentally, Justin Tuck was the 74th pick overall in his draft. Just food for thought - that while we were taking three receivers, there were probably talented pass rushers who could have helped us waiting to be drafted.

We had the eighth ranked defense last year.

looks like cerrato learned something from gibbs and also learned zorn knows football a lot better than people think he does!!!

looks like cerrato learned something from gibbs and also learned zorn knows football a lot better than people think he does!!!

I like your enthusiasm but here's something to think about.

When you bold an entire sentence. Have you really bolded anything?

I've got to agree. I loved the trade back, but it seems like using all your top picks on the same skill set seems like you are playing the odds. I also don't like the recent track record of USC offensive picks in the NFL, hope Im wrong.
And the standard cop-out line of the weekend is "we took the guys that were highest on OUR board, regardless of position." Since it was THEIR board, that means they took whoever the hell they wanted. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with drafting for needs when you have glaring needs and are confident in your evaluations.
But hey, I'm glad that this is clearly Vinny's team now, so we will know who is accountable. Whoever made the calls on Lloyd and Arch, as well as Peirce, should have been fired, and maybe they have been for all I know.
And yeah, defense does win championships. The Giants D-line got to Brady. That's the only thing that could have beaten the Pats.



Nothing is wrong with addressing needs, but one thing that was said (by Zorn I believe) was that as the draft wore on there were players on the board at a position of need (D-line specifically) that they passed on because they didn't believe they had a good chance of making the team, and they figured it'd be better to draft someone at another position with less need if they had a legitimate chance of making the roster. I'll admit, that doesn't explain the 3 2nd round selections, but it is fairly obvious that a couple of prospects at DE they were hoping to pick up were snatched away literally a pick before them (merling - miami). SO, at that point you can either take someone you're not particularly interested in, or you address other needs; I'm glad with the choice they made.

looks like cerrato learned something from gibbs and also learned zorn knows football a lot better than people think he does!!!

I have always thought that Vinny could evaluate talent, and the problem was not always the talent we had on hand, it was the never ending rotation in philosophies and coaches that doomed us.

As far as the whole "Defense wins championships" thing is concerned, I just don't buy it. It is just a cliche as far as I am concerned. Yeah, the Giants with their strong D beat arguably the best O in NFL history, but that was just one game. Last year the Bears' stout D lost to the Colts Highpowered Offense, so it can go either way.

Someone conceded that a strong D alone will not win it all, and that some kind of offense is necessary, but that isn't necessarily true either. Remember the Ravens?

In the end it what matters is that you have a strong team, whether it be on D or O or both. From that stand point one would have to look on our draft positively because getting the best value for your picks would seem to be key. I too am disappointed that we haven't addressed our aging D-line, but I am willing to give the organization the benefit of the doubt. If we continue to ignore our needs on the lines, however, I will grow increasingly wary of their decisions, but now is not the time to panic.

I think this team is in a "rebuilding" phase, as it were. It will most likely take another couple of drafts to solidify the team, and address all of our needs. I think this draft could prove to be a great stride in the right direction, but only time will tell.

I would love the first three picks in our draft....if we were drafting for Fantasy Football instead of the NFL. I know that all three picks were excellent value where they were taken, that being said I feel we passed on players that could have had an impact on defense for us right away. We could use another pass rushing defensive lineman for sure and when is the last time our secondary held up for an entire season without a serious injury. I understand the philosophy of drafting the best players available however I feel that strategy should be reserved for teams without obvious needs (if such teams exist) and for the later rounds of the draft. I did like our later round picks however they may be just that...too little too late in areas of need.

Lets be clear - defense wins championships but it isn't like you can't have any offense at all. Your offense has to be able to maintain possession to some extent and ultimately, score the ball -

Now, that can be mitigated to some extent by having elite special teams (which we didn't have in 2004) or if you have a defense that creates turnovers (which we didn't have in 2004).

If we had an elite special teams unit and created turnovers then we would have won in 2004. Unfortunately, what we had was a tough defense that limited opponents yards but did not get many takeaways. Our special teams were average.

Additionally, I think we had some questionable coaching that year to compound things.

In general though - defense will win you championships. And someone else on this thread made the comment - just look at the current NFL champs. If they were all built on one side of the ball there is no way they would have stopped the machine.

Incidentally, Justin Tuck was the 74th pick overall in his draft. Just food for thought - that while we were taking three receivers, there were probably talented pass rushers who could have helped us waiting to be drafted.

Trying to argue this is like trying to determine if the chicken or the egg came first. You have to have both. Certainly you can't win if you have all offense and no defense. But the opposite is also true -- example? The 2004 Washington Redskins.

You could also point to the Eagles when they had Reggie White, Gerome Brown, Clyde Simmons, Andre Waters, Seth Joyner... those were fantastic defenses that Buddy Ryan built. But they never came close to sniffing a championship.

As to your last point, if Devin Thomas, Fred Davis, and Malcolm Kelly contribute so much so that this offense breaks into the top five, and scores similar to the way they did in '83 and '91, nobody questions this draft. If not, or worse, one of those guys turns out to be a complete bust, Vinny will never live down taking three receivers when your pass rush has been a problem for years.