Age a factor going into 2009

start drafting guys that you expect to play. not lineman like Rinehart

I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.

I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.

Not to defend what the team has done with the rooks (not playing them) but teams like Denver (E. Royal) and Philly (D. Jackson) had to play their rooks b/c of injuries. I don't think that situation ever materialized in our team.

We actually have the opportunity to address out lines in free agency and get younger. No not Haynesworth but quality blue collar inexpensive lineman are out there.

Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:


1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?


No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.

Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:


1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?


No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.

That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.

People who keep clamoring for Jackson and Royal, ask yourselves this? Would you have been all gung-ho in April if we drafted a 5'10" receiver when we already have two?

That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.

I think in recent years Cooley, Rogers, Taylor, Landry all disproved that, didn't they? Maybe we're just not drafting players who are better than those they've been drafted to replace.

Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It's not the only reason, but it is a major reason why these guys got to play. You don't think that if ARE and Moss had gone down with injuries, the team would have been forced to play at least Thomas? Well actually, the way our team is they would have traded picks for a WR.

We have two good examples here in our team of rookie players who were thrown into starting lineups b/c of injuries: Horton and Heyer. Horton showed flashes of being a good player during the preseason, but had Reed Doughty played a bit better and/or if he had not gotten injured, Horton would not have played much at all. The same with Horton, who was thrown into the lineup due to injuries to Jensen and Samuels

My point is that our situation in Washington was different. If you think that we needed some good play out rookie receivers right away, then the team should have gone after an experienced receiver in free agency instead of drafting them. The rooks are a hit or miss, you are only going to get a few Desean Jacksons or Eddie Royals who contribute a lot during their rookie year. On the other hand you are going to get a whole bunch of rooks that do not contribute much and need to develop.

Once again, I don't disagree with the rookies' lack of playing time, but I don't think they were in a situation as Royal or Jackson were to be forced to play more.

Smootsmack:

I do not now - nor would I last Spring - have worried even a little bit about the height of any receiver that the Skins drafted. There are good big receivers and there are good small recievers. AND there are big receivers who aren't worth the space they take up.

Darnarian McCants? Big guy. Used to be here. Glad he's gone

Anthony Mix? Big guy. Used to be here. Which starting NFL line-up did he make?

What was his real name now - I can't recall - but people used to call him 50/50 when he was here...? Rod Something or other. Where's he now?

Productive wide receivers are guys who get open and who catch the ball when it is thrown to them such that they can get their hands on it without resorting to circus-like acrobatics. It really doesn't matter how big they are.

But if BIG is essential, then why not Jordy Nelson as a big receiver? Maybe he's not AS big as Malcom Kelly, but he played and caught the ball this year (33 catches/366 yards/2 TDs). Malcom Kelly caught THREE passes all year. Big or small or medium sized makes no difference; a receiver who catches THREE passes for the season is not much of a return for a 1st day draft pick.


Ruhskins:


You seem to cling to the idea that the starting tandem of Moss, Randle-El and Thrash is something that strikes fear in the hearts of defensive coordinators around the NFL. Sadly, it does not.

Sure, if one of the starters had gone on IR, the "kiddies" would have played more. But the fact that the "kiddies" could not/did not beat out anyone on a mediocre batch of WRs says that they didn't show very much in practice. And we do know - - the numbers don't lie in this circumstance - - that when they did get on the field it was about the same as having the offense play with 10 men.

Imagine for a moment that the Redskins signed ONE WR as a free agent who had caught 18 passes last year for 138 yards and no TDs. Who would think that was a "prize catch"? Well ... that is what the Redskins got from BOTH of their first day draft picks at WR. Not one reciever - - BOTH of them added together.

Rookie WRs are hit and miss - - as can be said of many other positions too. But I gave you examples of 5 rookie WRs in the NFL this year all of whom did better than Thomas and Kelly added together. Some started all year; some started part of the year; some were used in lots of special offensive packages. But all five contributred individually more to their teams than both of these guys contributed to the Redskins.

So, who in the scouting department/draft organizing department/draft day war room passed on Desean Jackson, Donnie Avery, Eddie Royal, Jordy Nelson and Davone Best thinking that Thomas and Kelly were higher on the list? I don't have an office at Redskins Park so I don't know the answer to that, but whoever it was should not have gotten a Christmas bonus this year.

You can criticize the Fred Davis pick and even the Kelly pick (for attitude and health issues respectively, both of which ended up severely hurting their rookie seasons) but D. Thomas was by far the consensus number one receiver going into the draft. Indeed, most pundits thought it was wacky that St. Louis took Avery at 33 over Thomas. Kudos to them for making a great call, but you can't fault the skins for filling a need and taking the consensus number one player at his position who had slipped all the way to 34.

Moreover, I don't have a great memory but I don't remember a lot of people last year lamenting us taking Thomas over Eddie Royal on draft day.