Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Meat and potatoes time.

[B]Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)[/B]
[I]Dec. 10, 2008[/I]

I have been beating the drum recently about the woeful state of the Washington Redskins offensive and defensive lines.

More specifically, I have taken the front office to task over what I believe is the complete and ultimately disastrous failure to establish a functional pipeline of qualified young linemen to replace their rapidly aging (and based on the evidence in 2008, no longer adequate) starting corps.

Rather than basing that criticism solely on what I see with my own two eyes on game days, I have begun to research the nuts and bolts of how the Redskins have gone about constructing their lines over the past decade and how they arrived where they are today.

Over the coming days and weeks I will be posting the results of that research for reference, discussion and, depending on what we find, perhaps drawing supported conclusions as to whether the Redskins' current struggles to compete with solid opponents at the line of scrimmage are the result of a fundamentally flawed approach, or simply the vagaries of trying to stay competitive in the 21st century NFL.

Let's get to it.

To begin, I broke down the Redskins' college drafts over the past ten years. I limited it to ten years on the premise that beyond that period of time, the data has increasingly little practical relevance to the present, given the number of major external factors (ownership changes, front office changes, coaching changes, player aging and injury, etc.) that come into play.

Here are the raw numbers, broken down by year, total picks, number of linemen selected, player and round selected ...

[I][URL="http://www.theomfield.com/2008/12/breaking-down-lines-pt-1.html"][B][COLOR=#ffc20e]CLICK HERE[/COLOR][/B][/URL] to read more[/I]

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Good analysis, Om. Really waiting impatiently for part two.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Good work Om. The Redskins have definitely put more emphasis on addressing the lines through free agents

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

As the OBC would say, "not to guuud."

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

What I'd really like to see is some evidence that the scouting department and the draft board constructors are focusing entirely on OL and DL this year for the first 5 rounds.

Hopefully, they won't take another TE with their first pick - - which could be in the third round if they use the first round pick as a way to make a trade for a FA ...

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Great, great work Om! I am amazed by the number of lineman we drafted in the first 3 rounds compared to our NFC East rivals. That pretty much tells the story doesn't it? EXCELLENT WORK!!! Looking forward to your next post.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Great analysis. Our key NFC Beast opponents are drafting more overall picks AND using their highest draft options for the OL and DL. That's the how you get the best players and also depth for this critical area.

This correlates to the overall win/loss record for these same years for our opponents.

I hope that Vinny Cerratto changes our draft strategy this off-season. I'd love to have a monster pass rush DL rookie that we can watch for the next 5-10 years. Instead of hiring old, super-expensive DL players who have just 2 drops of gas left in their tanks.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

What's struck me as much as anything is not just the number of picks used on linemen as compared to our division rivals, but the lack of [I]high[/I] picks spent on the lines.

Since taking Samuels with the #3 overall in 2000, the Redskins have used a grand total of two picks higher than the 5th round on linemen--a 3rd for Dockery in '03, and a 3rd for Rinehard in '08.

It goes deeper. 11 of the 16 picks they [I]have[/I] used on linemen over the past ten years have come in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds. And 8 of [I]those[/I] 11 have come in the 5th and 6th.

To me it speaks either of a bordeline arrogant belief that one can build legitimate starting-caliber NFL lines almost exclusively with late-round draft picks, or the belief that starters are better acquired through free agency. Either way ... it ain't working.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=-Om-;510534]What's struck me as much as anything is not just the number of picks used on linemen as compared to our division rivals, but the lack of [I]high[/I] picks spent on the lines.

Since taking Samuels with the #3 overall in 2000, the Redskins have used a grand total of two picks higher than the 5th round on linemen--a 3rd for Dockery in '03, and a 3rd for Rinehard in '08.

It goes deeper. 11 of the 16 picks they [I]have[/I] used on linemen over the past ten years have come in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds. And 8 of [I]those[/I] 11 have come in the 5th and 6th.

[B]To me it speaks either of a bordeline arrogant belief that one can build legitimate starting-caliber NFL lines almost exclusively with late-round draft picks, or the belief that starters are better acquired through free agency. Either way ... it ain't working[/B].[/quote]

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

I don't think it's arrogant at all to believe you can build solid lines with later round picks and FA's. Tons of quality lineman come in rounds 3 and beyond.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;510536]But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers[/quote]

It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;510536]But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers[/quote]
Two thoughts.

1) The Redskins had The Hogs, and to somewhat lesser extent the DL, put together very early in Gibbs I. Bostic was a FA in ‘80, Jacoby a UDFA [I]defensive[/I] player in '81 that Buges converted, and they drafted Grimm and May in rounds 1 and 2 in ‘81. [I]By the way, also in that draft: 1st round, Mark May. 2nd round, Russ Grim. 4th round, Dexter Manley. 8th round, Darryl Grant. 12th round, Clint Didier. It helps to have a Bobby Beathard around.[/I]

Point being, by combining high picks and great eye for late-round and undrafted talent, they built the foundation of their lines early on and had the luxury of picking their spots in subsequent years. Over the past 10 years, Skins have done neither--they haven’t invested in the top end, and they have missed repeatedly on the low, leaving us where we are today.

2) There’s a thread on ES that tracked his SF moves. I’ll link it here shortly.

[I]Edit: [URL="http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=194590"]here ya go[/URL]. You may find it very interesting.[/I]

[quote=Mattyk72;510540]I don't think it's arrogant at all to believe you can build solid lines with later round picks and FA's. Tons of quality lineman come in rounds 3 and beyond.[/quote]
I do. Particularly when you use literally NO higher picks in conjuction. Low-rouders that “hit” are out there, but far fewer than there are high-rounders who become stalwarts. That’s mostly opinion at this point, but my strong sense based on the research I've done so far is that the facts back it up pretty clearly.

The Redskins have gambled, and lost, on using late-rounders (talking 6ths and 7ths here, which represent exactly half of the picks they have used on the lines in the last ten years) to build a base of young guys to have ready to step in when the crop of older FA’s, and the last two high picks they [I]did[/I] use–Samuels and Jansen–finally hit the wall. That and a shotgun approach to bringing in journeyman and undrafted FA’s by the busload hoping to find someone who can play.

I’ll stop short of saying it [I]can’t[/I] work that way, but I’m 100% comfortable saying it hasn’t–not here. And when I look at the other division teams that do take the lines seriously enough to invest high-rounders in dominate us up front, I’m comfortable enough to hang it all out there like I am with this series. :)

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Hello, brother. Fancy meeting you here. Nice work as usual. I too would like to see what else you bring forth on this subject. :)

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=redsk1;510549]It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.[/quote]

Definitely agree it was a different time. For one thing, back then we probably would have been less likely to be able to make a move for Andre Carter for example. For another, when we draft a guy like Derrick Dockery we'd probably have him here for the long term.

My point was only that in those days a lot of the key linemen (offense and defense) that led us to Super Bowl titles were late draft picks of ours (and other teams), so it's not entirely unreasonable to think that some of our mid to late round picks could be key for us.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;510665]Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...[/quote]

Well, if I remember correctly, they did a massuve purging of the scouting department this off-season so we shall see over the next few years what sort of impact that has.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;510665]Matty:

If you are right - that [B]you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents [/B]- then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...[/quote]
Well, that's the kind of statement we're going to put to the test. I'm going through the OL an DL depth charts of the Redskins, NFCE and a representative sample of other NFL teams--good and bad--to see just how their lines are put together. No saying you aren't right--just that I have doubts.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

If our competition in the NFC East thought they could build their OL and DL solely with low numbers of low-ranked draft picks they would have done so.

We have traded draft picks for FA and then used our top draft picks for non-OL/DL choices.

[B]The Redskins strategy has been to try to get a good OL / DL without using our best draft picks to get there. This correlates with our mediocre win/loss record over this last 8 years.[/B]

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

I think the work in blogs like this are admirable, but OM the thing is you may as well just post a three word post .. our FO sucks ... as from reading your article that looks to be the opinion you start with ...

When you compare our lines with the NFCE be sure to compare how many times their FO have had to change coaches, how many philoposophy changes they have been through and how much disruption this flux causes to player acquisition .

Look at the Skins in 1999-2008

We have had the down field passing requirements of Norv Turner, that team got gutted by the power rushing needs of Marty Shottenhimer ( a Guy who drafted 2 WR's in his only draft (2 of 5 picks) Gardener and McCants) that team was taken appart by the confused Steve Spurrier and then rebuilt by Joe Gibbs who was hampered by the free wheeling and dealing of his previous administrations devaluing draft picks and now that has to be tempered from a power run game to WCO with Jim Zorn ...

Zorn has also been hampered by the fact he inheritied the team that Gibbs built in terms of most of the coaches and 22 of the returning starters from a 9-7 playoff team

it should also be pointed out that only Marty and Norv were fired Spurrier jumped before he was shoved ( The Snyder wanted to give him another year) and Gibbs walked away from his 5 year promise ...

Also remember that Gibbs also tried to engineer his sucession with Williams and Saunders so tools were brought in to appease them .

the only team that comes close to this is the Cowboys and only in the last two years has their line come together .. and they have drafted 2 of their starting linemen Adams and Gourde and only one of those came this century..

Going into 2008 with a new system there were two areas of strength that really needed little imediate help the offensive line and the secondary . The areas that needed the most help was WR, DL (particulary DT) and possibly the LB ...

We managed to address one of those areas in WR and then forgot about the DL and other needs .. but again you can only pick up who is there ....It would have been great to get both the Longs, Branden Albert, Gholsten etc but even with the most blatent cheating and use of multiple teams on Madden that would have been a tall order . I may be alone but I have seen some flashes from the WR's Thomas in particular that get me excited of what can be, although admittedly not enough ...

Our line suddenly became like the Chiefs line did recently, it went from being a good vetran line to an OLD line overnight .. In hindsight yes we should have picked up an offensive line man or two ... though in fairness we did select Chad Rienheart in the 3rd which used to be a day one pick .

Sometimes new HC come in and have amazing drafts early in thier careers that sets up the teams for years Gibbs had a few where we picked up most of the Hogs and other stars of the golden Gibbs 1 eara . Reid had one in 2002, but mostly teams have to build through the years and progressively get better . That has not happened with the Skins for reasons previously mentioned .


It may sound like I am being appolgtic but I am not excusing the FO for ignoring the OL and DL lines but I am aware of the issues around the team and how that had effected the decisions . They didn't have to spend three picks on pass catchers ...they could have spread the wealth but clearly had a philosophy of going off their draft board in terns of value rather than reaching for need alone and from post draft interviews it was also clear that player the FO had targeted had been selected a few picks before .. I am thinking particulary of Philip Merlin and Trevor Laws ( I think) .

I actually think long term this is the philiosophy that wins out and I still applaud the FO for going this route . We didn't sign Thomas, Davis and Kelly for one year they have yet to show these guys are going to be stars but don't judge this draft by this years production alone .I think it is quite interesting when Vinny has a large say in the draft ( which we have only seen twice 2002 and 2008) we see a FO who "Hates draft picks" trade down in the draft to stockpile picks (10 in 2008, 10 in 2002)

The short term thinking that comes with statements like "Well the three pass catchers have contributed zilch this year" I have to wonder how much patience such a person has for OL for example who get beat or DB who give up a touchdown etc ...

The WRs had to be addressed sooner or later and the draft is as good a place as any . You can pick up WR in the FA but top tier WR prospects rarely hit the market most who change teams do so via trades, the Pats for example completely reconstructed their WR corps via trades ..and the odd project like Jabaar Gafney or Dante Stallworth .

As much as people keep talking about the Redskins FO rebuilding the team backwards what they seem to do is focus too much on one area then move on to the next . Like the secondary . We have had a leaky secondary for years even with Champ Bailey and the likes of Deon and Green . Champ leaves So the FO goes out to sure up the secondary, it picks up Shawn Springs, and Wlt Harris Drafts Sean Taylor and then goes on to loose then resgin Fred Smoot drafts Laron Landry and Carlos Rogers and finally brings in Deangelo Hall and uses late picks on Tyron, Horton and Moore . All in the last 4 years .

Before this year we drafted Cliff Russell, Rod Gardner, Taylor Jacobs and Danarian McCants also Tim Alexander and Ethan Howel (both 7th rround choices) ... in the Snyder adminstration, we have taken 1 RB ( not FB) in the last 10 years (Betts) ..so you cannot say not with a straight face that we focus on the skill possitions..we have in some instances devoted half of a draft class to OL and DL, and rightly so as they do make up maybe 20 possitions on the team . We do load up with TE, FB and LBs because that is the core of a special teams unit .. Peirce was a special teams ace before breaking out, so was Marshell.

The pointis you can find an area on the team that is showing a weakness and come up with a reason for it . You can with WR, QB, RB etc . Had we not address WR this year then when ... ? It is easy to anoint blame what is not so easy is sugesting ways out of a problem ... maybe you research could be pointed that way

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=bedlamVR;510739]I think the work in blogs like this are admirable, but OM the thing is you may as well just post a three word post .. our FO sucks ... as from reading your article that looks to be the opinion you start with ...

When you compare our lines with the NFCE be sure to compare how many times their FO have had to change coaches, how many philoposophy changes they have been through and how much disruption this flux causes to player acquisition .

[B]Look at the Skins in 1999-2008[/B] ...[/quote]
I did. And I found one constant: regardless of coach, regardless of system, they don't draft linemen.

No, I don't think "the FO sucks." Due respect, but if that is what you took from the piece, I'm more inclined to think that's you superimposing your own beliefs than me expressing mine.

The piece is very specific and fact-based. The only conclusion I have drawn (even qualifying it by noting we'll let the facts speak for themselves as we proceed in the research) was that I believe they have failed in one specific area--the line of scrimmage.

I understand the effect regime and system changes have on the kind of players you draft.

I understand the effect poor QB play has on the appearance of how an OL is playing.

I understand certain defensive systems stress the DL occupying lanes and blockers as opposed to pinning it back and attacking the passer.

I understand that the Redskins instead of focusing on the draft have tried to build and maintain their lines with the occasional veteran (Rabach, Kendall, Carter, Taylor) and a host of UDFA and journeymen FA.

I [I]also [/I]understand that the Redskins, by a significant margin, draft and develop linemen less than their competition. The numbers are startling.

I also understand that their current batch of starting linemen are not competitive against the NFL's best from other teams. That isn't scientific analysis, that's watching the Redskins get owned in the trenches every time they face a playoff-caliber opponent. If you've seen something different, perhaps that is where we're parting ways.

I also understand that there is perilously little talent in the pipeline behind that current batch of starters.

I started with the hypothesis that the Redskins are getting overmatched badly at the line of scrimmage against playoff-level teams. I'm digging into the data to find out exactly how the Redskins have built those lines, and comparing them to a representative sample of other NFL teams to see if any patterns emerge that shed any light on the subject.

I think I'm finding it in spades, to be honest. But I'll keep plugging along and lay the results out there. If when I'm done I conclude that my initial impressions were misguided and the FO is doing and has done an acceptable job of addressing the line of scrimmage, I'll say so.

If the evidence suggests otherwise, I hope you'll do the same.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

What's remarkable is how many linemen they have drafted that, as far as I can remember, practically never saw the field since 1999

Derek Smith, Michael Moore, Del Cowsette, Mario Monds, Reggie Coleman, Greg Scott, Mark Wilson, Jim Molinaro (just to name some)

Granted, some of these are later round picks but I guess the fact that lately our late round picks are playing more is testament to slight improvements in scouting. Maybe?

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Okay, I understand wht you are saying but I cannot help but feel that the blog is negative and typical of the types of things you read about a 1-4 team , in that it is onesided and blinkered .

I admitt the point that yes the Skins have been terrible at developing talent and bringing though our own guys compared to other teams in the same division, but equally you have to consider there is a reason for that and that reason is change .

Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs and Zorn have all had one thing in common, they have all on paper at least had a very servicable offensive line equipped with a top 5-10 LOT in Samuels good gaurds and at least workable ROT and C . None have come in and had to start rebuilding the line .

Equally most of these coaches have changed some of the possitional coaches and the blocking schemes . It is hard to develop anything anything if you are constantly changing the water .

I fully appreciate that Gibbs has failed the team in that he did nothing to build the depth at any possition squandering picks to win now, but he is the only coach that has been in the possition to build depth .

All the rest have only been in the possition to build for a maximum of 2 seasons .

I also have to question the timing, as I often do, of the post . Where was your insight in March, or September, or October . The issues of bringing through new guys were the same then as now, the diffence is we were running though teams and pass blocking quite well .

Depth is an issue given the injuries , it would be great to have Jake long in the wings waiting to jump in but how many teams really have that ? You can point to people like Winston Justice in Philly who was quite well rated comming out of the draft but has looked BAD in his early outings . When our depth was called upon in December last year the line stepped up, and that line included journy men and UDFA you dismiss in your post .

What is as important if not more so than depth is the system and the blocking schemes, some of which may be too complex and have our offensive linemen thinking rather too much than actually doing .. if the system is no good then no matter who you bring in you will strugle .

I actually think that having an injured Samuels out of the line will benifit the team asd they will absolutly know what they have at LT every play .


What your post does do for me at is this is possibly the most compelling case to have a GM to be able to oversea the ship in times of turmoil .

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=bedlamVR;510748]Okay, I understand wht you are saying but I cannot help but feel that the blog is negative and typical of the types of things you read about a 1-4 team , in that it is onesided and blinkered . [/quote]
Not sure how one could spin the current state of the lines and the Redskins disinclination to address them in the draft for the last decade as anything but negative, brother. I could pin a smiley face on the numbers, maybe, but Redskins fans are too wise to get over on that easy. :)

As to it being "typical" of what you see in 1-4 runs, or "onesided and blinkered," well ... I'm writing about one specific topic I see as seriously deficient. I've written about lots of other things, too--many of them positive (it's actually kind of refreshing to be accused of being a hater for change). This time I happen to be writing about this negative one. I hope you're not suggesting that every time someone drills down to assess what they view as a specific problem area with hard facts and numbers, they have to be sure to balance it out by finding something good to throw in there for "balance?"

That would suck for me, because I'm already accused on a regular basis of being too wordy.

[quote]What your post does do for me at is this is possibly the most compelling case to have a GM to be able to oversea the ship in times of turmoil .[/quote]
We have one. He just happens to be one long on record as not believing in drafting linemen high in the draft.

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

Om I am not attacking you personally, please don't take it as that .

I maybe seeing this in the wrong light . I am comming at it from a totally analytical point of view .

I understand your point .. IT is appauling how the team has handled the depth on the lines, but there are reasons and for the most part your article is drawing comparisons with other teams in our division but the comparisons are not on the whole valid .

The other point I wanted to add is I am not sure it is as important as where you draft or who you draft but what is important is who actually starts . The Giants have drafted many more linemen than we have yet the only guy they drafted on day 1 ( and i still call 3rd round picks day 1- stupid TV) is Chriss Snee . The rest are UDFA, low round picks and journey men, yet thier offensive line is one of the best driving that running game they have . The thing about that is it possibly shows how poor the Giants are drafting linemen given the number of picks and the number of actual home grown starters , it would be spun that way has the stats been revesed .

What would be intersting it to look at the guys we could have had like in 2005 insted of picking up Rogers we could have had Jaamal Brown, Logan Mankins, Alex Barron or Erazmus James of the Viki...oh wait .. but you get my point . You could also look at who we could have had and the holes it would make on the roster had we used our day 1 picks on back up line men .

As for Viny not taking the linemen early from 2004-2007 Gibbs has had last say on player acquisition 2001 it was Marty 2000 Vinny ran the show and we got Samuels , Vinny C has never to my understanding held the actual title of general manager . It may be scmantics but you cannot call a guy out for the decisions he didn't make .

Finally I do like some of your blog reports but I would just like someone ... anyone ....who writes about the Skins to either be balanced or if not that to be honest ..

Re: Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
 

[quote=bedlamVR;510778][B]Om I am not attacking you personally, please don't take it as that . [/B]

I maybe seeing this in the wrong light . I am comming at it from a totally analytical point of view .

I understand your point .. IT is appauling how the team has handled the depth on the lines, but there are reasons and for the most part your article is drawing comparisons with other teams in our division but the comparisons are not on the whole valid .

The other point I wanted to add is I am not sure it is as important as where you draft or who you draft but what is important is who actually starts . The Giants have drafted many more linemen than we have yet the only guy they drafted on day 1 ( and i still call 3rd round picks day 1- stupid TV) is Chriss Snee . The rest are UDFA, low round picks and journey men, yet thier offensive line is one of the best driving that running game they have . The thing about that is it possibly shows how poor the Giants are drafting linemen given the number of picks and the number of actual home grown starters , it would be spun that way has the stats been revesed .

What would be intersting it to look at the guys we could have had like in 2005 insted of picking up Rogers we could have had Jaamal Brown, Logan Mankins, Alex Barron or Erazmus James of the Viki...oh wait .. but you get my point . You could also look at who we could have had and the holes it would make on the roster had we used our day 1 picks on back up line men .

As for Viny not taking the linemen early from 2004-2007 Gibbs has had last say on player acquisition 2001 it was Marty 2000 Vinny ran the show and we got Samuels , Vinny C has never to my understanding held the actual title of general manager . It may be scmantics but you cannot call a guy out for the decisions he didn't make .

[B]Finally I do like some of your blog reports but I would just like someone ... anyone who writes about the Skins to either be balanced or if not that to be honest[/B] ..[/quote]
Not sure exactly how you reconcile the two bolded comments, my friend.

As to your specific comment about the Giants not drafting linemen on day one other than Snee, I'm not sure where that came from either.

2007 - NT Jay Alford (3rd)
2006 - DE Matthias Kiwanuka (1st)
2005 - DE Justin Tuck (3)
2004 - OG Chris Snee (2)
2003 - DT William Joseph (1), DE Osi Umenyura (2)
2002 - OT Jeff Hatch (3)
2000 - DT Cornelius Griffin (2)
1999 - OT Luke Petitgout (1)

End of the day, though, you did say:

"[I]IT is appauling how the team has handled the depth on the lines" [/I]

[I]... [/I]so considering that's exactly where I started as well, perhaps we're just dancing in the dark here.