View Single Post
Old 03-01-2010, 11:40 PM   #210
PHazard
Special Teams
 
PHazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Assuming our roster stays as is (as in we don't trade Landry) I give the edge to Suh. I think Suh has the chance to be Haynesworth at his best, a dominating game changing DT. McCoy to me is another Renaldo Wynn type, a solid run-stopping DT/DE who you can count on to do the dirty work for years to come. I want more than that at #4
Why get someone we already have (i.e. the haynesworth comparison) If we didnt have Hanyesworth i could picture it. And we will be using more of a 3-4 then a 4-3 so we dont need a dominating game changing DT. we'd need a NT. Suh is not a NT, n neither is McCoy. So now we use the #4 pick on a DT that we'd be sliding out to DE in a 3-4? So ill repeat, take a DLineman high in a defense based on DE's eating up blocks so the LBs can make plays? Berry would be the more "game changing" player for the redskins and their new scheme. Id like to reiterate tho, that Okung should be the pick if hes not swept up by the lions.

And how Bruce Allen keeps saying "we're gonna take the best player for the REDSKINS" makes it sound like hes bracing the Redskins nation for him to not grab an OT with that #4 pick
__________________
If "The Future is Now" why would we use our #4 Pick on a QB who will spend the 1st year on the bench?
PHazard is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.12807 seconds with 10 queries