Vinny Cerrato

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Smooter

04-28-2008, 01:03 PM







Dude from reading your recent posts all I can say is you are a complete bitch.

this is hysterical

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

Originally Posted by irish

I am not amazed at all that people on this site now love the experts and think they are experts because they gave the Skins high marks (thereby agreeing with what they think as fans). Had the experts given the Skins low marks these same people would have called the experts idiots with an anti-Redskins bias. Its the same old stuff, if they agree with me they are smart and if they dont they are idiots.

Hitting the nail on the head! Well done!:thumb:

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I mean, there's the train of thought that you filled a critical need cheaply, but you have to ask yourself if the need was actually filled, and at what cost. Yes, the "red zone weapons" need was filled, but it cost THREE second round draft picks. Was the red zone weapons need worth three second round draft picks? A rational person would say no.

I think who we didn't draft is a very critical factor in evaluating a draft. If it wasn't, no one would every have a bad draft. I'm not advocating hindsight three years from now if Calais Campbell becomes an all-pro. That's pretty pointless. I'm looking at a roster that is seven deep with competent receivers, and I'm just thinking to myself, as we all should be:

Fact: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends don't have the impact on the game to make the offense score ten more points per game than it did last season. People don't have any clue what they are talking about. That's just not the way things work.

What we didn't do was add any significant help for a front seven that is starting 4 players over the age of thirty, and a 5th next year when Andre Carter hits 30. That matters. It really does.

Yes, we can address those needs next year, but do you have any confidence that we will?

I wouldn't classify the three 2nd rounders as exclusively "Red Zone" threats. Thomas runs a 4.4, Davis can stretch the middle of the field, and Kelly while initially may be a "Red Zone" guy, should develop into A. Boldin-lite as long as he doesn't act like a whiny-baby.

I agree with your point about improving the offensive point production not being done by a single WR. However if you give a developing QB three more large targets that can make plays on the ball, that will definitely help keep drives alive and compensate for inaccuracy as JC learns the system and improves. I think two major factors in the improvement to our offense will be a combination of Zorn's playcalling and JCs improved play.

We did address the OL with the 3rd rounder and some of the UDFAs. I'll wager Buges develops at least one of the UDFAs into a solid back-up. DL & LB is still a concern that I share with you.

I was hoping for DL to be addressed early, then WR later, but unfortuantely the draft didn't play out that way. Merling was taken right before our #34 pick by Miami, (based on SS's G2 we may have gone with Thomas even if Merling was there). Trevor Laws was taken a pick or two before our # 48, Harrison, DT, Ark was taken shortly before our 3rd or 4th rounder. So VC & crew went with "best available" and I thought addressed needs pretty well on Day 2.

[irish]

Originally Posted by HOGTIMUS PRIME

You got that right! Great offensive lines win championships, they make everyone around them better not the other way around.

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by irish

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

Really? Let's come out of the 80's glory years and look at recent history.

QB is the key to everything. In today's NFL you win with a great QB.
Patriots: got Brady and built around him, their OL & DL haven't been filled with Pro-Bowlers during their successful run.
Indy: Manning, then fill in the pieces
Steelers: couldn't get over the hump until Big Ben arrived and when he struggled, no matter how good the OL & DL are, they struggled.
Seattle: solid, but playoff caliber when Hasselbeck put it together.
Green Bay: One of the better OL & DL, but Favre sucks, they suck. Favre plays well they go deep into the playoffs.
Dallas: (as much as I hate it) very solid OL & front 7, Romo goes to Mexico with Jess and they choke.
Jaguars: I'd argue they have the best OL & front 7 in the NFL. They can't get over the hump. Garrard's play improves and now they are on the cusp of doing something special.
Bears: outside of the miracle D in 2006, with no QB, they struggle.

How does this apply to us? JC is coming to the point where it is $hit or get off the pot. Zorn needed to get him the weapons to be successful. JC should have learned the system and be primed for a Pro-Bowl performance in 2009, the receivers should be ready in 2009 after a year to adjust to the NFL and learn the system. Even if we have an average OL / DL, JC playing at a Pro-Bowl level with the weapons the FO has provided should put us deep in the playoffs.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Really? Let's come out of the 80's glory years and look at recent history.

QB is the key to everything. In today's NFL you win with a great QB.
Patriots: got Brady and built around him, their OL & DL haven't been filled with Pro-Bowlers during their successful run.
Indy: Manning, then fill in the pieces
Steelers: couldn't get over the hump until Big Ben arrived and when he struggled, no matter how good the OL & DL are, they struggled.
Seattle: solid, but playoff caliber when Hasselbeck put it together.
Green Bay: One of the better OL & DL, but Favre sucks, they suck. Favre plays well they go deep into the playoffs.
Dallas: (as much as I hate it) very solid OL & front 7, Romo goes to Mexico with Jess and they choke.
Jaguars: I'd argue they have the best OL & front 7 in the NFL. They can't get over the hump. Garrard's play improves and now they are on the cusp of doing something special.
Bears: outside of the miracle D in 2006, with no QB, they struggle.

How does this apply to us? JC is coming to the point where it is $hit or get off the pot. Zorn needed to get him the weapons to be successful. JC should have learned the system and be primed for a Pro-Bowl performance in 2009, the receivers should be ready in 2009 after a year to adjust to the NFL and learn the system. Even if we have an average OL / DL, JC playing at a Pro-Bowl level with the weapons the FO has provided should put us deep in the playoffs.

I would consider getting a great QB & LB the only other part of building from the inside out. Teams need great QBs and need to protect them. If they dont the rest is meaningless. JC can have all the targets he wants but if he has no time to throw to them than they arent weapons.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by irish

I would consider getting a great QB & LB the only other part of building from the inside out. Teams need great QBs and need to protect them. If they dont the rest is meaningless. JC can have all the targets he wants but if he has no time to throw to them than they arent weapons.

"No time to throw" would indicate a poor OL. Our OL was above average with all the injuries and as long as Joe Bugel is our line coach, no matter the talent, will continue to be at worst, average. Stats from 2007:

Sacks Allowed - NFL Rank 13th
Sack % - 12th

Rush Yds - 12th
Pass Yds - 14th
INTs - 4th lowest

The only poor OL stat was Yards per Carry and that has as much to do with the playcalling as OL performance.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

"No time to throw" would indicate a poor OL. Our OL was above average with all the injuries and as long as Joe Bugel is our line coach, no matter the talent, will continue to be at worst, average. Stats from 2007:

Sacks Allowed - NFL Rank 13th
Sack % - 12th

Rush Yds - 12th
Pass Yds - 14th
INTs - 4th lowest

The only poor OL stat was Yards per Carry and that has as much to do with the playcalling as OL performance.

Thanks for posting these stats, I was just looking for this. We were one of the least sacked teams in the NFL. I think what happened here was, we just yieled some very untimely sacks.

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think unfortunately what's reported is inaccurate. Better said, incomplete. The real story is that they were exploring multiple options to do what was best for their team. And they identified early on that improving the WR position was best for the team. So they looked at drafting one in the first round, trading down to pick up a WR later and pick up draft choices, discussing various trade options for established veterans. It's just like every other team did (should have done) throughout the past several weeks. But the sexy story is "multiple picks offered for Chad Johnson." It just doesn't tell the whole story.

I hope it is inaccurate. I just am of the camp that the way to build the team is focus on the draft first and than fill your holes with trades and free agents, as this method gives you more salary cap flexability and also injects youth into the lineup. I know that getting a proven WR may seem to be the safer route, I just hate it when someone gets that $10-20 million signing bonus and kicks their legs up knowing they are set for life and does not produce. Whereas if you draft a lower round pick (2 and below in my opinion) you often don't have to give a huge signing bonus and get 4-5 possible years of great production for a good value. Would Chad johnson be productive - probably, but what does everyone think he would cost - I heard in the range of a $20 million signing bonus, which to me is pretty excessive and if I had my way I would rather put that $20 million into multiple players (like a couple of lineman) instead. Just my opinion.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Bill B

I hope it is inaccurate. I just am of the camp that the way to build the team is focus on the draft first and than fill your holes with trades and free agents, as this method gives you more salary cap flexability and also injects youth into the lineup. I know that getting a proven WR may seem to be the safer route, I just hate it when someone gets that $10-20 million signing bonus and kicks their legs up knowing they are set for life and does not produce. Whereas if you draft a lower round pick (2 and below in my opinion) you often don't have to give a huge signing bonus and get 4-5 possible years of great production for a good value. Would Chad johnson be productive - probably, but what does everyone think he would cost - I heard in the range of a $20 million signing bonus, which to me is pretty excessive and if I had my way I would rather put that $20 million into multiple players (like a couple of lineman) instead. Just my opinion.

I guarantee you it's inaccurate. You have my word.

[JWsleep]

Well, however we got here, we still have a needs on the d line, O line, LBs, and Dbs. We MAY have gotten a potential starter on the O line, but on the d line we drafted late and that's a long shot. Likewise with the safeties and CB.

So we had, what, 10 picks, with 3 in the 2nd round, and we didn't fill those needs. Or we could have done much more to fill them than we did. That's my worry with VC. They overvalued WRs and missed a good chance to meet some needs. Even if the WRs and TE do well (and we have too many WRs now, it looks like), we still have to do lots more to get younger and to get better "from the inside out".

UDFAs are an even longer shot than drafted players, and camp cuts are generally cut for a reason. It's rare to pick someone up who is anything more than a stop-gap type player.

Next year, I hope we draft more towards the O/D lines, and I think we should explore a serious impact FA for our defensive front 7. At least we haven't added a huge FA cap hit a la AA or Lloyd!

[MrJL]

I liked that Cerrato made the trades, but I do feel like he might have stuck to close to the draft trade chart. With what the Panthers gave up for the nineteenth pick I felt like the most we needed to throw in to get the fourth round pick should have been the fifth rounder.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

You arew 100% correct. Everyone (except the Skins, even though they used to know it) knows that you build a team from the inside out. That means having strong O & D lines and then filling in around them. All the successful teams have done it that way and I doubt that formula for success will change anytime soon.

And Bill Parcells who always advocated building from the outside in. The lines are important, not disputing that, but skill position players put points on the board and keep them off..

The best O-line for most of this decade was the KC Chiefs, what did they win? The best D-line has been in Tampa for most of the decade, TB won once.

You've got to have better skill position (QB and LB) and perimeter players (WR & CB) than your opponent in order to win and win consistently.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

And Bill Parcells who always advocated building from the outside in. The lines are important, not disputing that, but skill position players put points on the board and keep them off..

The best O-line for most of this decade was the KC Chiefs, what did they win? The best D-line has been in Tampa for most of the decade, TB won once.

You've got to have better skill position (QB and LB) and perimeter players (WR & CB) than your opponent in order to win and win consistently.

Which leads me to a question, does defense really win championships? I'll save that for another thread.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Which leads me to a question, does defense really win championships? I'll save that for another thread.

I think the 2000 Ravens will tell you it most certainly can.