Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
Can someone explain to me, in the context of what we all observed last year, why we need to draft a defensive tackle? Won't opposing teams just coninue to run over Carter and Holdman? If he is rookie of the year he might, might get 10 sacks. Defensive tackle is not the problem. If Greg Williams thinks it is, then he is the problem.
I'm not saying that we couldn't improve there, but we couldn't possibly improve there as much as we could at DE, CB, or LB which were all terribly suspect last season. This is something that Casserly would have done.
I want to be on the record early and often as being in absolute metaphysical opposition to this pick.
|
The key is not to consider the draft a quick fix. We aren't looking to use the sixth pick on a boom or bust prospect who is being brought in to save the Redskins next year.
I think we can both agree that the pick should probably be spent on the DL. Addressing why it would be better spent at Tackle then End is a bit more complicated. The most obvious reason would be that we just spent a boatload of money on a pass rusher in Andre Carter, who ideally will be our starting end for years to come. It makes little sense to draft his replacement one year after signing him. The guy is 27.
Perhaps you were thinking we draft a bookend for Carter. Someone who is more stout against the run. We could take Jamaal Anderson at 6 this season and start him accross from Carter (or have him compete with Wynn/Daniels). But a year from now, we are looking at maybe Griffin being cut, Saleve'as contract not being extended, and the top two DTs on the roster being Golston and Montgomery, a pair of late round 3rd year players. It seems like we'd have to make a big FA signing to be competitive, and we won't have the cap room in 2008 to do that. We have no talent in the middle whatsoever. Additionally, you run the risk of Carter having another sub par season, getting cut, and the only guy on the line at that point who is any good is Anderson. He has no tackle help and no bookend. And the only thing we can do about it is spend ANOTHER 1st rounder on the best available rush end in 2008.
But lets say we take Branch this year. A year from now, we opt not to extend Saleve'a's contract and for sake of cap room we release Griffin. Now we have a bona fide No. 1 tackle in the middle of the line who is only 23 years old (which assumes he pans out). We have Golston, a third year player, who can start at the 2nd tackle. We have Montgomery on the roster and we can get a 4th DT through FA without investing a lot of cap space. This team still sports Carter at an end, and while Wynn and probably Daniels will be gone by this point, you have Demetic Evans who can start in a pinch and you can spend a day one pick on a stronger, anchoring DE to compliment Carter. Because of the nature of this player, this could be something like a 3rd rounder. Even if Carter doesn't pan out for us, we can still cut him, and spend the 2008 pick on the best availiable DE, and be certainly no worse off than we would be with Anderson at DE. But because of the big money investment in Carter, I want to see one more year of him before I go back and pick at his position.
Longtimefan said it better than I possibly could have:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan
I like Alan Branch at #6 if he's still available when we pick. Despite the fact we need help in other areas, a player of his stature at that position are not always available. We can certainly use his abilities in the front four because I'm convinced that's where it all starts-up front. We can't fix everything at once. but Branch is a good place to start.
|
The simple response to your question is because DT is going to be a bigger problem than DE very soon if we don't address it right now. One pick can put us in a great situation for the future at the DT position.