So...about #36 and #40

Well, we had a bevy of picks in Rounds 2 and 3. If they really wanted a guy we could have made it happen just like the Eagles did at cornerback.
 
The eagles were very aggressive - 9 trades. Peters is new he can't be that aggressive but I do think it would have been good to move up to get a LT
 
Right now, I think Peters weakness may be in wheeling and dealing. It may be that he trusts his board and ability to find value at the pick and it may be because he's not a natural haggler. Regardless, I bet if we were to look at the average time before a team made their pick, Adam would be first. So often it seemed he would make his pick within a minute of us going on the clock while so many other teams waited until only a minute was left.
 
There were an unprecedented number of tackles taken in Round 1 which I think shocked everyone - perhaps most the early selection of Jordan Morgan who in most mocks was slated to go early Round 2. JC Latham also got picked higher than at least I thought he would.

Once we got to pick 29 and Guyton was off the board that was pretty much 'it' in terms of top rated tackles, although I didn't have Guyton rated as highly as some of the others.

Once we had Newton in the 'house' at #36 I was in favor of staying at #40 and taking Cooper DeJean who represented excellent value at that spot and we needed a corner on top of it all.

But the main reason I was peeved was because we traded with the Eagles and gave them a very good player that we are now going to face twice a season for the next 5-7 years.

To me, unless a team within the division is offering a really rich trade to move up using our pick then I have no interest in making them stronger.

Our return on the pick was OK to solid but it wasn't a return that to me was going to be that meaningful overall in terms of the returns on the draft.

We had 6 picks in the top 100 and whether we traded with the Eagles or stayed at our numbers and simply made the picks, there were candidates of one stripe or another out there to make this team better.
 
I guess one thing we can’t know is how the team viewed DeJean. Maybe the prospect of letting the Eagles nab him wasn’t as scary to them based on their assessment of him? But I had the same reaction you did, shouldn’t do a division rival any favors unless the offer is ridiculously good.
 
Boone said:
I guess one thing we can’t know is how the team viewed DeJean. Maybe the prospect of letting the Eagles nab him wasn’t as scary to them based on their assessment of him? But I had the same reaction you did, shouldn’t do a division rival any favors unless the offer is ridiculously good.
Click to expand...
I think the other metric they may have looked at is who has been killing us.

In recent years (decades?), this team has been vulnerable to tight ends and running backs especially. We gave up freebie first downs on crossers and over the middle all the time. I think that's why in free agency that Peters made linebacker is highest priority. So maybe while we were looking for help in the passing game, he identified the weakness as the slot receiver and the running back more than the outside receiver.

I'm probably wrong here because Peters draft did not seem designed to fill immediate holes, but I am tired of seeing any third down back, tight end, and slot receiver have a field day against us. That weakness screams for better nickel defenders.
 
Peters did economically spread the picks across the spectrum of positions on the roster.

We didn't take more than one player at any spot.

With as many picks as Washington had that's a bit unusual going back and thinking about what we used to do back in the 'good old days' before Snyder.
 
Maybe, unlike previous admins, they didn't feel like they had to draft 'insurance' against other picks failing. They have confidence in the guys they chose.
 
No, I mean that on the OL there are 5 distinct positions - well, at least 3 - LT, C and RT - and then OG where you get a variety of prospects that were college guards, centers and tackles that play there.

So, just because we go OL with more than one pick doesn't mean we are backing up the same spot to insure against a failure of a pick, merely recognition that at certain position groups (including LB) there are a variety of roles and spots available on a given defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top