Hindsight: Should We Have...

One of many experimental iterations ...

Yusuf06

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
0
Points
0



...taken Oher instead of Orakpo? Now before you go throwing things, I know Orakpo has looked pretty good in spite of having mostly played out of position. I'm also aware that he was a steal where we got him and that he filled a real need for us. So I'm not in any way disparaging him or the pick. I'm just curious if anyone else is having the slightest twinges of buyers remorse like me?

I have to come clean and admit that I was really, really wrong about Oher. I worried a lot about his intelligence level and his nastiness. So far he's really been money for the Ratbirds though, helping to make their OL the top run blocking line in the league and 9th best at pass blocking according to the Football Outsiders. Even more impressive for Oher is that their line ranks first running to his side of the field.

Disclaimer: I know me and I'd probably be asking the same question about Orakpo if we'd taken Oher, since Orakpo would probably have four or five sacks elsewhere. That's just how I roll. :square:

As crazy as it sounds, I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't have taken Oher instead. With Oher at RT (and eventual heir to Samuels' LT spot) our offense might have been able to consistently score 15 or 17 points per game. Who knows what that might have meant? Of course it's even more enticing to think what we'd be able to do with him on offense once Zorn and JC are gone next season.
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

(Geez, I just re-read Yusuf's OP and my post is almost a photocopy of what he said......)

Hmmm......

There was some guy out there on the interwebs that really thought that Michael Oher would have been a great selection for the Redskins at #13 especially since he thought there was little chance that somebody like Orakpo would be there.

It's a crapshoot really.

Draft Orakpo (a guy that most would consider a better overall talent than Oher) and if the O-line falters (which we figured it would) people look at what Oher is doing with the Ravens and say....."man, we should have taken him we really need some young, talented O-linemen. The front office is run by idiots."

Draft Oher and watch Orakpo dominate as a DE (yes, most teams he'd be either a DE or a 3-4 OLB) for another team as the Skins "develop" Oher on the bench in favor of Heyer (would you be surprised if they did that? I would not). The lack of pressure by the D-line would have Skins fans saying "why in the hell didn't we draft Orakpo? The guy's a beast. First Merriman now Orakpo we pass up. The front office is run by idiots."

The answer is simple. The Skins are sorely in need of young talent on both the O and D lines. The fact that the Redskins addressed either position is a miracle and if you choose either player it's a win beacuse the Skins are finally addressing positions that they haven't addressed with high draft picks since 2000.
Orakpo currently has 2 sacks in 4 games and reasonable amount of tackles and he's not even playing the position he was meant to play. Oher has looked good for the Ravens but knowing the Skins, would be behind Heyer and Williams (just posting this thought makes me angry:tantrum:).
So I think either pick would have been a good move for the Skins......

Oh, and most of us still think the front office is being run by idiots :)
 
Last edited:

servumtuum

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
0
Points
116
Location
Raleigh, NC

Indiana

WD, you nailed something there-Orakpo and Oher were both obvious choices that would have made perfect sense in addressing noticeable team deficiencies. The problem, in spite of the fact that much criticism has been leveled at the manner and motives in which player acquisitions have been handled, is also to a great degree inappropriate use of the talent that is acquired. Orakpo being played out of position, your assessment-very probably accurate-that Oher would be a backup rather than a starter-my personal current pet peeve of Marko Mitchell being inactive...blah, blah.

This brings up a question in my mind that may play a role in placing accountability. Who's decision was it to try Orakpo at a OLB/DE combination? Blache? Zorn? What would have caused them to put Oher, had the Skins gotten him, as a backup rather than a starter? I've read the reasoning on Mitchell being inactive and sort of understand but yet not really considering what seems to be a great opportunity to use him to help out a hole in the passing game. I've spoken my discontent with the team ownership but now I 'm seriously having doubts about the coaching staff. Are they sticking to some "grand plan" and not willing to deviate from it whether or not evidence exists that a different approach might be in order? All these things are causing me to wonder-just how good are these guys?-and I'm not limiting this to Zorn alone? I'm beginning to wonder.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,473
Reaction score
382
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


No, the fault does not lie in taking Orakpo because until his selection the Redskins didn't have a single DE on the roster under 30.

Where does the fault lie?

Well here's my top list:

1. 2008 #2 draft choice - Fred Davis. We needed to select an OL here.

2. 2008 #3 draft choice - Chad Rinehart. We selected a guy Cerrato said could play tackle in the NFL and now we see that he can barely play inside at guard as an emergency fill-in.

3. 2009 #3 draft choice - Kevin Barnes. The Redskins had Rogers and Smoot under contract at CB and then resigned DeAngelo Hall. The team had also spent a #4 pick in 2008 to draft Justin Tryon. Enough is enough here. This was a gratuitous pick. We didn't need Barnes in 2009 or 2010. But we do need an OG and a backup LT.
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

The problem is in my opinion is that this franchise hasn't had "a plan" or a "grand plan" in a long, long time.

This team likes to piecemeal things together instead of having a scheme to build off of and develop players that fit said scheme. And if there is a problem, instead of finding a player (or coach) that could fill the need, the Skins go for the biggest, splashiest name

Here's an example:
1. Clinton Portis is a speed back running stretch plays/zone blocking in Denver. He comes to a Redskins team run by Gibbs power runs and linemen pulling.
The result: Many plays of frustration as Portis' YPC drops. Portis runs into his pulling linemen causing frustration. Portis loses some of the speed to get bigger to take the punishment. The fact that Portis is really a incredible back shows how he was able to make the transition, but that's not really the point is it?

You can make the same arguments for Taylor, Haynesworth, Randle-El, Campbell, etc....etc.

Then you have Landry playing out of position because the Skins really have 4 really good SS and no FS since the loss of #21.

Orakpo's move to SLB is a question mark? Maybe it was a FO idea beacuse then they kill two birds with one stone by finding a guy who is like Marcus Washington. It could be Blache because he worries about Orakpo not being that big DE like Daniels to contain the run in his run-stopping pressure-limited scheme.
Who knows? Either way it's a bad move b/c in my opinion Orakpo is a more dangerous threat at DE than Carter and is know to be a very good run stopper as well (Carter has struggled with that in the past).
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

The Redskins, Vinny in particular, continue to ignore the OLine. Bulldog pretty much nailed it - all the picks we've used on skill players and glamour positions, when we were pretty okay there. The Fred Davis and Kevin Barnes picks are what kill us, not the Orakpo. Rak was a solid pick, and filled a desperate need.

Although...Jeremy Jarmon has already had more of an impact than Orakpo - he forced the game winning fumble on Sunday. Kinda makes you think we'd be okay with Jarmon and Oher...but that truly IS hindsight. :)
 

EatSleepRedskin

The UDFA
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Newport News, Va.


Orakpo is a great talent.

And the Redskins keep wasting it.

I have no problem with him as a linebacker. And i have no problems with the Redskins picking him.

But if I were running the team, he'd be a rush-linebacker about 90 percent of time. I'd move him around, all over the field, and rush him from everywhere trying to confuse the offense. And then sometimes I'd drop him off just to keep the offense honest.

The guy is a uniquely talented pass rusher. The Redskins need to stop trying to turn him into some basic untalented linebacker who rushes the passer sometimes.
 

Yusuf06

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
0
Points
0


(Geez, I just re-read Yusuf's OP and my post is almost a photocopy of what he said......)

Hmmm......

There was some guy out there on the interwebs that really thought that Michael Oher would have been a great selection for the Redskins at #13 especially since he thought there was little chance that somebody like Orakpo would be there.

It's a crapshoot really.

The answer is simple. The Skins are sorely in need of young talent on both the O and D lines. The fact that the Redskins addressed either position is a miracle and if you choose either player it's a win beacuse the Skins are finally addressing positions that they haven't addressed with high draft picks since 2000.
Orakpo currently has 2 sacks in 4 games and reasonable amount of tackles and he's not even playing the position he was meant to play. Oher has looked good for the Ravens but knowing the Skins, would be behind Heyer and Williams (just posting this thought makes me angry:tantrum:).
So I think either pick would have been a good move for the Skins......

Oh, and most of us still think the front office is being run by idiots :)
I guess great minds really do think alike. :cheesy:

I absolutely agree that we desperately needed help on both our lines. However, given that we already had a decent defense and a make or break year for a new, inexperienced coach hired to install a new offensive system, I think it would have been reasonable to make Oher a higher priority pick than Orakpo. However I'm not faulting them on this because as I said, I felt Oher was too big a risk at #13.

As for the draft as crapshoot opinion, that's only true if you don't know what you're doing. Nobody gets every pick right but some teams sure as heck do a better job over the long haul than others. However it all ties in with what your enduring strategy and vision are. Of course we all know that's a real problem area for us, and I'm being really generous to characterize it that way.

No, the fault does not lie in taking Orakpo because until his selection the Redskins didn't have a single DE on the roster under 30.

Where does the fault lie?

Well here's my top list:

1. 2008 #2 draft choice - Fred Davis. We needed to select an OL here.

2. 2008 #3 draft choice - Chad Rinehart. We selected a guy Cerrato said could play tackle in the NFL and now we see that he can barely play inside at guard as an emergency fill-in.

3. 2009 #3 draft choice - Kevin Barnes. The Redskins had Rogers and Smoot under contract at CB and then resigned DeAngelo Hall. The team had also spent a #4 pick in 2008 to draft Justin Tryon. Enough is enough here. This was a gratuitous pick. We didn't need Barnes in 2009 or 2010. But we do need an OG and a backup LT.
Good points on all these picks BD. However, I think it can also be argued that we missed on trading down out of the first round in 2008 and instead should have just taken Sam Baker there instead. He's a decent LT with the Falcons and probably would have been a very good RT for us. Unfortunately due to our great number of needs and impatience we decided or were almost forced to trade down to get the additional picks.

I hate to beat a dead horse but if we had been drafting with a long-term view over the years, we wouldn't have been painted into that corner in 2008. A simple policy of drafting at least one OL/DL somewhere in the top three rounds plus one QB in the mid to late rounds each and every year would ensure a continual flow of talent into the three most important areas of the team. It might sound a bit excessive at first blush, but Ron Wolf used this very strategy to make sure Green Bay always had a QB in the pipeline.

Again, if we as laypeople can figure this stuff out I just don't get how anyone who purports to be an NFL personnel "goo-roo" can't see it. OTOH I think a lot of the shortcomings and mistakes we've attributed to Vinny over the years were actually Snyder's doing. The marked improvement in our drafts after Cerrato was (allegedly) given full control speaks volumes. I still want Vinny gone, in part due to his Waylon Smithers type relationship with Snyder. However I think the most important thing is to get Snyder to butt out of the process altogether.
 

Sarge

The Owner's Favorite
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,463
Reaction score
68
Points
128
Location
CTU

Air Force

Hindsight: We should have............

Gone back in time and set the danny up to be busted in a midget porn ring...........
 

Neophyte

GM
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,531
Reaction score
168
Points
218
Location
Dallas


No, the fault does not lie in taking Orakpo because until his selection the Redskins didn't have a single DE on the roster under 30.

Where does the fault lie?

Well here's my top list:

1. 2008 #2 draft choice - Fred Davis. We needed to select an OL here.

2. 2008 #3 draft choice - Chad Rinehart. We selected a guy Cerrato said could play tackle in the NFL and now we see that he can barely play inside at guard as an emergency fill-in.

3. 2009 #3 draft choice - Kevin Barnes. The Redskins had Rogers and Smoot under contract at CB and then resigned DeAngelo Hall. The team had also spent a #4 pick in 2008 to draft Justin Tryon. Enough is enough here. This was a gratuitous pick. We didn't need Barnes in 2009 or 2010. But we do need an OG and a backup LT.
I have to agree here. For the most part, I like what we do with our first round picks but after that we get goofy.

Davis was a luxury that we could not afford. Rinehart might work out but there were other options available who certainly would have been better. I hated the Barnes pick for all the reasons you have mentioned. I am tempted to say we should have also used one of the 2nd round picks last year on a lineman, offensive or defensive, rather than pick up two WRs. In the future, both Kelly and Thomas might pay off but I thought it was over kill at the time and I still think that, especially in light of how Mitchell is doing.

The front office seems to have a blind spot for our holes in depth which I find odd considering we fans and the media don't seem to have any problems with seeing them. I mean, we drafted another TE this year line 7th. Are you telling me there was no lineman there worth a flier? Come on...
 

Whiskeypeet

The Rookie
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
Points
0


I am tempted to say we should have also used one of the 2nd round picks last year on a lineman, offensive or defensive, rather than pick up two WRs.
You are only tempted? Why draft a bunch of pass catchers when you have a giant question mark at QB and you don't have a line capable of supporting said QB?

I've NEVER been for this team acquiring WRs for these reasons....and that goes back to the Laverneous Coles/Taylor Jacobs acquisitions. We didn't have the QB or line necessary for those acquisitions to make sense then and we still don't.
 
Last edited:

Spence

The Rookie
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Points
0


Hindsight: We should have............

Gone back in time and set the danny up to be busted in a midget porn ring...........
BINGO! We have a winner!
 

Yusuf06

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
0
Points
0


Hindsight: We should have............

Gone back in time and set the danny up to be busted in a midget porn ring...........
BINGO! We have a winner!
Agreed. After all, the chances of Sarge's suggestion happening are about the same as Snyder backing off and handing the reigns over to someone competent.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,473
Reaction score
382
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


what's really unforgiveable is that Vinny decided to take the risk on Kelly's health with such a high draft choice when the consensus medical opinion was that his knees were likely to limit the length of his NFL career.

with all the needs on this team you really can't afford to take a 'flyer' on a previously injured player this high.

this is the kind of player and pick you make if you are Baltimore or New England and are coming off an 11-5 or 12-4 record and have bench talent.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,810
Reaction score
453
Points
1,113

Florida State

what's really unforgiveable is that Vinny decided to take the risk on Kelly's health with such a high draft choice when the consensus medical opinion was that his knees were likely to limit the length of his NFL career.

with all the needs on this team you really can't afford to take a 'flyer' on a previously injured player this high.

this is the kind of player and pick you make if you are Baltimore or New England and are coming off an 11-5 or 12-4 record and have bench talent.
Yeah but many said the same thing about Adrian Peterson, but since it is hindsight I guess I can't make that argument. :tantrum:
 

riggins44

The Franchise Player
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
4,183
Reaction score
56
Points
78
Location
Yorktown, VA


In reading these post it is easy to see the problem, which has been touched on.

We just don't have any plan or direction. Each year its make the big splash versus trying to build a team. When Beathard ran the show there was some direction.

I know most years he would make a "fun" pick in later rounds, which was usally a QB. The thing is he was always looking to the future and not the just win now mentality.

Until the FO and ownership develops a sound long term plan we will be discussing "should we have" for years to come.
 

Jimbo

The Franchise Player
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
5
Points
68
Location
Columbia, SC


Yeah but many said the same thing about Adrian Peterson, but since it is hindsight I guess I can't make that argument. :tantrum:
Taking Peterson would have been like taking Davis. You already have a Pro Bowler at that position. Is Peterson better than Portis? Yes, but we know this because Peterson is on another team. Is Davis better than Cooley? Who knows what will happen in the long run? The problem is, we won't find out any time soon.

Unfortunately, the salary cap forces you to go against the conventional drafting of the BPA because you have to fill needs AND stay under the cap. Most teams can't afford the luxury more than one great player at any given position.

Had we passed on Rak and taken Oher, we would likely still be having this type of conversation but I really don't think we could have gone wrong either way because BOTH guys filled a need many of us have been clamoring for. Had we somehow ended up with BOTH guys, we'd have been absolutely giddy but we still probably wouldn't be a better team than we are now.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,810
Reaction score
453
Points
1,113

Florida State

Jimbo, I wasn't suggesting we should have taken Peterson, I was merely making the claim he had to deal with knee problems coming out of college similar to Kelly.

I still don't understand the thinking behind taking 3 receivers in the 2nd round. I know it was a need, but I think it would have been wise to take 1 receiver and 2 lineman instead.

But in hindsight, Thomas hasn't proven to be much and he would have been that one receiver since he was picked first. I guess the thinking was that since they traded down for 3 second round picks, by choosing 3 receivers at least one of them would pan out. Foolish!
 

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

Private conversations
Help Users
    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Chat 0
    Top