I looked at it with the opinion that we "wasted" a draft pick at first too. But I agree with you that we possibly got some good value here. I think it was ESPN that reported that he would likely have been a 2nd round pickup in the 2010 draft anyway.I have been thinking about how the "Skins" burned a third round draft pick for next year, or at least that is the way some in the media are stating it. In this situation they haven't really burned a pick, since they are getting a young player a year earlier than they would have if they waited until next year to draft someone. Training camp next year he will have a years experience under his belt if he manages to make the team.
You my friend are a voice of great reason!!!!New England and KC both put in fourth round claims on Jarmon. So, reasoned personnel executives did in fact review Jarmon's situation and viewed him as an asset.
The question became how much to give up for him?
Since it was obvious that the 0-16 Lions would be looking to upgrade their DL, it was safe to figure that with their pick at the top of each round that in order to get Jarmon the Redskins were going to have to take him in the round PRIOR or work out something with Detroit offline so the Lions didn't select him.
But then you had Pioli and the Chiefs sitting there with a 2-14 record waiting to receive him.
So, for all those that thought the Redskins overpaid by taking him a round early, I want one of these critics to explain HOW the Redskins could have obtained Jarmon and NOT surrendered a #3 pick.
Really, though, what's not to like here?
A defensive end that is 6'3 and 278, plays the run and the pass and is 21 years old.
If Jarmon had played as a senior and had a season that approached his sophomore season he would have likely been a late #1 to mid #2 pick.