Redskins Insider: No surprises on Redskins' depth chart

One of many experimental iterations ...

BGO

Guest

There don't appear to be any major surprises on the Washington Redskins' depth chart heading into Sunday's game against the Dallas Cowboys. The Redskins' released the depth chart Tuesday afternoon, and the starters on both sides of the ball are unchanged from the depth chart at the end of the preseason. A couple of notable items: -- While Mike Shanahan declined to reveal his punt and kick returners on Monday, Devin Thomas is still listed as the top kick returner, followed by Byron Westbrook, Brandon Banks and Keiland Williams. Phillip Buchanon is listed as the top punt returner, followed by Banks. -- Joey Galloway is still listed as the No. 2 receiver, which would seem to suggest he'll start opposite Santana Moss on Sunday. Roydell Williams is listed as Moss's backup, while Anthony Armstrong is listed as Galloway's. Both Banks and Thomas are listed as third-string receivers. -- Albert Haynesworth


Washington Redskins - Dallas Cowboys - Santana Moss - Joey Galloway - Mike Shanahan

More...
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
371
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Great, we picked a kickoff returner with the #34 pick in the draft :mad:

Geez, most teams get their kick returners with late second day picks or free agents.

So, instead of a DL or OL or even a young RB, the Redskins are stuck with Thomas.

I can just imagine Thomas being a taller, bigger version of Desmond Howard.

Remember Howard?

#4 overall pick who couldn't play wide receiver but could return kicks.

great pickup for $100 on waivers, but do you want to be the guy that gives up the #4 pick for player that goes bust as a receiver?
 

Neophyte

GM
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
168
Points
218
Location
Dallas


I can just imagine Thomas being a taller, bigger version of Desmond Howard.

Remember Howard?

#4 overall pick who couldn't play wide receiver but could return kicks.

great pickup for $100 on waivers, but do you want to be the guy that gives up the #4 pick for player that goes bust as a receiver?
I prefer to think of him has the only guy to be named the MVP of the SB as a return man. :cool3:
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
371
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


yeah, great if you are a Packers' fan, because Ron Wolf got him for the $100 waiver fee. not so great for the Redskins whose franchise was set back 5 years by blowing a top 5 draft choice.
 

PF Chang

Camp Fodder
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vienna, VA

Penn State

This will be the only positive thing I ever say about DeSean Jackson, one of my least favorite players in the league.

I absolutely hate that the Skins passed on him twice, drafting a receiver with one of those picks. I absolutely hate that, had we drafted Jackson, our receivers would be seen as at least average as opposed to the glaring weakness we appear to have right now.
 

Neophyte

GM
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
168
Points
218
Location
Dallas


BD, drafting Howard in 92 didn't set this franchise back 5 years. It was drafting Howard in 92, Carter in 93, Schuler in 94, Westbrook in 95 and Johnson in 96 that set this team back 5 years. In fact, if you look at those 5 drafts, the only names that stand out as solid players for this club are Stephan Davis, Cory Raymer and Tre Johnson. Howard was bad but he was really just the start of a much bigger issue.
 

PF Chang

Camp Fodder
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vienna, VA

Penn State

Seven years is a long time. The Redskins have the deserved reputation of disregard for the draft. I'd forgotten that it used to be much worse. Three draft picks in 2003. Three...
 

the Omniscient

The Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
0
Points
0


I absolutely hate that the Skins passed on him twice, drafting a receiver with one of those picks. I absolutely hate that, had we drafted Jackson, our receivers would be seen as at least average as opposed to the glaring weakness we appear to have right now.

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you did want the guy in the draft though, not trying to be snippy with you. My problem with that is we did not need another small reciever in that draft. We already had Moss and El. We needed (and still do) a tall fast dominant reciever.

I liked the DT pick at the time. I figured he would develop slow and eventually turn it on. DeSean just wouldn't have made sense. Plus, he is obviously happier now that old man McNabb is gone and the team has an infusion of youth. I am really interested in seeing how the Eagles fair this year. Prediction: not so well.

I hated the Malcolm Kelly pick because of his injuries and for one other reason at the time. I think it was because he blamed the school or field or something of that nature for his slow 40 time. I hate excuses, especially dumb ones.
 

PF Chang

Camp Fodder
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vienna, VA

Penn State

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you did want the guy in the draft though, not trying to be snippy with you. My problem with that is we did not need another small reciever in that draft. We already had Moss and El. We needed (and still do) a tall fast dominant reciever.

I liked the DT pick at the time. I figured he would develop slow and eventually turn it on. DeSean just wouldn't have made sense. Plus, he is obviously happier now that old man McNabb is gone and the team has an infusion of youth. I am really interested in seeing how the Eagles fair this year. Prediction: not so well.

I hated the Malcolm Kelly pick because of his injuries and for one other reason at the time. I think it was because he blamed the school or field or something of that nature for his slow 40 time. I hate excuses, especially dumb ones.
I won't say I wanted Jackson, I was firmly on the OL/DL bandwagon, but preferred Jackson to any of the receivers. I'm no expert though, but prefer established players with more college success.

It doesn't make sense to me to not draft a superior player because you have one similar to him, especially at WR. Having two receivers with elite speed stretching the field is a dream that could have been true. I think size as a whole is pretty overrated as far as receivers go. Route running, hands, speed in that order. I'd imagine it is difficult to project route running from college to the NFL, but Jackson had elite speed. DT can't crack the lineup because he does nothing at an exceptional level, besides being tall. I guess we envisioned him as a Terrell Owens type of player, with a good blend of size and speed.

Who knows, maybe DT will put it all together. I definitely don't think Shanahan is using any motivational tactics at this point though as far as the depth chart goes.

I don't think the Eagles will be any good either this year, but I do think Jackson will have a good year. There's really no evidence to the contrary suggesting he won't. I guess I lied in the earlier post, THIS is going to be the last positive thing I say about the classless Jackson.

This is a tough topic anyway. Drafting a WR seems to be one of the biggest crapshoots of all. So I'd rather draft a player who is already elite in at least one major skill category, because so many things may not translate to the NFL level.
 

the Omniscient

The Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
0
Points
0


Drafting in general is a crapshoot. However, I would say when it comes to the red zone, size matters. If you have a lot of little guys and one big TE, well the TE will be getting doubled everytime. You need some size down there. It gets physical, the field is short, and speed really does not do you much good. It is nice for the QB to know that when he is in trouble, he could just throw it up for grabs and let the big man come down with it.

Also, I think DT has the speed you are looking for. He runs a 4.4 40. That is definitely fast enough. He just does not have much else at this point.

I think Jackson goes as Kolb goes.
 

PF Chang

Camp Fodder
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vienna, VA

Penn State

Drafting in general is a crapshoot. However, I would say when it comes to the red zone, size matters. If you have a lot of little guys and one big TE, well the TE will be getting doubled everytime. You need some size down there. It gets physical, the field is short, and speed really does not do you much good. It is nice for the QB to know that when he is in trouble, he could just throw it up for grabs and let the big man come down with it.

Also, I think DT has the speed you are looking for. He runs a 4.4 40. That is definitely fast enough. He just does not have much else at this point.

I think Jackson goes as Kolb goes.
Size does matter in the red zone, that is for sure, but I'd still rather have a player who is superior at the other 80% of the field. Admittedly that 20% is the most important, but offensive creativity can hopefully negate having small WRs in the red zone.... I'm optimistic with Kyle Shanahan.

If DT runs a 4.4 40, I may have to rethink my position of "speed" as a huge factor. I doubt Jackson runs a much faster 40 than DT but their speed, or agility, or whatever I should call it is drastically different, and makes a huge difference for their entire offense. Frankly without the threat of Jackson's big-play ability the Eagles' offense would probably be garbage this upcoming year. I'm hoping it will be garbage anyway :)
 

the Omniscient

The Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
0
Points
0


At the combine Desean Jackson ran a 4.35 40. DT is close. I am also optimistic with Kyle. He knew how to get guys open down in Houston.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
371
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Look folks, we needed help at WR in 2008.

What we did NOT need, was THREE receivers taken in Round 2 and a total lack of regard for other positions of need such as OL, DL and RB.

There is no way to sugarcoat the malfeasance of Cerrato.

From taking Kelly who teams passed on because they felt his injuries would prevent him from having a long NFL career, to taking a solid player in Davis but one who now lines up behind a pro bowl player Chris Cooley who is only 28.

So, now we have two capable tight ends but NO DEPTH ON THE OL.

These were silly decisions that were made.

'Work the draft board as we outlined it' - Vinny Cerrato.

A foolish statement.

So, if the top rated player on his board was a WR in each of the 7 rounds, he would have drafted 7 wide receivers? :laugh:
 

the Omniscient

The Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
0
Points
0


The real question is, if Cerrato took seven receivers in seven rounds, would we have at least one starter? :)

I do not think we would be any better off if Cerrato picked lineman. His record was not so good in that area. In fact, his record was not so good in many areas.
 

China

The Team Captain
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
2,659
Reaction score
12
Points
68
Location
Falls Church, VA

Michigan State

I think size as a whole is pretty overrated as far as receivers go. Route running, hands, speed in that order.
So then it's just coincidence that the best receivers not only have good route running, hands, and speed, but size as well?

Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald...all of these guys are at least 6'3".

That's not to say that you can't be small and be a good receiver. Obviously there are numerous examples. But I if you're setting up a team's WR corps, you'd wan't at least one big receiver that can reach over defenders, catch fades, etc.

The Redskins didn't have one. I was glad to see that they drafted one. But as bulldog said, the problem wasn't that they drafted one, it was that they drafted 2 WRs and a TE when there were other glaring needs.
 

Om

GM
Staff member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,006
Reaction score
266
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

All things being equal, I'll take a 6-4, 230lb. gazelle with 4.3 speed, a 40-inch vertical and flypaper hands over the same guy at 5-9, 180. :cool:

That said ... Dan Marino did pretty okay with smurfs like Duper and Clayton ... Peyton Manning did pretty good with Marvin Harrison ... Tom Brady did pretty good with a bunch of whodats? before they bought him Moss.

A great WR can make an average QB better, but nothing compared to what a great QB can do for an average receiver. We won't know what we have in this WR corps until we see what McNabb has left in the tank.
 

PF Chang

Camp Fodder
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vienna, VA

Penn State

Well, yes, adding an extra elite dimension to players who are already elite in the three categories I consider to be most important would certainly help, I'm not denying that. I still think Andre Johnson would be a great receiver at 6 feet tall.

Steve Smith. DeSean Jackson. Santana Moss. Also elite receivers (if anything Moss is not because of suspect hands), also smaller.

Braylon Edwards has good size, but isn't comparable to these guys. Bad hands. What I'm trying to say is if I could choose between DeSean Jackson and a receiver who is less effective in either hands, route running, or speed, but happens to be tall, I'm going with Jackson.

Naturally you'd want the Larry Fitzgeralds of the world. DT wasn't close to that. All this being said, we'd have been better off at a more needed position like OL/DL.

Om, agreed with the great QB/average receiver benefit. I think Maclin and Avant are overrated, but many experts think that the Eagles have the best WR corp in the league. I think their production will suffer this year and perception will change.
 

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