"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics": Power of the Pass Rush
Now there is no question that having an active pass rush is beneficial to a defense, but in reality there isn't a direct correlation between number of sacks and winning. The Redskins are a prime example of this as in 2009 they finished in the top 10 in the league in sacks with 40, yet only managed 4 wins. Fast forward a year and the Redskins sack total plummets to 29 good for 25th in the league, yet the Redskins win just 6 games. Well if wins aren't an accurate indicator of how effective a pass rush can be what is?
In truth there is no single stat that will tell you the impact of an effective pass rush, mainly because there isn't a single stat that defines the pass rush. While we are most familiar with sacks as a measure, and they are the best because there are only two outcomes a sack results in, either a basic sack and loss of yardage, or a fumble and a potential change of possession. While sacks are the best measure there are two other important categories to look at, hits and pressures. While neither are as good as a sack, they both cause numerous interceptions and incomplete passes. Penalties are another factor that aren't even measured in traditional stats, yet occur more with quality pass rushers. There isn't a holding call at the end of last year's season opener if Brian Orakpo wasn't a quality pass rusher. And it isn't just holding calls, as you are more likely to see false starts as well when facing a higher quality competition.
The other issue in determining the effectiveness of a pass rush is that a few dominant players can have a huge impact that a team's overall sack total might be low, but they are still effective. Two perfect examples are the Ravens and Colts (the Ravens had two less sacks than the Skins, while the Colts had one more). While their sack totals, pressures and hits are nearly the same as the Redskins (slightly better overall), they were far more feared because they each had a pair of players (Suggs and Ngata and Freeney and Mathis) that could just take over games. On the flip side you have teams that don't even have a single star pass rusher, but get by with schemes and just a number of very good players. Both the Jets and Patriots are examples of this, neither team had an elite pass rusher last year. Instead they were more aggressive in blitzing from multiple spots, and getting the most out of every man out on the field. Of course the ultimate goal is to combine the star player with the scheme mentality, so that way not only do they have to try to neutralize one or two stars, but they also have to worry about any number of blitzes from quality players. This is exactly what the Steelers do, and what the goal for the Redskins should be.
Last year with the exception of Brian Orakpo and Albert Haynesworth when he wanted to play or wasn't in Mike Shanahan's dog house the Redskins simply didn't have the talent to get to the quarterback. Vonnie Holliday generated some pressure and if he was the fourth best pass rusher on the team it would have been fine, but the fact that he was the second best (usually) meant the Redskins were in trouble. Adam Carriker was forced more often than naught to play the pass, which wasn't his strong suit. This led to below average production and ensured that opposing quarterbacks didn't have much to fear. Kedric Golston, Ma'ake Kemoeatu and Phillip Daniels also saw quite a few snaps, and their level of play, left the Redskins far out of the reaches of the QB. At rush linebacker opposite Orakpo the Redskins went with the out of position Andre Carter and their utility star Lorenzo Alexander who due to the scheme change was not only out of position, but he wasn't in shape for the role.
This year though is a new day, as only Orakpo, Carriker and Alexander return (Golston as well, but he shouldn't see too many snaps). And of those only Orakpo will be a primary pass rusher. Carriker will still get quite a few snaps, but the majority of them should come against the run. And Alexander is likely to see time in nickle situations and spot duty, but he will no longer be relied upon to be an edge rusher. In their place the Redskins added Barry Cofield, Stephen Bowen and rookies Jarvis Jenkins and Ryan Kerrigan. Here is a quick look at how these guys might impact the Redskins:
Barry Cofield: Cofield's four sacks last year would have been second on this team, while his 10 QB hits would have been tops for Washington. His 14 pressures would have tied for third on the team. There is a question of how he does with the scheme change, but he should offer quite a bit more pressure than Kemoeatu from the nose tackle position.
Stephen Bowen: Isn't a sack machine as evidenced by his 5.5 career sacks, but he does get after the quarterback quite a bit. He has 44 pressures over the last two years combined, and ranks as one of the better 3-4 defensive end's at getting after the quarterback.
Jarvis Jenkins: Jenkins didn't have great sack numbers in college, but much of that had to do with the scheme that he was being asked to play. He was asked to occupy blockers so his defensive ends could get all the glory, but that doesn't mean that he can't get after the QB. During Senior Bowl week Jenkins consistently got a good deal of pressure in both one on one matchups and full team drills. Washington shouldn't expect a ton of sacks, but he will push the pocket and generate some pressure.
Ryan Kerrigan: Kerrigan will be Orakpo's bookend, and potentially the best pickup made this offseason when it comes to improving the pass rush. He was highly productive in college at getting after the quarterback, and has continually shown good instincts. He is going from defensive end to rush linebacker, so there could be an adjustment, but he has a lot of potential.
Overview: Although I'd expect a pretty good sized jump in the Redskins sack numbers, the true test will be on improving the hits and pressures on quarterbacks as well. Washington may or may not have added another top level pass rusher in Ryan Kerrigan (and what he does this year doesn't mean he won't develop into one), but what they did do is improve across the board. Now considering how low the bar was set last year, that wasn't too hard to do, but it looks like they made significant steps. They might not have the star power, but guys like Bowen, Cofield and Jenkins will be a big improvement, and help allow the Redskins to get more aggressive with their blitz packages. They aren't on the Steelers level yet, but they are poised to take the step to the Jets/Patriots level of defense (as related to the pass rush).
Steve Shoup has been a Redskins fan his entire life and dreams of the day they get back to the glory days of his youth. In addition to his regular piece on Hogs Haven, you can find his daily writings at Fanspeak.com.
81 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting analysis. We need a good pass rush to support the CB’s and Safeties. Hope you are right that the pass rush will be imrpoved.
by redskins-texas-fan on Aug 24, 2011 3:01 PM EDT reply actions
thanks, yeah I think it will be improved
I don’t see us being dominate, but we shouldn’t make things so comfortable for opposing QB’s this season.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Tiller started this...
and I’ve noticed it slowly spreading to others. It’s the thing I hate most about the board (which I guess means that HH is pretty good).
Thank you!
That mistake happens on sports blogs so much that I had to look it up to make sure I wasn’t the one who was wrong.
Dominate = verb
Dominant = adjective
I signed up for an SBNation account just to post this. :)
by WhatsInaName77 on Aug 25, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a good general post on the pass rush. Another aspect relates to the time the opposing QBs have for getting
rid of the ball. This should help the pass defense since the DBs will not need to cover the receivers as long. The pressure up the middle will also prevent the opposing QBs from stepping up in the pocket as frequently and that should have an impact on sacks by the OLBs and others as the pocket breaks down.
Thanks!
Agreed, the D-line in a 3-4 doesn’t necessary ‘get the sacks’, but really they do, b/c they ensure there is no where for the QB to go.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
If the preseason is any indication
(and it probably shouldn’t be) then we should see a great deal of blitzes from non-traditional pass-rush positions. It was common during the first two games to see corners and safeties in the backfield, as both Barnes and Gomes have registered sacks. We’ve also seen quite a bit of blitzes involving the ILBs.
haha
(and it probably shouldn’t be)
Editor at Hogs Haven - Redskins Blog
Twitter: @RVAparks Check it out for the latest Redskins news and opinions
well that is the Steelers style of defense that Haslett wants to play
I agree the preseason isn’t the best indication, and a lot will depend on on how some of the LB’s are in coverage (i.e. if they can drop back in zones so CB’s and safties can blitz). I really hope our ILB’s will be up for the challenge, b/c their ability to blitz will keep offenses guessing.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Good post. QB pressure is a much better indicator, IMO.
Frequently teams go all-out for sacks and it ends up hurting them in the big picture.
"By far the worst performers on the (Redskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Yes
While I love sacks if a player can cause pressure then a QB could throw inaccurate and the DBs can block it or intercept it.
I can't pass this one up
While I love sacks
On second thought, it may be too easy
by CuseSkinsfan1 on Aug 24, 2011 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh man
I didn’t notice that. I better wath what I write or people will get the wrong idea.
by The Red End on Aug 25, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Carlos
could definitely block passes……
by Big Spoon on Aug 25, 2011 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I still can't figure out
how the hell he didn’t catch this one from last year:

by VA_Skin on Aug 25, 2011 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks!
Yeah I think too often people get focused on that number. People won’t like this but Haynesworth is a great indication of this. Every talks about his play on the field being a bust, but in reality he was simply dominate. Only the DC media seem to be the only ones unable to acknowledge that (and of course our coaching staff). He got such penetration and was such a force, but sacks are the only thing people notice.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that he was dominant
I loved watching him play—as infrequently as that was over the past 2 years.
agreed
never understood why the media attacked him for his on the field work…off the field I totally get. It’s too bad it didn’t workout, and I just hope we don’t have to face him in Dec. b/c I fear he will seriously injure a couple Skins.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Well here was one reason
never understood why the media attacked him for his on the field work…
Let’s not revise history too much. Albert was dominant on the field… when he wanted to be. But he did take the lazy route a LOT. We can blame the 3-4, guaranteed money up front, the media, Shanahan, on and on, but the bottom line is that Haynesworth chose not to be a professional and is still comfortable underachieving.
except he still did more on that play than 9 other Redskins
Why was Vick even starting to scramble? Because he got penetration. He had zero to do with that loss in Philly and yet people try to blame him for it b/c of that play. The thing is on a per snap basis Haynesworth didn’t underachieve despite the system issues.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Being dominant in the 4-3 yes...
and the skins have been pretty good in the base 4-3 for years. This is what made him an attractive piece of the base 4-3. However once the switch came about (if the D wasn’t broke why try to fix it…) the organization did lose that dominant piece, and then it became a circus thereafter.
It is what it is, so therefore I’m having my kool-aid setting in the freezer preparing for it to thaw….
Nice post
The new D front should definitely give us a better pass rush that hopefully will lead to sacks, losses, and INTs from the coverage team. Can’t wait to see game 1 with all the starters playing.
thanks
I agree this could be a really nice unit, can’t wait to see them all on the field
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Love the new title
For me, I think Sacks, Hurries, Knockdowns, and Interceptions (because a QB may make a poor decision against a good pass rush since he will have less time to read the defense) should all be considered when grading/ranking a Pass Rush.
One could create a weighting schema and a sensitivity analysis based on that schema in order to create the most accurate rating/ranking system.
Pro Football Focus
Has a weighted formula using sacks, his and pressures divided by number of pass rushing plays. I think I is pretty good but it doesnt take into account penalties. And it weighs hits and pressures the exact same. While they are similar I am guessing that hits usually result in more ints and incomplete passes
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The problem I have with a lot of these systems (PFF, Football Outsiders, etc.)
is that they don’t use sensitivty analysis after they create their system. They assign a weighting schema whether the factor is divided by number of plays, matches one factor equal to another, etc., but then they leave it at that and rank.
Sensitivity Analysis after the fact would demonstrate the validity of that system. If they shift the weighting criteria slightly in either direction and the results remain the same, then the system is likely valid and has statistical significance. If the results shift drastically, then the system is crap.
In not using sensitivity analysis, they are basically saying that whatever arbitrary rules they decided equal reality/truth/fact. They take a very scientific approach in wanting to quantify/rank things, but then they throw the scientific method/statistical validation out the window. That’s why I give as much stock in any ranking system I read online as I do in arbitrary writers’ power rankings. I’m waiting for the day that one of the sites steps forward to validate their systems. If I had enough free time, I think that’s exactly the sort of thing I’d pursue.
i do get what you are saying, and I think there are some flaws with these systems but they are far better than just looking at basic stats
One thing I like that PFF does is when they look at an individual they do away with half sacks. Which is smart, If both Orakpo and Bowen get to the quarterback, why should they only get a half sack, since they both succeeded on the play. Now it has some problems as it makes it harder to compare to the NFL stats, and when you add them up as a team, it obviously looks better and skews perceptions. Also it makes it seem as more pass attempts ended in a sack then there actually were. But overall I like it.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
PFF are certainly guilty of this in every article that they write
they are basically saying that whatever arbitrary rules they decided equal reality/truth/fact.
but you could make that case for any stat almost.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
A statistic is really only as good as its interpretation
and this is where PFF believes they are infallible.
I don't know I'm big fans of theirs
I’m not saying they are infallible, just in the beginning stages. It is like with baseball and sabermetics. It used to be that OPS was the be all end all stat, but now we have even more accurate stats like OPS+, wOBA etc. I think advanced football stats are good, but they are just the start.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I deal with stats on a daily basis for my job,
and I know that if I left my studies as broad an unproven as these folks do, I’d be forgotten/ignored. That being said, I agree that PFF at least makes a better effort than most to be more statistically legit; but still; it’s not statistically validated.
by preppiejack on Aug 25, 2011 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
You need to move a little further away from the PFF's and others like it
The ratings are an indicator, but not anywhere near the final word. Your own eyes are an much better indicator(especially for someone who knows, and watches the games like you do)
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
I use them as a tool, and they are def. not the be all end all
but it is nice to start seeing advanced stats for Football after so many years of just looking at basic stats.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
The stats are a biased sample of certain things that are very important in determining these catagories
and they tend to be more conjecture than anything.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
I don't know about that
At times what are eyes and stats tell us can be different and at times they can be the same. But it is also a matter of what you are looking for and what the stat measures. For instance we have read multiple times this week how the Redskins RZ offense wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be these last two years. I don’t remember the exact numbers but it was something like the Steelers, Packers and a couple other playoff teams were below us in TD% in the red zone last year. Which makes it sound like we have an efficient offense, but it ignores them have vastly more opportunities (something the writer mentioned), not missing so many short FG’s, and also actually being able to score from outside the 20 yard line.
That is why focusing on just one stat can be misleading and it is far better to get a clearer picture by looking at multiple stat lines.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I, by no means am rendering them useless
I just think people often pull up stats from websites like this and take them as the Bible.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
I agree, but they can also be good
for instance Cofield and Bowen were both on my radar from age perspective and what I’ve seen of them, but I might watch 1 or 2 additional Giants and Cowboys games than the ones when they play the Skins and I usually don’t watch them as closely. While my impression was positive for both players I wanted more info, b/c most of my impression was based on the fact that they were successful against our offensive line, not exactly a great litmus test. By looking at their hits, pressures and stuffs, I got a better feel for the player.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
As long as our D is feared once again then i’m happy. It was a love hate relationship between the my brother-in-law/best friend and i because he’s an Eagles fan. For years iKept hearing your offense sucks.. etc but up to last year i could always reply "yeah well our D is pretty stout(with the exception of Fat AL). HTTR from the PORN Capitol of the World(I love the Valley)
Its better to know how a player acquired his statistics
Rather than know the statistics themselves. How many INTs have we seen thrown on end of game hail-marys or because of tipped balls by the receiver?
Or YAC by receivers going to the QBs as well? Is an entire line bad because one guy continues to give up sacks? I mentioned earlier how Asomugha and Landry have similar INT numbers the past 4 seasons but for different reasons. Asomughas side of the field is avoided entirely while Landry is out of position to ball hawk because of his breakdowns in coverage.
So while we like flashy stats, its important to know they rarely tell the whole story.
by Dammit Cerrato... on Aug 24, 2011 4:52 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
no that is very true
situations do matter. Like how there were a couple games where McNabb boosted his stats against a prevent defense. Or a RB whose yards per carry collapses because he gets 10 carries a game just running up the guy to put a game away. I’ll try to look into some of these situations later in the year.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 24, 2011 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I wrote a fanpost on this a long time ago
about how the pass rush influences turnovers and stuff. I think we’re going to see even more this year than we did last year because we’re able to get after the QB.
I remember reading
Back when the Colts and Pats were the premier rivals in the NFL which ever team had the most QB pressure won every game.
With QB pressure being defined as a combination of sacks, hurries and knock downs.
People quibble over who’s better Brady or Manning, for the sake of argument, let’s call it a tie.
I think using a QB to determine which team is better goes a long way. and I think your second tie breaker should be some combination of offensive line/pass rush. IE the ability to keep your QB upright and get to their QB.
I’ll admit that I do frequent Vegas, one of my degenerate habits if you will. When it comes to picking games I go with by better QB, better pass rush and better offensive line, and if I need a fourth tie breaker I go by who I think has a better head coach.
In 4 years of going to Vegas, I’ve never lost money. (although last year was rather close but I blame that on not knowing how good Colt McCoy was.)
To bring this post back around to the Redskins, I almost never had to worry because they usually have the worse QB.
I like Turtles!
I call it like I see it, some fan bases can't handle that.
The whole point of the Haslett D
is to create turnovers. Sacks can create turnovers, but the I think looking at how many turnovers is created by defensive penetration is indication is an of how successful the front 7 really are.
exactly, I don't care who your CB's are, if you don't get pressure they will get beat
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
depends on the passer
say like a guy like rex grossmen. if u sack him a few times soon as u get near him he will rush the throw and bam ints. it can even make the QB see a fake blitz make a bad throw. jason campball was really bad he get sacked 1 time and the rest of the game he would play scared to death.. so glad we got rid of him!
there are maybe 3 or 4 QB's who truly handle pressure well
Even Drew Brees had like 9 picks last year when he was under pressure. That was roughly half of his picks, in maybe 40% of his attempts.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I would think 3 would be....
Big Ben, Manning, Brady (not necessarily in that order) and they have all shown that they can be rattled by pressure.
exactly, and the only other one that I would put in there is Rodgers
but really only Big Ben and Manning have consistently shown to be able to handle the pressure. I remember a couple years ago Brady’s numbers were awful under pressure.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/06/06/surrendering-pressure/
is an interesting read and unsuprisingly it’s the Steelers that generally give up the most pressure.
Yeah though
they were missing their starting RT for all 16 games and their LT for 10…imagine how ugly last year would have been if that was the case for us.
One thing that is troubling for the Skins from that article is the skill positions pressures (given up by TE’s, RB’s and FB’s) I think that shows why Hightower was brought in and Sellers is being replaced. It also puts Cooley and Davis on notice as well.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Davis has done very well as a blocker this preseason
I know you disagree, but I have seen a vast improvement.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
I actually thought he was better in the Colts game
and actually in reality the Redskins TE’s don’t stay in to block that much on passing downs (I think they were 3rd lowest last year), it is really on the RB’s for the Skins, something that we saw lacking from Torain.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Which is why I feel Torain will be cut
something that we saw lacking from Torain
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
Rec'ed
Too drunk to comment further
@Callahan_9 on the twitter machine.
by Diesel44 on Aug 24, 2011 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
haha
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The stats don't show
1. A team is 30 points ahead and playing scrubs in a prevent defense. This is when the QB’s and RB’s pad their stats.
2. The team with the ball is ahead by 30, playing scrubs and just running out the clock. “Don’t take any chances, do anything foolish, just take only sure passes and hand the ball carefully to the RB”. RB stats go down.
3. A team is 3 TD’s behind and starting the fourth quarter. They HAVE to throw the ball and have to go deep and everyone in the stadium knows it. The defense now has a great chance to pad their interceptions, sacks, hurry’s etc etc.
4. A team is ahead by 3 points, with the ball and two mins to go. They are gonna run the clock, knowing they are not gonna get much yardage, again screwing the RB’s stats.
As I’ve said here before also: “Statistics don’t lie but statistians work for somebody”.
My good brother Steveo
This was an area where you and I differed in opinion leading up to the draft. You were in favor of defense linemen, OLB’s and O-Line, I wanted a QB, a stud WR and O-Line. Well, you definitly got your wish, and I think it was a good one to have. I admitt, I was upset when we traded back, then traded back, then took Kerrigan. Then we took Jenkins in the 2nd, and we all yelled WHO!. But I like the direction this team went. I also liked the fact we stayed away from the Cullen Jenkins’ and Franklins’, and went with young, hungry D-Linemen, who don’t have a sense of entitlement.
Now, just remember, it’s my turn to be happy in the 2012 draft.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
Haha
Yeah I got my wish when it comes to the D-line and OLB. The O-line still worries me, and that and QB are my primary wish for next year. Though obviously a lot can change. WR will be one we have to see, I probably wouldn’t take one in the top 2 rounds again.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I was a little disappointed with the lack of O-Linemen
but I do see promise in Hurt, and I loved the pick-up of Smith. IDK your take on him Steveo, but I feel he could be a starter at RT in 2 years.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
Smith is one that I love
I made a roster prediction yesterday and I really hope they keep him. And I agree he could be our RT of the future, assuming Brown can get us to the future.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Luck or Jones
another receiver and an OL or two is my prediction for next year’s draft.
by TheDeepBall on Aug 25, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I'll guess
Jones, a C or G, and then CB or MLB.
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
agreed, the only issue is if we win too many games to land a 1st round QB
Luck, Jones and Barkley (who i’m not a fan of) could all very well be top 10 guys. Sure we can trade up, but at what cost. I really don’t see the top pick being available for anything less than the Hershel Walker ransom.
Now if a QB isn’t there hopefully the Skins would trade back to stockpile 2nd/3rd/4th rounders.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Aug 25, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really think there is any correlation
We might have had 12 picks this past year, but only 4 in the top 4 rounds, beyond that you are looking at backup/depth players and not all of them will make it. Now we did add a 4th and 6th already for next year, but we are losing a late rounder for Hightower.
If say we end up with a pick around 15, and need to trade up into the top 5 (likely the range for a Landry Jones) we would have to give up at least our 2nd and 3rd as well, and possibly a late rounder, (it is really hard to say until our pick position is determined). The Redskins still have a ton of needs still, so it is a huge risk to do a 3 or 4 players for one.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The Shanaplan
is always 4 steps in front of us;
who knows maybe Beck is awesome, we swoozle the bills / miami into trading for him (unlikely miami makes a deal for the guy they drafted) but maybe the bills can give us enough for him so we can move up.
I would be happy moving into the top 10
to secure the services of Jones. Obviously our 1st in 2013 would be required, along with our 2nd(in 2012) at least
Author @ HogsHaven, Writer for NFLTouchdown.com, Contributor/Scout for Scout.com, Football Coach/Strength Conditioning Coach at Farmington High
It depends
where we start out. If we don’t make the playoffs I think we have a good shot if we swap firsts and give our 2nd this year and 2nd next year.
by TheDeepBall on Aug 25, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
that is still a lot to give up
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
less than 2 firsts and a second.
and this way we still have lots of firepower because we stockpiled so many picks. In fact, I could see us not only trading up back into the second round, but then trading back again and acquiring even more picks.

by 



























