Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Under the radar players in the draft
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't know...

24 games started, 53 receptions and he's never a #1 option. Not bad.
It's more than two receptions a game



He made some good catches here and there but it was when he was forgotten by the D not like he was dominating coverages

he is a serviceable replacement player as Woz said. You start him if someone is injured but, if you do, TE is no longer a big part of your Gameplan (as it could be with Reed or another).
Anytime a guy isn't one of the top two options they're likely not going to be the focus of the defense. It's not like Paulsen wasn't covered on his 53 receptions.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
You don't need a pro bowl pass catching TE to make the playoffs. We proved it in 2012.

Despite not being a primary receiving target over the past two seasons Paulsen had 53 receptions, that's good.

We can't draft another TE high, we just don't have room on the roster for it and we way too many holes in other areas.


While I am not thrilled about grabbing a TE, I will play devil's advocate:

This discussion reminds me of when Indy picked Fleener and Allen, which I really liked.
Yes, but they didn't have any tight ends. We have two guys capable of starting at TE.

Quote:
I am a big fan of drafting BPA and stacking certain positions (QB, WR, OL, DT, DE, CB, TE, OLB) and having starting quality depth on the bench there- (or 2 starters on the field)
I have no problem stacking psoitions when you have talent at all positions, but if you start stacking postions where you don't have talent at other postions, well then you end up like the 2009 or 2013 Redskins.

Quote:
A 4th round pick is NOT a high draft pick. I would argue that I might be tempted to grab the best Oline ( or WR) there instead of TE, but...
It's not high, but when you have a starter, a quality reserve and a 3rd guy who is your speical teams ace you need to look at free agency to bring in compeition instead of using a draft pick on the TE position in my mind.

We have guys at TE, without Morgan and Moss we don't have relaible guys at WR, we don't have reliable guys at ILB, we don't have reliable guys at DE but Jenkins and we could use better depth on the OL way before TE depth where we are already three deep there.

Quote:
We could play Reed or another outside occasionally as we did with Reed last year. I advocated this previously describing how I wanted bigger men outside at times.
Sure some but are we really going to rehash the Cooley and Fred Davis playing together bit where we think they can both catch above 50 catches in a season because we can use Davis (in this case Reed) like a WR?

Reed is a TE, he can go outside and create some mismatches at times during the game, but primarily he'll be playing on the end of the line, in the slot or as an HB.

Paulsen will play also, this isn't a case where we don't have players at the position.

Quote:
After watching Seattle dominate the best pass Offense in history I stand behind wanting the big WR's. If anything it reinforced the urgency of our Oline distress however.


Really? Because DeMaryius Thomas (6'3) and Eric Decker (6'3) just dominated Seattle all game long with their size?

I think the way to beat Seattle's DBs is more with speed than size. Sherman has straight line speed, but a shiftier guy and faster guy should be able to shake him with a few moves and then get open on him in the zone or get deep on him. Of course, the problem deep is that Earl Thomas is the best free safety in the game and it's hard to get it deep on the Seahawks.

Quote:
We had better SMASH Free agency. There are some really good Olinemen out there
I hope so, not only OL, but there's talent all over the place. This is the best FA crop I can ever remember to be honest.

Gruden mentioned in his interview with Larry Michael that he liked our OL. He said he'd like to find some depth and sure things up in the interior but overall he was really impressed with their run blocking. He did mention how they were a little light in the interior and that caused some protection problems because the interior couldn't hold up on 3rd downs.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DCRED


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 3747
Location: USA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't know...

24 games started, 53 receptions and he's never a #1 option. Not bad.
It's more than two receptions a game



He made some good catches here and there but it was when he was forgotten by the D not like he was dominating coverages

he is a serviceable replacement player as Woz said. You start him if someone is injured but, if you do, TE is no longer a big part of your Gameplan (as it could be with Reed or another).
Anytime a guy isn't one of the top two options they're likely not going to be the focus of the defense. It's not like Paulsen wasn't covered on his 53 receptions.


Yes. And Reed, possibly even another TE would force the D to consider them. Paulsen is not even an afterthought when teams are planning to play us.
And not even crucial on gameday, unless you count a few blocks

Not advocating letting him go, or saying we have a drastic need, but if Paulsen starts we are not getting much more than a blocker at the position
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't know...

24 games started, 53 receptions and he's never a #1 option. Not bad.
It's more than two receptions a game



He made some good catches here and there but it was when he was forgotten by the D not like he was dominating coverages

he is a serviceable replacement player as Woz said. You start him if someone is injured but, if you do, TE is no longer a big part of your Gameplan (as it could be with Reed or another).
Anytime a guy isn't one of the top two options they're likely not going to be the focus of the defense. It's not like Paulsen wasn't covered on his 53 receptions.


Yes. And Reed, possibly even another TE would force the D to consider them. Paulsen is not even an afterthought when teams are planning to play us.
And not even crucial on gameday, unless you count a few blocks

Not advocating letting him go, or saying we have a drastic need, but if Paulsen starts we are not getting much more than a blocker at the position
well I'd argue differently when watching the final 8.5 games of the 2012 season when we went 7-1 and he had a td catch in the playoffs
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Brian23


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 6725
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't know...

24 games started, 53 receptions and he's never a #1 option. Not bad.
It's more than two receptions a game



He made some good catches here and there but it was when he was forgotten by the D not like he was dominating coverages

he is a serviceable replacement player as Woz said. You start him if someone is injured but, if you do, TE is no longer a big part of your Gameplan (as it could be with Reed or another).
Anytime a guy isn't one of the top two options they're likely not going to be the focus of the defense. It's not like Paulsen wasn't covered on his 53 receptions.


Yes. And Reed, possibly even another TE would force the D to consider them. Paulsen is not even an afterthought when teams are planning to play us.
And not even crucial on gameday, unless you count a few blocks

Not advocating letting him go, or saying we have a drastic need, but if Paulsen starts we are not getting much more than a blocker at the position
well I'd argue differently when watching the final 8.5 games of the 2012 season when we went 7-1 and he had a td catch in the playoffs


He had a catch. Woooo.

Being apart of a winning streak does not mean he was the reason for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian23 wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't know...

24 games started, 53 receptions and he's never a #1 option. Not bad.
It's more than two receptions a game



He made some good catches here and there but it was when he was forgotten by the D not like he was dominating coverages

he is a serviceable replacement player as Woz said. You start him if someone is injured but, if you do, TE is no longer a big part of your Gameplan (as it could be with Reed or another).
Anytime a guy isn't one of the top two options they're likely not going to be the focus of the defense. It's not like Paulsen wasn't covered on his 53 receptions.


Yes. And Reed, possibly even another TE would force the D to consider them. Paulsen is not even an afterthought when teams are planning to play us.
And not even crucial on gameday, unless you count a few blocks

Not advocating letting him go, or saying we have a drastic need, but if Paulsen starts we are not getting much more than a blocker at the position
well I'd argue differently when watching the final 8.5 games of the 2012 season when we went 7-1 and he had a td catch in the playoffs


He had a catch. Woooo.

Being apart of a winning streak does not mean he was the reason for it.
It wasn't just "a catch" it was the catch that have us the 13 point lead before the extra point and something we should have been able to build upon if we kept running the ball and our D played a little better.

I'm not sitting here saying Paulsen is someone we should have start or anything, but I think when you have Paulsen and Reed and then you look at other areas where you're #2 WR currently is Aldrick Robinson, your starting ILB's are Keenan Robinson (who hasn't played a game since Nov 2012) and Will Compton (who's never played a game in the NFL) you look to fix those problems first before loading up on a 4th TE - which is a luxury pick.

This isn't last year where obviously the coaching staff knew more about Fred Davis than any of us did. I had no clue he had all those issues, I thought he had gotten better like Trent. It's a wonder they even re-signed Davis last year.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
killacam


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 375
Location: Tucson, AZ
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON...have I mentioned Andrew Jackson? This years Vontaze Burfict!!!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DCRED


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 3747
Location: USA
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killacam wrote:
ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON...have I mentioned Andrew Jackson? This years Vontaze Burfict!!!


If Ryan Shazier falls to the 2nd would you be mad if we took him instead? Or would you get both?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killacam


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 375
Location: Tucson, AZ
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote:
killacam wrote:
ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON...have I mentioned Andrew Jackson? This years Vontaze Burfict!!!


If Ryan Shazier falls to the 2nd would you be mad if we took him instead? Or would you get both?


Jackson is an ILB but I think it would duck to let Rak go only to use our first pick on his replacement. My dream scenario would be to sign D'Qwell Jackson and Draft Andrew late.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote:
killacam wrote:
ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON, ANDREW JACKSON...have I mentioned Andrew Jackson? This years Vontaze Burfict!!!


If Ryan Shazier falls to the 2nd would you be mad if we took him instead? Or would you get both?
I'd get, and want both. Shazier in round 2, Andrew Jackson in round 6 or 7
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Marcus21


Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 1133
Location: North Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would rather have Max Bullough over Andrew Jackson. They will both be late round picks, and both have off field issues. I think Bullough has more up side. Bigger, stronger, faster and played much better competition in college.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marcus21 wrote:
I would rather have Max Bullough over Andrew Jackson. They will both be late round picks, and both have off field issues. I think Bullough has more up side. Bigger, stronger, faster and played much better competition in college.
thats true. Bullough should be there in the 6th.

Heck, Jackson may even be available as an unrestricted free agent - then he's truly be the next Vontaze Burfict
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
S. Taylor


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 11260
Location: By the Lake
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marcus21 wrote:
I would rather have Max Bullough over Andrew Jackson. They will both be late round picks, and both have off field issues. I think Bullough has more up side. Bigger, stronger, faster and played much better competition in college.


Still weird that he won't reveal why he was suspended, but he's a good football player.
_________________
"The key to life is working harder than your situation. Work harder than your situation..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62503
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

S. Taylor wrote:
Marcus21 wrote:
I would rather have Max Bullough over Andrew Jackson. They will both be late round picks, and both have off field issues. I think Bullough has more up side. Bigger, stronger, faster and played much better competition in college.


Still weird that he won't reveal why he was suspended, but he's a good football player.
The fact that it was on a Petrino coaches team, it could be anything...
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: @Baltimore 2; Final Cuts 9; Reg Season 17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mike23md


Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 7724
PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most articles state that it was due to team rules violations.

But.

I think and feel that this kid will come into the NFL with a chip on his shoulder, much like how he played at WKU and light it up.

If we do not retain Riley, I think grabbing this kid in the 5,6 range would be just fine and I think he would actually be a starter by mid season if not before the season started.

I like what I see on the field.
_________________


2015 NFL MOCK DRAFT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group