2014 Official Draft Thread

[Panama]

Yuba, I get what you're saying, and they're valid points. However, if the offense had punched it in in 3 tries from inside the 1, we would have won.

We expected our D to be awful, so I can't fault them too much, given what they had to work with in terms of personnel. But the playcalling at the goal line was criminal. When they lined up for the FG, as Gregg Easterbrook likes to say, I wrote "game over" in my notebook.

[Steve]

We lost that game because our defense yielded 30 points on 500 yards of total offense for an average of 6.9 yards per play, including letting the Redskins score a TD on the only possession of OT after our offense had forged a valiant comeback by scoring 10 points in the final seven minutes of regulation with the final 3 coming on a 91 yard drive that began with just over two minutes left in the game. And the reason the offense had to go 91 yards and not less was because the defense, as usual, allowed the opponent to move the ball (33 yards) forcing the burning of two minutes and a timeout before the Redskins had to punt. Had the Redskins not committed a holding penalty on that possession, we probably never would have had the ball back. In OT, the Redskins were able to score their TD despite committing a holding penalty on the game winning drive. Not good.

The only problem with using the Redskins game as an example of why we need a better D is that we didn't lose because of talent. Over 20 plays where we held them to 3 or fewer yards. If we are so talent poor, how does that happen?

We lost the Redskins game because of the 10 or so plays where they broke long runs and our guys blew assignments. Go back and watch the game, you can see our guys making the mistakes often with 2 guy in the wrong spot (together). One of those two was out of position, since you don't assign 2 guys to defend the same gap in a 1 gap D.

[Mister Hoarse]

Totally on the right path. I have a better product. Bigfoot CBD chews. Plus pure CBD flowers. Im set.

Thanks, I will check those out next.

[Beerman]

We lost the Redskins game because we couldn't score from the 1 yard line. That's it. Pretty much every game comes down to a few plays made on both sides of the ball. Team got deflated after failing to score. Not to mention the D was gassed having given everything it had in the previous two possessions to stop the skins from scoring.

It comes down to the issue we had all season - red zone scoring. It was abysmal. It's the top priority for the offense this offseason. We marched up and down the field all year, but you have to be able to put up 7. Ball control doesn't work if you are settling for FG's.

One last point - the redskin game also is a prime example of why I want to improve our speed at OLB. We simply can't contain mobile QB's with our current personnel. No chance at all. We struggle getting to him and we don't have good backside pursuit. We need speed off the edge. Any speed.

[blueman]

D speed and scoring TDs, yep yep and more yep.

[QSmokey]

We lost the Redskins game...

And let's just leave it at that.

[blahblahblah]

D speed and scoring TDs, yep yep and more yep.

yep yep yep.

[Formula 21]

Just a thought, but I think this is why Fuller goes earlier than expected and why Pierre Desir is a legitimate target for the Bolts in the second.

Also why Cody Latimer may go in the 1st.

That's a sub-4.4 40-yard-dash, from a 6'3" wide receiver who posted a 39" vertical leap, just two months removed from having foot surgery.
Foot speed, indeed.
Throw in the 23 reps that Latimer put up in the bench press at the combine (which led all wide receivers), and it's no wonder 19 NFL teams were in attendance at the pro day in Bloomington, according to Gil Brandt of NFL.com.

The game has changed, the big WRs rule with the current rules.

[bonehead]

Two guys that are getting first round rep that I think is bogus: Latimer and Demarcus Lawrence

[Mister Hoarse]

Seems to support Yuba's argument quite convincingly.

[blahblahblah]

Seems to support Yuba's argument quite convincingly.

Several strong counter arguments in the article.

1. Cyclical
2. Guys just don't exist
3. Disrupt timing through technique
4. League going to smaller, less physical safeties
5. "Now you have to do it with anticipation and positioning." - Champ Bailey

With resources so tightly controlled toward parity, you have to make cost/benefit evaluations constantly. As the perceived value of taller CBs goes up, it will take more resources to acquire them. Copying SEA will be risky as well because of Wilson. Not many teams are going to get QB play like that for next to nothing, which skews the resource balance.

My main take away is that you need to get production out of rookie contract players, whoever they are, and eventually be in the place where you can let vets walk. Next man up.

Bigger CBs will also struggle with quicker WRs. Big WR on small CB is a mouse in the house situation. Small WR on a big CB is like a PF trying to guard a PG on the outside. CBs need to tend toward the average because they face both extremes.

I prefer to concentrate on where the defense can dictate matchups, which is on the line.

[Formula 21]

Seems to support Yuba's argument quite convincingly.

I'm not being picky, but I don't understand that statement.