Even Kiem doesnt think he is a OT

[Sharkinva]

Wait, he "does need to improve on his pass blocking some"? Really? If you're taking an OT at #5, there's no way in hell does he have to do that. You just made the case why he shouldn't play OT and why we shouldn't take him at #5.

Thanks.

And yet we took THIS guy at #4


WEAKNESSES
Needs to fill out his frame or will struggle with the bull rush at the next level. Feet are only above average and he may have limited range in pass protection. Does not always take proper angles when run blocking.


So you were saying??

 

[redskinsfan]

And yet we took THIS guy at #4


WEAKNESSES
Needs to fill out his frame or will struggle with the bull rush at the next level. Feet are only above average and he may have limited range in pass protection. Does not always take proper angles when run blocking.


So you were saying??

And who's opinion is that? That certainly wasn't what everyone was saying, especially about Trent's footwork, which was raved about by just about everyone. And for proof on that, we know how wrong that evaluator was.

On the other hand, you , as the proponent for Scherff, are admitting that Scherff needs work at pass pro. This isn't a situation where he's got issues with some aspect of his pass pro game, but a concession that he's got to work on it generally. On that we definitely agree. And that's as good a reason to drop him from consideration from #5 and it's why just about everyone is saying he can't play OT.

Welcome to the club, man!

 

[Sharkinva]

Look guys bottom line is, I think he is worth the 5th pick, even IF he only plays guard for us. Have him replace Chester and draft an OT in the 2nd round that worth a fuck ( we cant do worse than that broke dick Moses after all) and all of a sudden we have a relatively complete and relatively YOUNG O-line. We also likely improve our ground game alot which in turn will help out the passing game and the entire offense.

TO me thats worth alot more than Fowler doing his sack dance in a 45-14 blow out because we cant run the ball and RG3 is nursing another sprained what ever that he got running for his life. Sure if we get a trade down offer thats too good to refuse that would be fine. BUt otherwise I dont think there is an o-lineman i would take ahead of Scherff, there isnt a pass rusher I would take at #5 because I dont think any of them are worth the pick, and WR is a luxury pick for two years own the road when we could actually use one or two starters now.

I know you'll disagree, and mainly because trading down, taking a pass rusher, or a WR is much more thrilling than drafting a Guard at #5. BUt IM looking at what would be best for this team short and long term. And even if he is being drafted as a guard, I think he will be one of the best guards in the NFL when all is said and done, and will be a key component to this TEAM improving. Not just in the stats department.. but in actual WINS, you know those things we havent had many of as of late.

 

[redskinsfan]

Look guys bottom line is, I think he is worth the 5th pick, even IF he only plays guard for us. Have him replace Chester and draft an OT in the 2nd round that worth a fuck ( we cant do worse than that broke dick Moses after all) and all of a sudden we have a relatively complete and relatively YOUNG O-line. We also likely improve our ground game alot which in turn will help out the passing game and the entire offense.

TO me thats worth alot more than Fowler doing his sack dance in a 45-14 blow out because we cant run the ball and RG3 is nursing another sprained what ever that he got running for his life. Sure if we get a trade down offer thats too good to refuse that would be fine. BUt otherwise I dont think there is an o-lineman i would take ahead of Scherff, there isnt a pass rusher I would take at #5 because I dont think any of them are worth the pick, and WR is a luxury pick for two years own the road when we could actually use one or two starters now.

I know you'll disagree, and mainly because trading down, taking a pass rusher, or a WR is much more thrilling than drafting a Guard at #5. BUt IM looking at what would be best for this team short and long term. And even if he is being drafted as a guard, I think he will be one of the best guards in the NFL when all is said and done, and will be a key component to this TEAM improving. Not just in the stats department.. but in actual WINS, you know those things we havent had many of as of late.

By saying that taking him as an OG at #5 will be good enough, you're basically Al Davis trying to cover his pale heinie by saying the thing by taking Gallery who busted as an OT. If you're comfortable with that company, be my guest. And if Fowler is doing a sack dance in 45-14 blowout, I'd just assume that we're blowing someone else out. How's that?

 

[Stymietee]

By saying that taking him as an OG at #5 will be good enough, you're basically Al Davis trying to cover his pale heinie by saying the thing by taking Gallery who busted as an OT. If you're comfortable with that company, be my guest. And if Fowler is doing a sack dance in 45-14 blowout, I'd just assume that we're blowing someone else out. How's that?

Love how this conversation is going, interesting continuous read, but my question is why is it that your guy is performing great things while his (Sharks) guy is a bust? Isn't it just as likely that both could bust or become outstanding players? What if your scenario were reversed? ( Fowler busts and Schreff excels) Just asking.

 

[deanpet21]

Of course anything can happen. But no team in NFL history has taken a OG at #5 overall.

 

[Sharkinva]

Of course anything can happen. But no team in NFL history has taken a OG at #5 overall.

Actually that would not be 100% accurate. You could say no team in Modern NFL history has taken a guy with express intention of playing him at Guard. But then I will ask you, aside from a Guard just not being exciting enough for you at #5, why does even the concept upset you so much if taking this guy would be an obvious upgrade to the team as apposed to simply a position group??

 

[Stymietee]

Of course anything can happen. But no team in NFL history has taken a OG at #5 overall.

First time for everything! Gotta tell ya, I am generally more analytical post draft than during it, but the more I read the responses that you two are posting, the more interested in the actual draft I'm becoming. As it stands right now, I'm kinda hoping that the team makes the pick at 5.

 

[Sharkinva]

By saying that taking him as an OG at #5 will be good enough, you're basically Al Davis trying to cover his pale heinie by saying the thing by taking Gallery who busted as an OT. If you're comfortable with that company, be my guest. And if Fowler is doing a sack dance in 45-14 blowout, I'd just assume that we're blowing someone else out. How's that?

Unrealistic. Especially considering you admit you have never even watched him play. And doubly unrealstic seeing as the last team the Redskins blew out was the Jags.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Actually that would not be 100% accurate. You could say no team in Modern NFL history has taken a guy with express intention of playing him at Guard. But then I will ask you, aside from a Guard just not being exciting enough for you at #5, why does even the concept upset you so much if taking this guy would be an obvious upgrade to the team as apposed to simply a position group??

Shark: Can you do me a favor and stop with the "not exciting enough" and "sexy pick" angle? It is simply off base. NOBODY on this board is fine with the current OL. We all want it upgraded. And as I have said before fans passionate enough to post regularly ion a team message board know football and aren't swayed by a "sexy" pick. We just want the best football players taken in a smart way by maximizing value. That's all and that's not wrong.

It is very simple: no team in the history of the league has taken a guard this high. There is a reason for that. And your boy isn't close to the level of prospect of the closest pick to #5, Steve Hutchison. who was taken in the middle of round 1. So it's not a matter of considering your idea not exciting enough. We are dismissing it because it's not a smart football move, boring has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[j_y19]

Shark: Can you do me a favor and stop with the "not exciting enough" and "sexy pick" angle? It is simply off base. NOBODY on this board is fine with the current OL. We all want it upgraded. And as I have said before fans passionate enough to post regularly ion a team message board know football and aren't swayed by a "sexy" pick. We just want the best football players taken in a smart way by maximizing value. That's all and that's not wrong.

It is very simple: no team in the history of the league has taken a guard this high. There is a reason for that. And your boy isn't close to the level of prospect of the closest pick to #5, Steve Hutchison. who was taken in the middle of round 1. So it's not a matter of considering your idea not exciting enough. We are dismissing it because it's not a smart football move, boring has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Gotta say I agree with DGF here. It has nothing to do with is the position/player sexy enough. It has to do if we believe he is the best player/position for us to take at that slot. The reason why no G has been taken this high is the same reason why no Kicker has been taken this high. Because history has proven, time and again, that you can pick up comparable talent later in the draft. You may discount that statement, shark, as again avoiding the non sexy pick, but its playing the smart odds. As DGF says, it proven to be the smart football move. History has also proven that it is harder to find elite OLBs, WRs, QBs, CBs, LTs than it is Guards or Centers. So it you have the choice of either an elite WR or an elite G, you take the WR every time because the draft is all about acquiring long term strategic talent. As I've said all along, I'm not sold on any player or position at 5. I just want the best player that can positively impact this team for the next decade. As good as Scherff might end up being as a G, the ability of a G to impact the outcome of a game with singular play is no where close to a skill position player. That's just a proven fact.

Please don't take this opinion and twist it as I don't want the OL upgraded. We need to upgrade 4 of the 5 positions. In fact, what I really hope for is a trade back and we do acquire a T in the mid first round and an extra OL in the 2nd. I just see more value to busby acquiring more picks and filling more holes with good players than filling one OL spot with a potentially very good player.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Gotta say I agree with DGF here.

That must have been a really difficult thing for you to have to admit.

 

[j_y19]

That must have been a really difficult thing for you to have to admit.

Had too many beers last night. I'll come to my senses later today and retract this entire post........

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And I'll say something stupid soon enough and we'll know the Earth has returned to it's axis.

 

[Sharkinva]

Look guys, I tend to call it like I see it. And when i hear primary arguments for us NOT even considering taking one of the better players in the draft for reasons like

1. Well you cant take a Guard in the top five
2. We need to get an Impact player with the 5th pick if we take a player instead of trading the pick
3. He's only a guard, and even if Guard is a Primary need and he might be worthy of the pick... you simply cant make this pick because no one has ever picked a guard that high ( in my life time)

To me these all sound like a whole lot of the pick just wouldnt be the wow factor one would expect from the 5th pick. Sure Im exaggerating when i say its not sexy enough is all you seem to care about. But to a degree thats the way it comes off.

 

[redskinsfan]

Look guys, I tend to call it like I see it. And when i hear primary arguments for us NOT even considering taking one of the better players in the draft for reasons like

1. Well you cant take a Guard in the top five
2. We need to get an Impact player with the 5th pick if we take a player instead of trading the pick
3. He's only a guard, and even if Guard is a Primary need and he might be worthy of the pick... you simply cant make this pick because no one has ever picked a guard that high ( in my life time)

To me these all sound like a whole lot of the pick just wouldnt be the wow factor one would expect from the 5th pick. Sure Im exaggerating when i say its not sexy enough is all you seem to care about. But to a degree thats the way it comes off.

You completely missed some huge points, not the least which is the fact that he's got poor footwork and his whole body of pass pro work is lacking. This type of thing really damages your credibility by showing you can't have a discussion honestly appraising Scherff's strengths and weaknesses. You yourself admitted he needed work on his pass pro game and that factor alone disqualifies him from consideration at #5.

What you also don't realize is that Scherff is the "sexy" pick here. While Fowler and Beasley aren't perfect, they're better prospects at #5 than is Scherff. And too the extent that either of those two are "sexy" picks, they're also the right picks as well.

It's not me, DGF and other posters that are saying this, it's just about everyone else who offers up their views regarding who the BPA is where we pick. You're entitled to your own opinion, but that opinion is clearly flawed. If you really think it's worth taking a someone as an OT that's got huge issues with pass pro at #5, be my guest.

 

[skinsdad62]

It's not like I have it off hand, but that's what you sound like. "Hey, if Scherff busts at OT, we'll just move him to OG. Never mind we used a #5 pick for him and passed on others we could've taken then."

you tell me a guy said something and you cant back it up ? i will give you time , find the quote

Actually i have watched about 3/4 of Iowas games from this past season. And about 90% of the Gators games as I work from home Saturdays and since i have to be tied to the chair, might as well watch football. I will give you the mulligan on Beasley in that Im going totally off of measurables and what I have read. To me he seems a bit one dimensional and is mostly a speed rusher who is a bit narrow of frame. Not sold that he can pick up 15lbs and maintain what makes him good which is his speed on the outside rush.

As for Fowler... like i said, I think he is more project that ready to go starter. Yes Florida moved him all over the place, and if he were going to a team that plans to do the same.. great. But I dont envision us swapping him in at DT to rush the passer. I also question his fundamentals outside of pass rushing because the Gators moved him around so much. While he was good to borderline great as a pass rusher, I dont think he has the fundamentals to also play the run game which I suspect will be required. So unless we are going to basically tell him rush the pass every down and ignore the RB... I just dont see him as more than a situational guy in the NFL. SO yes all things being considered, Im not a huge fan of taking a 2 down player at #5.

i have seen them all play and the concerns are legit. maybe not overcomable but legit

Cmon Shark just admit to us that you are wrong about Scherff. When Flowers or any other OT gets taken over him you owe this board a big apology. lol. I hope he gets out of the top 10 then you really look nuts. He might have a shot with the Giants and Rams that is why I wont take the bet but who knows anything can happen.

With all the negative press that Scherff you still rank him ahead of Fowler and Beasley. That is amazing. By negative press I mean that he cant play OT and has pass pro issues. Bottom line here is that the only way he is a Skin is that if we trade down with the Browns. Even then Flowers\Peat would be a better choice than Scherff.

why would he owe anyone an apology . did you say sorry for your Moses BS last season ?

Funny how you don't mention Scherff and his ability to pass protect. From everything I've heard and seen, he's the next Tyler Polumbus. Great pick to man the right side of the line, right?

And I'll admit I haven't seen Fowler play a down of football. But there are certain people I trust who have seen him a lot, and they all disagree with you.

wait let me get this straight , we have watched scherf and fowler and we have formed an opinion yet you havent watched fowler and we are definitely wrong ? you havent researched it and you are telling us we are wrong . you were telling me a scouting report was wrong and you have never seen HIM ?

But let's put all the BS aside. Let me ask you this: if McCloughan believes Scherff is too much of a reach at #5 and that Fowler or Beasley is the pick there, will you buy into this judgment?

i would trust him on this and if he picks them i will be on the bandwagon becasue i dont want to see our team fail

I was taking Mcshays word there. Even Kiper and other experts had him 2nd round. I think Kojo, Mewort, and Britt were the 2nd round tackles taken before Moses. I still take Moses out of those guys.

here is another example of someone who hasnt seen anyone play , listens to a pundit , who so far was wrong but believe experts are some kind of sooth sayers we must follow blindly or else we are called anti vaxxers mockingly

 

[Sharkinva]

You completely missed some huge points, not the least which is the fact that he's got poor footwork and his whole body of pass pro work is lacking. This type of thing really damages your credibility by showing you can't have a discussion honestly appraising Scherff's strengths and weaknesses. You yourself admitted he needed work on his pass pro game and that factor alone disqualifies him from consideration at #5.

What you also don't realize is that Scherff is the "sexy" pick here. While Fowler and Beasley aren't perfect, they're better prospects at #5 than is Scherff. And too the extent that either of those two are "sexy" picks, they're also the right picks as well.

It's not me, DGF and other posters that are saying this, it's just about everyone else who offers up their views regarding who the BPA is where we pick. You're entitled to your own opinion, but that opinion is clearly flawed. If you really think it's worth taking a someone as an OT that's got huge issues with pass pro at #5, be my guest.

Can I be Honest and say I have totally taken to ignoring your opinion on the player because you have basically admitted you have never seen him play and never taken the time to do more than read what others HAVE said and picked out the negatives because they fit into what you would want the team to do in any case which is trade down or take one of the pass rushers if no trade were possible. I have admitted he likely does need to improve on his footwork and pass protection skills if he were to stay at OT. I have also shown that many O-lineman drafted higher than five came in with similar questions but you totally dismiss this based on what ever criteria you deem best fits your position.

So IM basically done with it either way.

 

[redskinsfan]

Can I be Honest and say I have totally taken to ignoring your opinion on the player because you have basically admitted you have never seen him play and never taken the time to do more than read what others HAVE said and picked out the negatives because they fit into what you would want the team to do in any case which is trade down or take one of the pass rushers if no trade were possible. I have admitted he likely does need to improve on his footwork and pass protection skills if he were to stay at OT. I have also shown that many O-lineman drafted higher than five came in with similar questions but you totally dismiss this based on what ever criteria you deem best fits your position.

So IM basically done with it either way.

What does that matter that I haven't seen him if I rely on reliable sources regarding his play? Lawyers do that all the time by hiring expert witnesses. You can choose to ignore my opinion, which is fine. But you're basically choosing to ignore virtually all the pundits that have offered their view on Scherff. And these aren't just some of the pundits; they are nearly all of them, which include a collection of those who I don't think most of. But I don't need to go that far. I've got your admission that he needs to improve on his footwork and pass protection skills. That's something just about everyone else has said about him, and is a dead-bang reason why he shouldn't be taken at #5.

You gave ONE reference to a pundit saying the same thing about Trent. ONE. And that guy was terribly wrong. I remember others offering a much different opinion on Trent's supposed "weakness." And that's the difference between the ONE pundit you cited and the near unanimous consensus I've cited. And guess who's part of that consensus. YOU.

 

[redskinsfan]

you tell me a guy said something and you cant back it up ? i will give you time , find the quote



i have seen them all play and the concerns are legit. maybe not overcomable but legit



why would he owe anyone an apology . did you say sorry for your Moses BS last season ?



i would trust him on this and if he picks them i will be on the bandwagon becasue i dont want to see our team fail



here is another example of someone who hasnt seen anyone play , listens to a pundit , who so far was wrong but believe experts are some kind of sooth sayers we must follow blindly or else we are called anti vaxxers mockingly

I tried briefly looking for the quote, but didn't care to find it. If you don't believe it, that's fine. Your view that on Scherff and his role as an OG still stands as a Raider-like view. And no, pundits aren't soothsayers. But when nearly all those pundits agree with me and disagree with you, that ought to tell you something. Some of these are well-established and respected commentators like John Keim. Even shark stated that Scherff needs to improve his footwork and pass pro. If that's not a reason that disqualifies him from being taken at #5, I'm not sure what it is. But you and shark would be willing to take an o-lineman with that glaring of a defect in his game with a top five pick. If that doesn't sound dumb to you, I'm not sure what would. If you take Scherff at #5, you expect him to go out and start on Day One. He can't be learning on the job on how to hone his pass pro skills. We already got enough flawed lineman that fit that description.