Skip to content

How others graded the Redskins’ draft

May 4, 2015, 9:12 AM EDT

Brandon-Scherff-Iowa

Yesterday I graded the Redskins’ 2015 draft. Now let’s take a look around and see how others viewed what Scot McCloughan and company did last week.

Before we dive in to the analysts’ specific comments, here are a few of the general themes from their evaluations:

—The main concern was that taking Brandon Scherff in the first round may have been a reach, especially with defensive lineman Leonard Williams on the board. That’s understandable and it’s now up to Scherff, Jay Gruden, and Bill Callahan to prove them wrong.

—Preston Smith was a widely praised pick, showing that some analysts can look beyond the players who receive the hype and look at the players who are good fits for the team that drafted them. Smith fits the big, tough guy mold that McCloughan has established.

—The most astute observation came from Evan Silva of Rotoworld. He noted that McCloughan didn’t try to hit home runs in the later rounds of the draft, he focused on building up the back end of the roster. Even if players like Martrell Spaight, Kyshoen Jarrett, and Evan Spencer may never end up contributing much from scrimmage they have a chance to be valuable as reserves and as solid special teams contributors.

—You don’t have to be a math major to figure out that the average grade given from this group was B-. That’s a little lower than I had. I was more impressed by McCloughan having a philosophy of big men win (and if you’re not big, you need to play big) than others were, perhaps due to the helter-skelter shifts in the type of players the Redskins have coveted over the last 15 years.

Note: Only partial comments are quoted here, click on the links for the writer’s full analysis.

Bryan Fischer, NFL.com: B-

The skinny: GM Scot McCloughan is one of the best evaluators in the league, but Brandon Scherff was a big reach, even if he lives up to his potential. Failing to trade down and passing on the best player in the draft (Leonard Williams) is going to be something the team might regret, even if Scherff becomes a top-flight tackle or guard.

Doug Farrar, SI.com: B

New general manager Scot McCloughan made it clear in his first Washington draft that he’s going to do with the Redskins what he did in his stints with the 49ers and Seahawks: fill the roster with height/weight/speed monsters who can play the game. Some may question taking Iowa tackle Brandon Scherff with the fifth pick, but he’s a perfect right tackle or guard who could fill in should left tackle Trent Williams get hurt. Second-round end Preston Smith from Mississippi State can play all over the formation. He’s not a speed-rusher, but he can do just about everything else.

Evan Silva, Rotoworld: B-

. . . He attacked special teams and was willing to use picks on role players. I absolutely loved his first- and second-round haul; both Scherff and Smith project as high-level NFL starters. Beyond rounds one and two, however, I don’t think McCloughan was trying to hit home runs. He’s got a 53-man roster to build and he wanted to stockpile useful football players, even if they’re unlikely to become NFL stars.

Dan Kadar, SB Nation: B-

Best pick: Preston Smith – For Washington Smith will be able to come in and do a variety of things. He can play down in four-man fronts and is athletic enough to be a linebacker.

Questionable pick: Matt Jones – Washington had a need at running back, but I had a low grade on Jones.

With players like Scherff, Kouandjio and Smith, Washington did a really nice job of starting a culture to one that is more gritty and tough.

Mark Maske, Washington Post: B-

Brandon Scherff is a good player and if he becomes a reliable starter at right tackle, all is well. But if he ends up playing guard, he might not have been worth the No. 5 overall pick. Will the Redskins regret passing up DE Leonard Williams, perhaps the draft’s top defensive player?

Pete Prisco, CBS: B-

Best Pick: Second-round pick Preston Smith played defensive end in college, but will move to linebacker for the Redskins. It will be a transition, but he has the tools to make it work . . .

Analysis: They added some solid pieces, and ended up with a solid haul. Scot McCloughan does a nice job with the draft. Scherff is a good player, but that seems high to me. Even so, it was a nice draft.

  1. bowlregard - May 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM

    Here’s hoping Matt Jones proves McC a genius.

    • ceetown22 - May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM

      I’ll second that. I feel like we needed a big bruiser type to spell Alf, rather than a 5’8″ scat back that can catch

  2. greed - May 4, 2015 at 9:42 AM

    keep hearing sherff was high pick at 5 but theese same evaluators say he was top 10 pick -what da hell is the difference between 4 spots there no guarattntee williams will pan out either he was best defense player then why did jax take fowler and oak take an wr cooper ? I hear no critisim there -plus it takes 2 too trade if no team in the top ten was willing and u know sherff was best ol in draft and other teams were targetting him why trade to far back and loose the player u want when he right in your hands for and unknown extra player why settle for 2 when u have 1 you want! Great job Scott ! HTTR

    • berniebernard666 - May 4, 2015 at 10:36 AM

      You are right. It is stupid to say that one guy was drafted too high etc. Some of these top 50 picks will prove they shouldn’t have been drafted at all. And some of these top 10 picks will also fail whats the difference if you draft a guard at 5 or a tackle at 5 or a center at 5. The quarterback can be sacked by a breakdown in any one of the offensive line positions.

    • ceetown22 - May 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM

      The Giants wanted him at 9 so our options were limited to the 6, 7 & 8 pick. if we couldn’t get a deal done with either than we had to make the pick. it make sense… if they really wanted Schreff over all the other T/G prospects at the top of the draft. Frankly, I’m glad we grabbed him instead of an edge rusher or Dlineman.

      • bowlregard - May 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM

        Apparently the Skins had Scherff rated higher than Williams. They had Scherff the third highest player on their board. So I wonder what would have happened if Fowler or Cooper were still there.

        • ceetown22 - May 9, 2015 at 11:29 PM

          or Mariota

        • nomaan78 - May 14, 2015 at 9:10 PM

          Im glad Fowler didn’t fall to us. Bad luck foe Fowler. After RG3’s injuries it would have been devastating for us to lose Fowler. Feel bad for Fowler and the Jags

      • bowlregard - May 4, 2015 at 1:22 PM

        I am soooo glad the Giants didn’t get Scherff.

  3. mr.moneylover - May 4, 2015 at 10:03 AM

    They got enough info on matt jones to draft him in the third round…look at the rams they got picked up todd gurly with they first pick and hes coming off a ACL injury and he might not be ready for the season but if you really do your research on players you wouldnt mind taking a running back in the early round…redskins need to really give they rookies a chance to start because in years pass they keep they talent players on the bench and give the washed up vets the starting job…its up to the coaches to coach these players up and get them ready for the season

    • Stephfan - May 4, 2015 at 10:33 AM

      But they had Todd rated in the first round where as Matt was rated in the 4-5 rounds so if you see where people had the both of them rated it was a bit of a reach for us. I wish we could’ve got a safty inside but agter seeing the highlights of Matt I think he will justify the pick. Skins did a great job in my opinion and I love the Preston pick

      • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM

        Everyone looks good in highlights. Thats why they are Highlights.

        • Stephfan - May 4, 2015 at 11:34 AM

          Your point tim? Highlights or film that guy looked good. The only reason he was knocked to later rounds was because if his knee injury… Regardless if he looked good on highlights I was stating that he should be a good pick

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 2:28 PM

          Highlights dont show his bad feel for the crease which is a knock on him. Highlights just show a players best plays not a good way to evaluate a player. They all would be awesome if you went off the Highlights

  4. mr0748 - May 4, 2015 at 10:12 AM

    Pass the best player available for Sherff? HUH!? According to McCloughan decision to pick him, Sherff was the best player available. I love these analysts who think they know what is best and it blows my mind that the NFL teams are not fighting each other for their services. My neighbor thinks his Lexus car is the best, however, my old beat-up truck is a heck more serviceable and less expensive.

  5. kenlinkins - May 4, 2015 at 10:20 AM

    In 2014 the Redskins could not Tackle, Block, rush the passer or cover anyone. The FA signings helped to fill some holes and the draft gave the coach’s some raw talent to work with. Let’s see where this new style of building a team takes the Redskins. I wonder how the “core of players who just do not it” react to the new “work bees” who will be gunning for their jobs!

  6. renhoekk2 - May 4, 2015 at 10:20 AM

    If the Skins traded down or grabbed Beasley instead and the Giants picked Scherff at 9 it would be lauded as a great pick, no reach involved. Most of these “experts” had him going there in their mocks. How ridiculous is that? A difference of 4 spots is considered reaching. The guy won every collegiate award possible for OL and was the consensus number one OL in the draft. Can play every position except center.

    • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 10:47 AM

      This isn’t about four spots; it’s about history. The so called experts had Scherff going at nine because of NEED/history; not because they thought he was the ninth best player. He met a need for the Giants and historically (this current era of football) all o-linemen other than left tackles get drafted outside the top ten. Getting picked at nine was a slight reach for them. Getting picked at five and projected to play right tackle – or even guard – is historic and it’s more the equivalent to taking a fourth rounder in the top of the second. These experts are also at best 35% at predicting the 1st round with their mocks.

      • ET - May 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM

        Not true. Here are a few final big board rankings:

        Rob Rang: Sherff, #6 prospect
        Newsday: #6 prospect
        Matt Miller: #7 prospect
        DraftTek: #8 prospect
        Walter Football: #8 prospect
        Sports Illustrated (not attributed to a single writer): #8 prospect

        And so on. Whether the “experts” actually know anything is an open question, but many clearly assigned a high value to Scherff independent of the endless mock drafts.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 11:35 AM

          You clearly misunderstood my post because there isn’t one shred of it not true. By your evidence this isn’t about Schreff’s ranking. IHe’s considered a reach because of the position he’s projected to play in the NFL. I’m not arguing anyone’s big board. Show me any linemen other than a left tackle selected in the top ten this century.

        • ET - May 4, 2015 at 12:30 PM

          You said:

          “The so called experts had Scherff going at nine because of NEED/history; not because they thought he was the ninth best player. ”

          I gave you multiple examples of “experts” who had Scherff ranked as one of their top eight prospects, not their mock predictions. Whether or not one places any stock in the opinions of “draft experts,” a quick Google search proves your assertion wrong.

        • bowlregard - May 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM

          Rankings vs Mock predictions.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 1:39 PM

          ET, You quoted me correctly. The experts that put out the rankings are also the ones claiming it was a reach. Why? Despite where he was ranked on their boards, his position has historically been deemed not worthy of a top ten pick. My posts tried to explain the rationale. Look up every mock draft and you’ll see that they are different from their corresponding big boards.. Mariota, for example might be someone’s tenth best player but they still correctly projected him at two. Each ‘expert’ has a board where they rank the players and a mock in where they project the player to go based on what they perceive to be the team needs or what their sources are indicating where the team may go. This year with no trades until the 14th pick you’d think that these ‘experts’ would at least get 50% correct. They didn’t – as always. I didn’t mean to imply that Scherff wasn’t a top ten prospect just that his projected ranking ISN’T why he’s considered a reach. If Scherff was considered the best LEFT TACKLE to come out of the draft. The experts’ consensus would have been: Great pick. They can plug in Scherff at right and move him over to left if they lose Trent Williams to free agency or have the best set of bookends in the league.

        • ET - May 4, 2015 at 2:25 PM

          “I didn’t mean to imply that Scherff wasn’t a top ten prospect just that his projected ranking ISN’T why he’s considered a reach.”

          That’s the part I wasn’t getting. On that point, I agree with you.

          I do like the Scherff pick, but also understand why he may be labelled a reach. Scot & Co. showed in the 1st and 3rd that they aren’t interested in outside valuations. Time will tell if they wagered correctly.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 3:16 PM

          Yeah. I got that ability to make my point without communicating it.

          As for Scot M, Bill Polian was spot on when he said days ago that McC was a meat and potatoes guy. A solid build-through-the-draft kind of draft. I would guess that we might get one or less total pro bowl appearances from this group. But that doesn’t mean that these guys won’t contribute or become significant Redskins. McC has a clear vision of making this team a bunch of badasses and he’ll need the time to do it. I also expect that there will be one or two bonafide stars selected in picks 6-10. Doesn’t matter. It’s not like there is only one way to build a team.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM

          The guys that run DraftTek and Walter Football might as well be insurance salesmen. I don’t think either site are referencing proven NFL scouts.

      • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM

        I’ve bin saying it ” The Rookie Pay Scale Changes How Teams Draft” this pick shows it you get a Starting G/RT for less than whatyou would pay at that spot in the past and for less than whatyou would pay for one in Free Agency.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM

          Yes, you’ve been saying that. That doesn’t make it true. One right tackle/guard hardly shows a trend. It shows an anomaly. There is simply not enough evidence to support your hypothesis.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 11:55 AM

          You don’t seem to understand that the major reason that it was usually pass rusher, QB, or LT only that High was because of the money that was involed. Teams didnt want to invest that high amount of money on other positions that weren’t as critical. The money is no longer a factor. That changes everything. Now teams can take that top Olinemen that happens to be a Guard or Right Tackle and not be over paying.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM

          BTW it only takes one team to do it to start a trend…. As of now since the Rookie Pay Scale has bin implemented there is 1 out of 4 Drafts an Olinemen other than LT was taken in the top 5…… You cant count years before because the Pay was Different.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 12:13 PM

          Tim you are absolutely 100% misled on this. it was never an economic decision as to why the other linemen were not drafted as high. Just look at the salaries. Two of the top five paid right tackles were undrafted. It’s because the premium for pass protection isn’t as great. Most QBs are right-handed as well as most offenses. Lining up the tight-end on the right allowing for double teaming. But once again, you’re going to believe what you want.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM

          Your clueless those are proven Free Agents we are talking about unproven Draft picks. Before The Rookie Pay Scale the top 5 players were getting paid more then proven veterans. Thats why you didn’t cripple your team by picking someone other than a premium position. There are plenty of top guys who were later picks making money off their second deal what does that have to do with the Draft? Nothing…. Tom Brady went in the 6th Round does that mean dont pick a QB in the top 5.

          You comparing Proven Free Agents on their second contract to un proven players in the Draft is apple to oranges

        • Stephfan - May 4, 2015 at 2:17 PM

          Tim are you not getting what Ben is saying or are just clueless? Regardless of rookie pay scale even experts say it was a reach to pick Brandon at 5 why because he projected as a guard because that’s where most EXPERTS plugged him at. Now if he was a natural left or right tackle comming out then he would have been a great pick at 5. Since I’ve wacthed drafts I have never seen a guard go 5 or higher… Why because you could possibly find one in the later rounds to fill that spot. The reason why qb, running back, wideouts, left tackles, defensive linemen or linebackers go in the top five is because those postions are usually a better value than a guard would be. Now Brandon was worth a top ten pick if plays guard for us but if he plays tackle than he is worth that top 5 because like I said those other positions can turn your team around quicker than a guard can. Rookie pay scale has nothing to do with it at all. It’s about postion somthing you can’t understand.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM

          Tim,

          There is absolutely no shred of evidence to support your theory. Take any and every position and make a comparative analysis of where they were drafted before and after the CBA. You only need to look at this century or even since there have been 32 teams. You’ll find no overwhelming evidence to support your theory. If you can then post it.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - May 4, 2015 at 2:55 PM

          ILl get back to you in 5 years when you see that there will be other Gaurds and Centers taken high. Ther is only 4 years of players getting paid less than veterans. The norm will change. Just because of the money and the Value of a good Oline. Stopping the pass rush up the middle is just as important

        • captblood3000 - May 4, 2015 at 4:55 PM

          LOL!

  7. pdxskin - May 4, 2015 at 10:48 AM

    Two quick points to make…

    First, all draft selections are a crap shoot, whether you are a GM employed by an NFL franchise, or an armchair GM / football fan. So I take exception with those who say we can’t criticize or question Scot’s selections because “he’s a real GM”. Last time I checked, professional GMs run all 32 teams (giving benefit of doubt to Dallas) and every year they miss on more draft choices than they hit on, on the average. So they are not infallible or all-knowing, and are pretty much rolling the dice on their selections based on the limited knowledge they have on these players, just like anyone else would be.

    And second, this draft showed me that Scot has a philosophy that he’s going with, and while I agree with some parts of it (i.e. building the trenches), I strongly disagree with and am disappointed by other parts of it (i.e. not trying to hit any home runs, as was perfectly articulated by Evan Silva in this article). This is a team that desperately needs some home runs in the personnel dept, and I think that is what at least some of your picks in each draft (and especially the extra ones gathered through trading back) should be used for… for that reason, I gave this draft a straight “C” grade.

    As a Redskins fan, I certainly hope that the results will prove me wrong and this draft will produce some strong contributors from top to bottom, but only time will tell…

    • captblood3000 - May 4, 2015 at 5:10 PM

      I would also give this draft a C. I would selected Williams over Scherff. Jones was a reach. The selections on day 3, excepting Kouandjio,could have been made by the old regime. Why trade for additional picks if you don’t make good use of them?

      How happy do you think McCloughan is with his incumbent scouts?

      • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM

        Happy enough to let one of the area scouts call his brother and let him know he’s been drafted by the Redskins. Or is that his way of saying this is your last day on the job, share it with the family? Idk. I do agree with pretty much everything else you said but I don’t see his scouts as to the reasons he picked these guys but more so his own philosophy. They may become the scapegoats though.

        • Stephfan - May 4, 2015 at 6:19 PM

          This draft is a solid b+, reason why is because he filled some needs with this team. Yes we all or some may think he reached with the fifth pick but maybe he seen somthing he (the gm) liked. But other than the first pick they got Preston who I think if coached right he will be a stud on the left side sometime this year(starting) also they got a running back, (which I also think he reached but still good pick) a wideout who could plays speacial teams somthing we have been lacking. Then a guard who if coached right and stats heathy can start after this season. Then you have the inside linebacker who can play speacial teams, add depth and he could start after Riley leaves when his contract is up. He also provides Riley with completion I think. Then you have a corner and saftey, both can play speacial teams and adds depth which we need. Also might I add that the saftey is a hitter and has good ball skills from the tape I wacthed. He might be a steal and if trained right could be goldstons succsesser. But for now adds depth. And finally a center, adds depth, he could start in a couple of years. But in this entire draft the gm has gotten players who if coached correctly could be starters, at least 4 of them maybe 5. But the point of this draft is say it with me! Depth, to compete, and potential starters. That’s what some of you aren’t looking

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 6:38 PM

          I agree he got depth. I also hope you’re right about the picks becoming starters down the road. As for Preston, to me he’s Jarvis Jenkins 2.0. If this defense doesn’t work out, is it on the coaches or the GM? It’s going to be on the coaches but it’s not like the GM has drafted plug-and-play defenders – he drafted special teamers. (i.e. projects.)

        • ET - May 4, 2015 at 8:15 PM

          Jarvis Jenkins 2.0?

          That’s a little harsh. And hopefully not true.

          I think Preston is potentially a great player, but he has to be used correctly. And, if the metric is only sacks, then he might be regarded as a fail. But that’s the wrong metric. Preston has the potential to move all over and be disruptive if they’re willing to be scheme-flexible (and we know they are). The current front seven should outstanding against the run. Pass penetration TBD.

        • bangkokben - May 5, 2015 at 9:13 AM

          Hey, I hope I’m wrong too. But here is the comparison. We could’ve had Watt but selected Jarvis Jenkins in the 2nd. Jenkins was on none of our (the fans) radar at the time. By and large that is the same with Preston other than Watt didn’t have the same hype as L. Williams. We all thought the 2011 selection was a great move until Jenkins never regained his rookie training camp form. It’s certainly feels like 2011 again. Hopefully, it ends way differently this go around.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 9:52 PM

          Great comment ET!

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 5, 2015 at 9:29 AM

          Bang, you are comparing events and not the player. Jenkins and Preston are very different players. Preston has already displayed great technical and is MUCH more athletic. Jenkins was a power tackle who was much more raw coming in the NFL.

          Watt was certainly a huge miss but many other teams can say the same. Many players hyped like Leornard Williams were also selected ahead of Watt .

        • bangkokben - May 5, 2015 at 10:06 AM

          You’re right I am comparing events. Preston and Jenkins are different and there is no reason to believe that Preston’s career will take the same arc. I’m just noting the similarities in how we the fans felt in 2011. We felt we finally had a football man (Shanahan – may you never get another chance) making the decisions. We felt that we filled two needs instead of one and we were excited about the potential.
          However, I think you’re being a bit revisionist. Jenkins is athletic. The knock on him now is that he doesn’t play to his athleticism. As for the the guys picked ahead of Watt, studs too except for the quarterbacks.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 7:30 PM

        All I can say is that I trust McCloughan’s vision of who is the better players to select than you who would choose Leonard Williams, why? Because some media pundits say he is the best player in the draft. As our new GM stated, Fowler is who the real experts wanted to trade up for and NOT Leonard Williams.

      • captblood3000 - May 4, 2015 at 7:48 PM

        Sorry about Jarrett. You understand that Virginia Tech plays Virginia every year? It’s been a rivalry game for at least 40 years. I watch this game every year. There were just two really good safeties in that game: Blanding and Harris, both played for Virginia. Both Harris and Jarrett were available in the 6th round. The Redskins took Jarrett. That’s not BPA. And I’ve named 4 other safeties who were at least as good as Harris.

        Don’t believe me? That game will be on YouTube. Watch it. Or find Rich’s draft profile on Harris. Even the best GMs lay eggs. And safeties without ball skills have to find a different line of work.

        • ET - May 4, 2015 at 8:18 PM

          I like Jarrett, but I wanted us to get Harris. We’ll see. Either way, safety was backburnered … again.

  8. mauriceatwood - May 4, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    It is funny to read all the criticism leveled based on four to six spots in the draft. Bottom line is the Redskins have a HUGE need at right tackle and they drafted the best player on the board for that position who is comparable overall to the other top players. I liked the trade that brought three extra draft picks. That is some seriously shrewd business making decisions and I hope this is something that will continue in the future.

    • bowlregard - May 4, 2015 at 1:29 PM

      The Skins claim he was the highest rated player on their board when they picked. So in theory, they did not pick for need, but for BPA.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 4, 2015 at 2:50 PM

      I liked the trade that brought three extra draft picks.

      Bill Belicheck, on the other hand, used his 5th round pick on a long snapper who has a five year commitment to the Navy. So Bill was saying, “Yeah, I’m basically done with the talent left in this draft, Patriots-wise.”
      ~

  9. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - May 4, 2015 at 2:48 PM

    It’s not just Williams, it’s also Kevin White and Vic Beasley. I liked all three as prospects (although Williams more as a potential trade back than our actual pick at 5).

    Since I am a Redskins fan, I hope that Scherff has a better NFL career than all three. Lettuce see!
    ~

  10. redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 3:44 PM

    Rich, below is a quote on why Schreff was taken without the option to trade back:
    “The thing about Leonard (Williams) — very good football player,” he said. “I was hoping to be able to move back there and it didn’t happen. Everyone was talking about trading up, trading up to our spot but it was all for (Dante) Fowler. Once Fowler went (to the Jaguars), then all the talk went off the board. Leonard is a good football player. If for some reason Brandon (Scherff) would have been gone, he probably would have been your one seed. … Going into this thing I knew we needed some help up front on the offensive side and it was too good of a bang for the buck to not get Brandon there.”

    You made a great point on another post about how the Redskins left ~3 minutes on the clock for the 5th pick. However, McCloughan may have provided an answer to that point wen commenting about trade talks being taken off the board after Fowler was taken.

    Also, despite the media hype on Leonard, I’m not sure many NFL teams had the same sentiments, I read how some teams may have viewed him as not having the explosion needed off the line to be an ideal sack master. Many feel he is a better run stopper which I think we got in the 2nd with Preston Smith. Anyway, I like how our GM communicated with honest clarity and now feel he did a great job with the 1st pick. He didn’t overreach on Schreff like many have indicated. Would you agree with my assessment?

  11. troylok - May 4, 2015 at 3:57 PM

    You have to wonder if these draft analysts aren’t just a little bit bitter that Mcgloughan didn’t follow their mock draft. When Scherff is blowing guys away on the line, opening holes for Sir Alfred, what will they say then?

    • captblood3000 - May 4, 2015 at 5:20 PM

      Scherff is hardly a sure thing at right tackle. Did you watch the 2014 Iowa-Maryland game? It’s available on YouTube.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 7:24 PM

        I saw what UMD did against Scherff but I know that one game doesn’t define a player. Do you think Trent Williams did have sub-par games in college?

        Baring severe injury, Scherff is a sure thing in becoming a valued linemen: The only question is where along the line. He is a great character player that will grind and pounce defenders in the run game. He is also a discipline leader who will only get better in the NFL. He has a great chance of becoming one of the better guards in the league and possibly a quality tackle. A player with the potential to be very good in both positions is hard to find. The possibility of Trent Williams and Brandon Scherff playing the left side has me thrilled. The power of those two together would bully most defenses. And that is the worst case scenario. The best case scenario is that the teams has finally found their bookends on the offense line. Something this team has been desperately seeking for close to a decade.

        • bangkokben - May 4, 2015 at 7:43 PM

          Say we did find our bookends on the line. How did that work out for us the last time we had that? We had both Samuels and Jansen together from 2000-2008. We made the playoffs twice during that span. Of course we wasted some of their years with Steve Spurrier’s offense.

        • captblood3000 - May 4, 2015 at 7:57 PM

          “Subpar”? Scherff was failure at pass protection. against Maryland. He may be a sure thing, but at guard, not tackle.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 9:42 PM

          Bang, you partially answered your own question. Poor coaching decisions was part of it. Certainly valued bookends won’t assure a team of success. Teams have to play both sides of the ball well to be successful. The biggest reason for the lack of success during the Samuels/Jansen era was missing out on a franchise QB.

          We have boasted our offense line significantly from this draft while we already made commitments to the D-line in FA. Overall, the team is better with Schreff than if we selected Williams. Hell, we are even better on the D-line after the draft with Preston Smith who could be just as good as Leonard Williams overall in the NFL. Preston showed great technique and power in overwhelming offense lineman. He’ll could really boast our inside pressure.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - May 4, 2015 at 9:49 PM

          Again Capt you are trying to define a players career over a single game. That is not the way to look at talent.

        • captblood3000 - May 5, 2015 at 7:38 AM

          I counted 1 1/2 sacks, an intentional grounding call, three quarterback hits, three other pressures that resulted in incompletions. That’s Scherff’s stat line in the Maryland game. He got pancaked twice by bull rushes. If you’re an NFL defensive coordinator looking to take advantage of Scherff, you start with that tape.

        • ravenssuggskoch - May 5, 2015 at 8:09 AM

          If you’re a coach, you also start teaching with that tape. He’ll fix the problems from one game. Big, strong, and smart will be able to overcome one game of blunders. You need to throw out the outlier when looking at a player.

  12. colmac69 - May 4, 2015 at 5:20 PM

    Whats done is done……..only time will tell if the correct decisions were taken

    I will say that the new gm has come in and done exactly what he said he would do…….how refreshing is that when you look back over last 20 yrs regarding washington

  13. ravenssuggskoch - May 5, 2015 at 8:04 AM

    Mel Kiper, ESPN, A-
    Tied with 4 others for the highest grade he gave anyone.

    • bangkokben - May 5, 2015 at 9:21 AM

      That’s the equivalent of Vladimir Putin giving you a civil rights award.

    • captblood3000 - May 5, 2015 at 11:29 AM

      Koch, what did you say about throwing out the outlier?

      • ravenssuggskoch - May 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM

        Touché.

        McShay loved our draft too though.

RealRedskins.com Archives

Follow Us On Twitter