PDA

View Full Version : What If Suh Falls to #4?


thule
04-06-2010, 03:35 AM
What if Detroit goes Okung at #2. And Tampa goes McCoy at #3.

Does Washington look to move haynesworth like the rumors say. Do they just draft Suh and let him play the 5-tech. I think they have to be looking trade down if draft falls that way. But who would bite?

Kansas City (4-12) - can't see it
Seattle (5-11) - swapping would make sense if they wanted him bad...but I haven't read much on the connection.
Cleveland (5-11) - can't buy this either
Oakland (5-11) - Just can't believe they'd pay to land him
Buffalo (6-10) - maybe...but they have a few needs to be doing this
Jacksonville (7-9) - don't really have the ammo to pull it off
Denver - from Chicago (7-9) - maybe with a player thrown in but once again can't see it
Miami (7-9) - no big need for a 5-tech
San Francisco (8-8) - maybe but seems like a reach
Seattle - from Denver (8-8) - paying 2 top 5 picks seems unlikely
New York Giants (8-8) - I can't see this either

Someone feel free to make a point on one of these teams moving up with some facts.

Then another food for thought is what if Washington passes on Suh and goes OT if they can't find a partner. Who becomes their guy with Okung off the board. I have a feeling Trent Williams is a better fit than Bulaga because of his ability to block in space and he's the better physical speciman anyways. Be interested to get a Washington fans take on this. I actually think Anthony Davis would be the best fit even over Okung but the character concerns will likely keep him out of the top 5...although I'd argue he is the best OT in this class when judged by on the field performance.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 03:40 AM
Oakland (5-11) - Just can't believe they'd pay to land him

Really? The Raiders haven't exactly been shy when it came to moving around the draft in the past.

At any rate, I don't think he will fall. It's tough to draw a bead on what the Lions are doing, since they've added both OL and DT this offseason and even if they add Hargrove before the draft, he's not the sort of player who would take snaps away from Suh (who could easily play the nose in Schwartz's scheme). I think Okung is a top 5 player in this draft, so it wouldn't be ridiculous to go with him, but somehow I don't see the Lions going for that.

Even if he does fall, it's a total coin flip in my mind as to whether McCoy or Suh tops Tampa's board. I can make equally strong arguments for either for that team.

umphrey
04-06-2010, 03:49 AM
IMO Suh will be off the board before McCoy and there isn't any chance that changes

AntoinCD
04-06-2010, 04:00 AM
If the rumours are true that the Browns love Jared Odrick you gotta think they would really really love Suh. If there is a chance to move up a few spots, without paying a king's ransom, then they could be a possible trade partner. They do have 5 picks in the top 100.

RealityCheck
04-06-2010, 06:47 AM
The Patriots have 3 2nd rounders. I'd say give all three and take Suh.

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 07:39 AM
For how badly we need a LT you still cant pass up an Al-Suh DL

nepg
04-06-2010, 08:02 AM
KC would take a DL if one falls to 5. No question in my mind.

yourfavestoner
04-06-2010, 10:39 AM
KC would take a DL if one falls to 5. No question in my mind.

I agree, I think the value would simply be too good for Pioli to pass up. Who knows, though, since we don't have any draft history of Pioli with the Chiefs to draw on.

I'm down for him to fall all the way to Jax at 10 though. For once, let a great defensive prospect fall to a 4-3 team instead of the other way around.

DiG
04-06-2010, 10:42 AM
First option is going to be trade down like you said and I think that Cleveland, Oakland, and Buffalo would all be interested in moving up for Suh, especially since it probably wouldnt cost a fortune.

Second option is my favorite; Take Suh at 4, Trade a future 1st to move into the late first range and take Charles Brown or Rodger Saffold who are both great fits in shannys zbs. Every year a team or two trades a future 1st in a similar scenario and given the obvious intent of Shanahan to try and win now, this makes sense.

Third option is to pass on Suh and draft Bulaga. For whatever reason, my gut tells me this would be the last option.

from skins forum area

wonderbredd24
04-06-2010, 10:43 AM
KC would take a DL if one falls to 5. No question in my mind.

They'd have Glenn Dorsey's contract, Tyson Jackson's contract, and the new DLineman's contract

That is a ton of money

Addict
04-06-2010, 10:44 AM
I don't like these scenarios Detroit always passes on a DT in them.

Scott Wright
04-06-2010, 12:10 PM
If Suh falls to #4 that's the only way Washington wouldn't take an OT.

Caddy
04-06-2010, 12:45 PM
From what I've read from Buccaneers insiders it appears unlikely that they'd take McCoy over Suh.

K Train
04-06-2010, 12:55 PM
They'd have Glenn Dorsey's contract, Tyson Jackson's contract, and the new DLineman's contract

That is a ton of money

and hali...thats a first round defensive front lol

K Train
04-06-2010, 12:56 PM
i coulndt even imagine haynesworth, suh and orakpo. that would be a washington group that might live up to the hype

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 01:00 PM
i coulndt even imagine haynesworth, suh and orakpo. that would be a washington group that might live up to the hype

If Washington did take Suh, you have to imagine that would expedite Haynesworth's exit.

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:02 PM
If Washington did take Suh, you have to imagine that would expedite Haynesworth's exit.

even if it was just for a year, they could scrap the 34 idea and just have a monster defensive front

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 01:04 PM
even if it was just for a year, they could scrap the 34 idea and just have a monster defensive front

Honestly, a front 3 of Haynesworth/Kemoeatu/Suh would be amazing. Haynesworth could definitely play the 5-tech, assuming he were willing to do so without throwing a hissy fit.

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:07 PM
hes their only chance at a 34 right now, without him they will get gashed in the run game and orakpo will be gobbled up by double teams....their other LBs will get eaten alive without haynesworth, hes definitely athletic enough to do it. but yeah even that 3 man front with orakpo playin OLB would be amazing

Addict
04-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Honestly, a front 3 of Haynesworth/Kemoeatu/Suh would be amazing. Haynesworth could definitely play the 5-tech, assuming he were willing to do so without throwing a hissy fit.

I suppose it's not a problem since what Big Al was objecting to was the notion that he's a 3-4 nose tackle.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 01:18 PM
I suppose it's not a problem since what Big Al was objecting to was the notion that he's a 3-4 nose tackle.

It's not like your average 5-tech is really given free reign to get after the quarterback either though. Now, if you bring in a guy who plays read-and-react as well as Suh does, maybe that lets you free up your other DE to actually attack the edge, but if Haynesworth was complaining even before the announced defensive switch about being asked to play gap control in the 4-3 defense last year, I doubt he'd take kindly to your average 5-tech's responsibility.

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:23 PM
Honestly, a front 3 of Haynesworth/Kemoeatu/Suh would be amazing. Haynesworth could definitely play the 5-tech, assuming he were willing to do so without throwing a hissy fit.

even if it was just for a year, they could scrap the 34 idea and just have a monster defensive front

If Washington did take Suh, you have to imagine that would expedite Haynesworth's exit.

Everyone says its he is a problem but no one understands this is media driven. Sure Al said he would prefer to switch to a 3-4. Thats all you hear about in the media. Then its spun as "OMGZZZ HAYNESWORTH HATES THE NEW REGIME!!!!!!" What do you dont hear about is how he followed that sentence with "But I will do whatever coach Shanahan and coach Haslett want me to do." The problem only exists to the media. People are so used to bashing Washington for everything that now they have a competent HC and GM and aren't making knee jerk moves and the media has nothing to talk about. Something has to be reported about so lets twist words and make a story. Its gotten completely out of hand. Haynesworth has been quoted saying he wants to be back to his pro-bowl playing shape and talked with Shanahan about it and Shanahan agreed to let him do it. But what do you hear about? How Haynesworth doesn't want to be with his teammates and he is a cancer. Its so freaking blown out of proportion its crazy. Now back on topic...

If Suh were there are #4 its a must you take him. You never have enough DTs or DEs especially when one like Suh who is a once in a decade (or longer) prospect. If that happens I see next years first being packaged to move back into the later part of round 1 for an OT or 2nd round next year plus to move into the top of round 2 for an OT. Haynesworth is going to play DE regardless and Kemoeatu will be the NT backed up by Montgomery. You can't pass this up:

Suh - Kemoeatu - Haynesworth (3-4 base)
Orakpo - Fletcher - McIntosh - Carter/Wilson/FA/Rookie

Carter - Suh - Haynesworth - Orakpo (4-3 base)
McIntosh - Fletcher - Wilson/Blades/FA/Rookie

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:29 PM
but if hes being dangled as trade bait that must say something about how they feel about him or his contract.

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:29 PM
from skins forum area

I dont think Buffalo can afford to pass up a QB or LT again. There offense is whats killing them. Cleveland maybe but they need offense as well more then DL. They need weapons for Delhomme or a QB in general. I like Oakland because if they want Suh they will probably pull a Ditka with Al Davis running that team into the ground. But can even he justify giving up a 2011 1st rounder for Seymour and going DL again with 2010 1st round? Im surprised we haven't brought Suh and McCoy in for a visit yet for due diligence.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 01:30 PM
Todd, I appreciate that there is no solid evidence that the Redskins are actively trying to trade Haynesworth, but there's a whole ****-ton of smoke indicating as such. Add in the fact that Haynesworth has communicated way too much of his problems through the media (something Shanahan has been sensitive to in the past) and seemed to annoy the new regime by leaving workouts, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Shanahan would just rather not have to deal with the guy.

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:32 PM
but if hes being dangled as trade bait that must say something about how they feel about him or his contract.

Once again no he isn't. There has been no proof other then a "source" that Haynesworth was offered to Philly. Even IF he was, there is no indication he is on the block anyway. Im sure there are a bunch of thing thrown around in talk with Philly. Just because it was mentioned does NOT mean they are looking to move him or anyone else mentioned.

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:33 PM
im just saying that on paper suh and haynesworth would be one of the best dline duos ever, add in orakpos freakishly strong and relentless play and you have a front seven worth gameplanning a little extra for regardless of who the other 4 are

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:34 PM
Once again no he isn't. There has been no proof other then a "source" that Haynesworth was offered to Philly. Even IF he was, there is no indication he is on the block anyway. Im sure there are a bunch of thing thrown around in talk with Philly. Just because it was mentioned does NOT mean they are looking to move him or anyone else mentioned.

i know, i said if he was...which i wouldnt just blow off as there being no chance.

ive heard that hes on the block, not just for mcnabb but still even after and tennessee might even be a likely trade partner. might all be ******** rumors but its not out of the question

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:36 PM
Todd, I appreciate that there is no solid evidence that the Redskins are actively trying to trade Haynesworth, but there's a whole ****-ton of smoke indicating as such. Add in the fact that Haynesworth has communicated way too much of his problems through the media (something Shanahan has been sensitive to in the past) and seemed to annoy the new regime by leaving workouts, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Shanahan would just rather not have to deal with the guy.

True but with the whole "win now" mentality from Shanahan, trading Haynesworth creates a hugh hole in the DL. If you are retooling then yes you could dangle him for bait and see what offers emerge but you dont go trading your best defensive force with his current mindset. You would currently go from having a pretty good 3-4 front of Haynesworth - Kemoeatu - Daniels/Jarmon to a pretty bad one of Jarmon - Kemoeatu - Daniels.

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:40 PM
True but with the whole "win now" mentality from Shanahan, trading Haynesworth creates a hugh hole in the DL. If you are retooling then yes you could dangle him for bait and see what offers emerge but you dont go trading your best defensive force with his current mindset. You would currently go from having a pretty good 3-4 front of Haynesworth - Kemoeatu - Daniels/Jarmon to a pretty bad one of Jarmon - Kemoeatu - Daniels.

exactly, this is what i meant by their only shot at a good 34...they need haynesworth to pull it off otherwise they just dont have the personnel

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:41 PM
im just saying that on paper suh and haynesworth would be one of the best dline duos ever, add in orakpos freakishly strong and relentless play and you have a front seven worth gameplanning a little extra for regardless of who the other 4 are

My thoughts exactly. Which leads me to believe if Suh does fall to #4, he is the pick regardless.

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:47 PM
i know, i said if he was...which i wouldnt just blow off as there being no chance.

ive heard that hes on the block, not just for mcnabb but still even after and tennessee might even be a likely trade partner. might all be ******** rumors but its not out of the question

I just dont think giving up on him after one year of being vastly misused is what to do. Its no secret, at least to Redskins fans, that Blache never used Haynesworth's full ability. I dont blame Al for going to the media after his own DC told him to leave him alone when Al tried to talk to him about switching things up a bit, multiple times. I believe you almost have to give him the year to prove himself. This time next year with the same results then you ship him to a 4-3 team.

K Train
04-06-2010, 01:51 PM
word.

im not adding fuel to the trade talk, just saying what if the rumors are true, my first thoughts were "well that would suck for everyone else, not "well that means theyd be done with hayneworth". personally i would love to see suh/haynesworth just crush every oline in the NFC east, which they would. he would be far and away the best player not named berry avaiable at 4, but the skins just cant take another safety that high

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 01:57 PM
word.

im not adding fuel to the trade talk, just saying what if the rumors are true, my first thoughts were "well that would suck for everyone else, not "well that means theyd be done with hayneworth". personally i would love to see suh/haynesworth just crush every oline in the NFC east, which they would. he would be far and away the best player not named berry avaiable at 4, but the skins just cant take another safety that high

I still wouldn't rule out Berry. On his visit with us he said he was blown away and loved it here. Im sure they say that everywhere as well but its also not a given we wont take him. If Berry is who Shanahan wants I trust him.

CC.SD
04-06-2010, 02:42 PM
I still wouldn't rule out Berry. On his visit with us he said he was blown away and loved it here. Im sure they say that everywhere as well but its also not a given we wont take him. If Berry is who Shanahan wants I trust him.

Shanahan's ability to draft defense leaves a lot to be desired. If he wanted Berry, I would start having doubts about Berry.

nepg
04-06-2010, 05:13 PM
They'd have Glenn Dorsey's contract, Tyson Jackson's contract, and the new DLineman's contract

That is a ton of money

Doesn't matter. Look at what New England was paying Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, and Green... DL is the most premium position to Pioli (Mayo was the only Top 20 pick besides the DLs). They'd be able to rotate their linemen around to create mismatches (I think Dorsey could play Ratliff-style NT, but I'm not going to argue that one here). Worst case scenario, they trade Dorsey for an early second round pick (StL? Det?).

KC won't pass on Suh or McCoy...and I don't think Washington will, either (I'm in the camp saying Haynesworth stays...that DL looks scary).

toddmlazarchick
04-06-2010, 07:49 PM
Doesn't matter. Look at what New England was paying Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, and Green... DL is the most premium position to Pioli (Mayo was the only Top 20 pick besides the DLs). They'd be able to rotate their linemen around to create mismatches (I think Dorsey could play Ratliff-style NT, but I'm not going to argue that one here). Worst case scenario, they trade Dorsey for an early second round pick (StL? Det?).

KC won't pass on Suh or McCoy...and I don't think Washington will, either (I'm in the camp saying Haynesworth stays...that DL looks scary).

Shanahan was asked today about the Haynesworth trade rumors and he said without saying any names there are a lot of false rumors floating around out there. Take it for what its worth but saying no comment or something along those lines would lead me to believe there might be something, but not with what he said.

Splat
04-06-2010, 08:05 PM
and hali...thats a first round defensive front lol

Hali is a OLB now and a pretty dang good one if I do so so my self.:)

That said I would be pretty shocked to see the Chiefs take another DL man top five.

wonderbredd24
04-06-2010, 08:16 PM
Doesn't matter. Look at what New England was paying Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, and Green... DL is the most premium position to Pioli (Mayo was the only Top 20 pick besides the DLs). They'd be able to rotate their linemen around to create mismatches (I think Dorsey could play Ratliff-style NT, but I'm not going to argue that one here). Worst case scenario, they trade Dorsey for an early second round pick (StL? Det?).

KC won't pass on Suh or McCoy...and I don't think Washington will, either (I'm in the camp saying Haynesworth stays...that DL looks scary).

Wilfork was 21st pick, wasn't he? Doesn't pay too much. Was Jarvis Green ever making any real money?

3 Top 10 Defensive Linemen is a boatload of money.

Scotty D
04-06-2010, 08:32 PM
Is Suh a good fit at 3-4 DE?

CC.SD
04-06-2010, 08:53 PM
Is Suh a good fit at 3-4 DE?

That's his best fit in the minds of many.

Scotty D
04-06-2010, 08:56 PM
That's his best fit in the minds of many.

Thats what I thought. I've been thinking about Cleveland trading up to get him for a DE spot. Not sure if they would make that move though.

Aloysius
04-06-2010, 09:01 PM
If the rumours are true that the Browns love Jared Odrick you gotta think they would really really love Suh. If there is a chance to move up a few spots, without paying a king's ransom, then they could be a possible trade partner. They do have 5 picks in the top 100.
Mangini reportedly wants the front seven to be more physical. Suh certainly could help with that.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-06-2010, 09:02 PM
Is Suh a good fit at 3-4 DE?

Yes, absolutely. His ability to play gaps and diagnose plays would fit perfectly as a 5-tech.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
04-06-2010, 10:32 PM
If Okung is gone, would Washington look to take Clausen as the heir to McNabb?

TACKLE
04-06-2010, 10:36 PM
If Okung is gone, would Washington look to take Clausen as the heir to McNabb?

No. Bradford. Maybe. But the money would be too big of a financial burden. If Okung is gone then either Suh or McCoy will be there. They can take either one of those guys or could look into a trade down. At #4, I think they consider Trent Williams long before they consider Clausen.

BaLLiN
04-06-2010, 10:45 PM
No. Bradford. Maybe. But the money would be too big of a financial burden. If Okung is gone then either Suh or McCoy will be there. They can take either one of those guys or could look into a trade down. At #4, I think they consider Trent Williams long before they consider Clausen.

well Bulaga too, are we saying that he'd be gone too?

TACKLE
04-06-2010, 10:55 PM
well Bulaga too, are we saying that he'd be gone too?

Yeah I guess Bulaga too. I think Williams is more likely at #4 because of he's a great fit. The feeling is that he may ranked slightly ahead of Bulaga at this point but in that situation, if they liked Bulaga more than Williams, he could just as easily be their pick.