In today’s Washington Post there’s speculation the Redskins might take LSU safety LaRon Landry with the sixth-overall pick in this weekend’s draft. Landry fills an obvious need in the secondary, but some scouts think he’s too much like Sean Taylor for it to work. The other issue is that drafting Landry doesn’t address the defensive line. Louisville DT Amobi Okoye is also mentioned as a possible target, but all of this assumes Washington doesn’t trade up (for Calvin Johnson!) or down (for more warm bodies). (Free registration/bugmenot required.)
posted
4-24-2007 at 8:57 AM by
Ryan Wilson
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
If the Redskins don’t get some kind of D-Line help, I can’t see them making the playoffs even if the offense goes back to their 2005 production.
Which begs a larger question - given the Redskins’ current scattershot approaches to player acquisition and neglect of player development, is there any way they can build a championship contender in the future? Even if they get lucky during an offseason or two, I can’t see their methodology producing a Super Bowl challenger.
:: mmm... sacrilicious — 4/24/2007 @ 9:24 am
Jeez, if they would take Landry, they’d have one of the highest-drafted secondaries in the league (pick 5, pick 9, pick 6). All they’d need to do is get another first-round corner, and they’d be set.
They’d probably have the only pair of top-10 pick safeties in the league.
I wonder if there’s ever been a secondary with three top 10 picks before?
:: Pat — 4/24/2007 @ 9:25 am
Not that were drafted by the team — only 43 have come off the board in the Top 10 since 1970. Two top-10 pick secondaries have happened a bunch. Washington’s actually spent three top-10 picks on DBs in the last seven years — Bailey, Taylor, and Rogers. They’d be the first team to get to four.
Also worth noting — highest-drafted DB ever? Eric Turner.
:: Bill Barnwell — 4/24/2007 @ 9:35 am
What this really means is that someone in the skins front office has called the journalist and sid they want Landry in order to encourage Atlanta or Minnesota to make them an offer.
I think the Calvin Johnson situation is an interesting one and I’ll say it here because there doesn’t seem to be anywhere else to say it. IF Russell goes to the Raiders at one, I think that there are four teams that have the desire and the firepower to trade up to two and grab Johnson.
Tampa, who have to trade up the least and give Detroit the option of still landing Gaines Adams.
Atlanta would love to keep Jonson in Georgia and give Vick more help. They also have the extra picks that the Texans sent them for Schaub, givng them more than enough ammunition to get it done.
The 49ers have a compensatory 3rd and four 4ths meaning that they could package all their first day picks along with a first next year and still have eight selections this year. Patrick Willis should still be available here for the Lions if they traded down. However, their multiple needs probably make them the least likely to make a trade.
The Broncos’ interest has been made apparent in the past few days. This is understandable, who cold stop Cutler, Johnson and Javon Walker? The last time Shanahan had that sort of firepower he won two superbowls and only John Elway’s retirement put a stop to the Broncos. The Broncos would have to package all their first days picks and a first next year and then sweeten the deal to make it happen but Shanahan would pull the trigger in an instant if he could. However, that this offer has reached the media does suggest that the Lions are trying to use this offer as bait to fish for other Johnson hungry teams.
I may as well point out that PFT has reported Tampa’s interest in Lance Briggs, presumably if Johnson goes off the board then it is possible that the Bears would send Briggs and pick 31 to the Bucs in order to snatch Joe Thomas away from the Cards.
:: Karl Cuba — 4/24/2007 @ 9:39 am
#4:
This particular journalist doesn’t have a history of particularly good relations with the Redskins management. FYI, a blog post he wrote on the Landry situation is linked on my name. (Read to comments to see what delusional Redskins fans think.)
:: JasonK — 4/24/2007 @ 9:53 am
If their interest in Landry is authentic, then its a bad move. Taylor as FS can improve the performance of a mediocre SS (see Ryan Clark), but I doubt he would have as positive an effect on a high-calibre SS like Landry. There are diminishing returns in stacking talent in the secondary, much like their are diminishing returns in stacking WRs Millen-style. I think there would be more positive gain by investing the pick in the pass rush. Pass rush will take the heat off the secondary more than dense pass coverage will assist the pass rush.
Joe Gibbs like “character” players, he’s got no greater opportunity than Okoye.
:: Joe T. — 4/24/2007 @ 10:09 am
Call me crazy, but I wouldn’t mind it if the ‘Skins traded down and took Darelle Revis. Isn’t it better to be stacked at CB than safety?
If the Redskins don’t go DL, half of the fans are going to jump off a bridge because they have been screaming for a DL the past 3 years even specifically for a pass rushing DE.
They need a lot of help on the defense.
:: Fergasun — 4/24/2007 @ 10:32 am
That threw me for a second. I read the headline for the link, and thought it was referring to TOM Landry…
:: hooper — 4/24/2007 @ 11:19 am
Do you think teams really say who they are interested in?
It’s probably another trick by the media… reporter contacts the redskins… So what do you think of Leron Laundry? ” He’s looks like a very good prospect”.
Then the reporter has breaking news ( the redskins are interested in Laundry)! There is no other information mentioned. They could have said ” he looks like a very good prospect” about all of the players in the draft, but the media will play their sneaky tricks to create a buzz.
I don’t think NFL teams ( Lions included) are dumb enough to hint at who they are going to pick.
:: Chris — 4/24/2007 @ 11:28 am
I don’t understand this insane love of Calvin Johnson. Even if he’s destined to become the greatest WR of all time, I wouldn’t trade multiple 1st round picks across multiple drafts to get him. I would hesitate to do that for Peyton Manning.
(1) He’s a WR. A WR can have a game-changing effect, but (as someone else pointed out in another thread), it’s rare that a WR can transform a team or take a mediocre team and make it SB quality. I can only think of a couple of players that have done that over the years–LT (a LB), LdT (RB), and a couple of QBs.
(2) He still could bust. Would any team be risk prone enough to give up all their first round drafting power for several years for one player, truly putting all your eggs in one basket?
(3) Even if you know he won’t bust and will be incredible, I still maintain that more than a couple of high draft picks is too high to pay for almost any player. So much of football is about building talent across the board, and depth behind the starters, and so much of football under the salary cap is doing these things through the draft because the players are cheap compared to free agents. This is among the reasons why Washington’s approach has failed recently.
It also seems that almost every year there is one “amazing” prospect, or sometimes two, who people describe as game changing. If you’re a good team, you never get a shot at them, but you’re good so that’s OK. If you’re bad, then you’ll get your shot eventually if you keep being bad.
:: MJK — 4/24/2007 @ 11:31 am
I think we have entered the draft week rumors territory and this is one such move.
1. Redskins can take Landry atleast a couple of spots lower, esp if AP or BQ falls (and other teams would look to move up!). So they are using this move to setup potential trade opps
2. Redskins need more warm bodies than game changing players. they are too thin and in all probability loooking to move down to get draft picks
3. Redskins can use one of their RBs also for scouting trade opportunities. both look good
:: Ch V Kalyan — 4/24/2007 @ 11:39 am
#11 - I doubt the Skins shop either RB, since they just resigned Betts to a deal this offseason and gave up alot for Portis 2 years ago.
:: Joe T. — 4/24/2007 @ 12:02 pm
RE: 9
Well, most teams try to send out mixed signals on their intentions for the draft. The Redskins, at least in regards to Jason Campbell, have a history of just laying their cards on the table so everyone can see. Not the best strategy.
:: MJCM — 4/24/2007 @ 12:03 pm
Thanks, hooper. Glad I wasn’t the only one to make that mistake!
:: zlionsfan — 4/24/2007 @ 12:08 pm
see and my fist thought was, ‘Ali Landry? me too!’
:: krugerindustrialsmoothing — 4/24/2007 @ 12:49 pm
MJK- Peyton Manning is definatly worth two first round picks. He’s worth two #1 picks! But then again we have better information on him that college players who haven’t played.
If you talk about trading multiple picks for 1 guy… remember that there is no guarantee that your current picks won’t bust either. diversifying into 2 baskets really isn’t that much better than diversifying into 1 basket.
If you don’t believe me, there are numerous examples of top 10 picks that were busts, and even #1 picks that were busts.
It does seem like this “manipulation” could directly benefit washington the most… Players deemed unatainable in mock drafts for washington have a “weed” rumor attatched to them, while Laundry ( projected a few picks later) is supposed to be a main target.
:: Chris — 4/24/2007 @ 1:36 pm
Ali is a former Miss Louisiana…
:: Sophandros — 4/24/2007 @ 1:38 pm
Chris, seriously, his name is spelled LaRon Landry. There’s no “u” in it.
:: Alex — 4/24/2007 @ 2:23 pm
diversifying into 2 baskets really isn’t that much better than diversifying into 1 basket.
With two picks, you have a much greater chance that at least one of your picks will work out and you will get some value than with one.
Imagine your scouting is good enough so that there’s a 60% chance a 1st round pick will “work out” and give you #1 pick level of play. Assume (for simplicity) that there is a 40% chance he will bust.
Trading two 1st rounders for one means that there is a 40% chance you will get zero value from your picks.
Using the two 1st rounders means that there is only a 16% chance you will ger zero value.
Of course, this is oversimplified. Obviously, you would expect a higher 1st round pick to have a higher probability of success than lower 1st round picks.
But note this: Depending on what you think are reasonable probability distributions, you start to see that that unless the high 1st round pick has nearly twice as much “value” as the two lower picks combined, it’s not worth it.
:: MJK — 4/24/2007 @ 2:47 pm
This thread has a pro-draft bias.
:: Joe T. — 4/24/2007 @ 3:04 pm
#19: The problem there isn’t just that you have a better chance of a success at a higher pick - because you don’t. It’s that a lot of the things you want are going to be gone at the higher picks. If there’s a franchise QB vs. a franchise WR, the QB is likely to go first. You can have two later-round #1s, but it won’t matter if there aren’t any QBs around when you’re picking. Or at least, none of note.
:: Kal — 4/24/2007 @ 3:41 pm
MJK- I see your point but when teams trade 2 picks for 1, they are trading up.
What if as they are trading up, they are increasing their potential return. By juding that return, what if we sort of used a stat in baseball like OPS. On base times slugging.
If you looked at the Pct. chance of getting a worthy player ( OBP) then multiply that times the quality ( SLG). A top pick that isn’t a bust can be a very good pro bowl caliber player.
So I believe you have to look beyond Bust/Non bust ( which can be difficult to measure itself). You also have to look at the quality instead of just the Pct. Of course this is all hard to measure.
:: Chris — 4/24/2007 @ 4:35 pm
Sorry, this is only a test.
:: Herbert Quain — 4/24/2007 @ 8:44 pm
10: I don’t think most people are advocating trading multiple 1st round picks to get him.
If Johnson were a sure Rice-level receiver, then I’d probably be willing to trade three first-rounders for him.
But in terms of real life, we don’t know he’s going to be that good, and I don’t think he’s worth much more than a top three selection. And most top three picks aren’t worth getting if you aren’t already in that area anyway. So what I’m saying is that I’d be willing to move some picks to get him if I were Detroit, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay, but I wouldn’t trade my draft away for him if I were San Francisco.
:: Yaguar — 4/24/2007 @ 9:53 pm
There are some great quotes in the article by scouts from other teams (summarized here):
“Sure, Landry is a great player, but can he improve their defensive line, which is a much bigger need? No.”
“Sure Landry is a great player, but will he make a good partner for Sean Taylor? No.”
Now let me tell you, I’m no scout and those sentiments were obvious to me as well. I agree with those posters who said the Skins are throwing up a smokescreen. It’s so absurd, the only reason any other team might take it seriously is that Washington has a rep for making dumb moves. The Skins want a d-lineman, but if they make it too obvious then their trading possibilities are reduced. What they really want is to trade down. I guarantee that they either draft a DL or trade down. (If they take Landry or trade up, I’m abandoning them and becoming an Eagles fan. I can only take so much mismanagement.)
:: SJM — 4/24/2007 @ 9:56 pm
A guy on the radio here wanted to switch to a 3-4, move Taylor to OLB, and draft Leron.
:: Chris — 4/25/2007 @ 11:57 am
Fellow Redskin fans will hate the Landry pick, I don’t think it’s bad. The 2005 defense brought all sorts of pressure from the DBs… I think this keeps QBs and opposing coordinators thinking.
They didn’t do this nearly enough in 2006 due to personnel .
:: Fergasun — 4/26/2007 @ 3:32 am
When healthy and focused, Randy Moss provided a level not just of production but of opponent game-plan distortion that exceded anything any recent non-quarterback has done on offense. Johnson is not just regarded as a good wide receiver prospect. He is regarded as the best wide receiver prospect ever - and wide receiver is up there with left tackle, pass rusher and cornerback in the second tier of positional importance. If he is, as advertised, Moss without the attitude problems, he is well worth giving up two first round picks for. A lot of players who were or are not shutdown corners are called shutdown corners. That does not mean there has never been a shutdown corner. Nor does the fact that many players who were not sure things were described as sure things mean that no player is ever a sure thing (barring injury). Elway was a sure thing. I did not believe that any player in the 2005 or 2006 draft was a sure thing prior to those drafts (Leinart came closest), but I do believe that Johnson is (again, barring injury).
:: Mr Shush — 4/26/2007 @ 9:02 am