Drafting Fred Davis is a fine choice, but that means they had to waste a compensatory pick on an alarm clock.

I couldn't disagree more with this article. Let's all remember that this defense was a top ten defense last year. Reference the playoff loss all you want, but the reality is, our defense was still a VERY good one. When you want to look at stats, look at the touchdown catches by Redskins wide receivers.

While I think that the Fred Davis choice will prove to be boom or bust, the value that was had by the choices of Kelly and Thomas was outstanding in the second round. Out of all of the guards, safeties and defensive linemen, who would have been available without a significant reach? Merling is the only one who came to mind and while that trade might prove to be poor, at least the Redskins attempted to load up on offensive weapons and build through the draft.

I am not sure how to react to your article. You managed to attack and defend the Redskins here and I am still not sure how you did it. You basic breakdown of the teams needs is not one I agree with. You can see my own breakdown of the Skins roster through my link if you are interested. The ONLY ENTIRELY accurate criticism of their selections would be that they COULD have selected a player at a position of need rather than Davis or Kelly. The problem with this criticism(as you pointed out in the latter stages of your article) is that no one really knows how any of these players will work out. Each linemen(defensive and offensive) left on the board at each selection point had MAJOR question marks. So it was entirely reasonable to NOT take those players. There are ALSO question marks about Thomas and Kelly. Davis was a pretty easy pic, winning the Macky award as the nations best TE is NOT a small feat. So each argument has AN EASY COUNTER ARGUMENT. We won't know for a couple of years for sure.

And besides, this is the way teams are supposed to draft, just take the best player available year after year and one will always end up with quality depth. Maybe it doesn't seem to make sense now, but it will IF the Skins do the same again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and so on.

hi - like poster number 3, you managed to defend and attack the skins draft simultaneously, which suppose shows more balance than the title of your post, which seems mostly negative. I'd like to address some of your points:

"Primary priorities going into the draft should have been right guard, cornerback, safety, and a left guard/left tackle or center. I thought secondary priorities should have been punter, defensive tackle, wide receiver, and a weak side linebacker."

Left tackle? Center? Right guard? Really? I was thinking that if we had a glaring need, it would be either DE or CB, but good arguments were made on the intarweb that tall WR should be included as well. I don't know much about that, but I do know that Chris Samuels is our pro-bowl LT, Thomas is our RG, and Casey is our C. I can't really prove you incorrect here but I just have to disagree.

"Most of the national pundits were predicting the Redskins to pick a safety in the first round."

This isn't true - sure, there were a few opinons advocating Phillips at pick 21, but there were others saying 1) he'd be a reach there and 2) it's simply unfair to draft Phillips at 21 to fill Taylor's shoes. Most seemed to have Merling at this spot, which actually could have happened.

"The Falcons then took offensive tackle Sam Baker, whom the Redskins could have used." Sure! But this also seems early for Baker. I think most agree on this point.

"Nevertheless, their next 2nd round pick is beyond puzzling: tight end Fred Davis" Agreed, but because the need aspect of this pick is not there. It seems that Davis is precisely the type of player Cooley is, a great pass catching TE that's in the middle of the pack as far as blocking. But I can't argue with where they took the Mackey award winner here.

In regards to the selection of Brooks "Regardless of Cerrato's justification, this smacks of the 'Skins once again choosing the razzle-dazzle over their actual needs." This is a little bit harsh when talking about (arguably) the best punter available. It's a sixth round pick, after all.

While the Redskins reluctance to draft defensive linemen (since Montgomery) is cause for concern, I accept that most pundits seem to think that we got some players (especially the top three picks) were relative bargains. And after having a relatively heavy draft where lots of players were taken, it doesn't really seem to be the same old tricks to me. I'll take it.

When I was referring to Cerrato's justification I was referring more to day one. I actually think the drafting of Brooks was a good pick at great value. I did mention that I liked his selection in the article. I should have made that point more clear.

In my opinion improving the d-line, o-line, and depth in the secondary is needed for the team to reach the next level. Being a top 10 defense is good, but can they win the Super Bowl with their current defense?

Drafting the best players available if is alright, if you are considering it a re-building year. But I really think the 'Skins are just a few pieces away.

Sure they are "are a few pieces away", but isn't most every team in the league? Even the Giants have holes on their roster now. The Patriots and Colts may be the most complete teams, with Jacksonville in there as well, but even they have "holes". If the Redskins have any chance of getting back to being the perennial contender they used to be, they need to draft in this manner every year. The only way this draft would really be considered a "mistake" or "the same old tricks" would be if they go backwards next year with their methodology. This was a good step forward, the Redskins simply need to keep taking the same steps forward.