Washington Redskins Mock Draft: Predictions for Day 2 and Beyond
Robert Mayer-USA TODAY Sports
There is even a possibility that a highly touted safety, who didn't go in the first round, might fall to the Redskins at 51.
Here are some post-first-round predictions for the Redskins on day two of the draft:
Round 2, Pick 51: John Cyprien, S, FIU
Perhaps the best news is that premium safety John Cyprien wasn't taken on day one. The Redskins can hold onto a slim hope of landing him with the 51st pick.
In the final mock draft for the Redskins, this author had Johnthan Banks in that spot. It's still a smart pick, but things might change with greater safety talent available in the second round.
The Redskins would certainly be wise to strongly consider Cyprien if he's available at 51. The team did arrange a private workout for Cyprien prior to the draft, according to WalterFootball.com.
The scenario of Cyprien falling to the Redskins might not be that far-fetched.
With Reid in the bag for the 49ers, that's one less team who will be targeting a safety before the Redskins pick. However, there are still teams who could snatch a safety at the top of the second round.
However, with D.J. Swearinger on the board along with Bacarri Rambo, Cyprien could tumble outside the top 50. He was among four safeties expected to go in the first round, according to The Washington Times' Rich Campbell.
The point is there's going to be more quality safeties available than expected in round two.
That puts the Redskins in a great position to address a major weakness. It could also place safety ahead of cornerback with their first pick.
Round 3, Pick 85: Jordan Poyer, CB, Oregon State
If the Redskins wait until round three to take a corner they could be tempted by Jordan Poyer. Banks might not last until the 85th pick.
That should please the Redskins who met with Poyer at the combine, according to WalterFootball.com. Poyer has good size at 6'0" and 191 pounds, but it's his zone skills that might woo the Redskins.
In his Washington Times article, Campbell quotes Shanahan highlighting the importance of zone understanding:
A lot has to do with their awareness, how sharp they are, relative to their football-related intelligence, Shanahan said. Some guys are all football. Other guys are, maybe, a man-to-man coverage guy, and it’s easier if a guy is more well-rounded and he understands zone concept, man concept.
Poyer's CBSSports.com draft profile emphasizes his strength as a zone defender:
Quick learner as a former safety, moving to cornerback in 2010 and starting the past two seasons. Good experience in zone coverage, often moving inside to cover the slot receiver. Leader of the secondary and a fiery player.
Poyer has the attributes the Redskins are looking for in their attempts to upgrade at corner. If they identify a safety too good to pass at 51 and miss Banks, Poyer would be excellent compensation.
Smart money should still be on Banks and Phillip Thomas
Picking Cyprien and Poyer are scenarios suggested based in part on the events of the first round. However, the smart money probably still dictates the Redskins take Banks, if he's there at 51.
He's appeared in more than one mock at 51, according to Chris Herting of The Redskins Blog. WalterFootball.com suggested the Redskins met with Banks and their key denotes the team was "very interested."
Banks has the size and skills suited to the Redskins' blitzing style of defense. He might be too enticing to pass at 51.
The same is true for Thomas, who WalterFootball.com indicates had more than one meeting with the Redskins, including a private workout. His knack for a turnover fits what Mike Shanahan wants from his defense.
If the Redskins can revamp their secondary with two starting-caliber players from their primary picks, they'll have room to get creative with their remaining choices.
That could mean room for another late-round find at running back and adding depth along the O-line and at linebacker.
Even with the first round complete, Banks and Thomas remain the best and highly likely Redskins selections on day two.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?