Jarmon Selection Was Succession Planning For Washington Redskins
The Redskins' selection of Jeremy Jarmon came as a surprise to many; to almost everyone, in fact, except for readers of this blog (sorry, on the rare occasions that I get one right I have to toot my horn). Few were even aware that the Supplemental Draft was going on, not surprising given that the Redskins never before had taken a player in that draft.
But even though Mel Kiper wasn't present and it was conducted via email instead of in Radio City Music Hall, there was instant analysis everywhere.
Message board posters who had not heard of Jarmon in the morning were panning the pick in the afternoon. The negative reviews were based mostly on the fact that the posters never had heard of Jarmon and the Redskins had a lot of nerve spending a third on a guy they'd never heard of.
Others compared it to the Jason Taylor trade of a year ago. Never mind that Taylor was well north of 30 and that Jarmon barely is old enough to drink legally. Apparently, expending a pick for a defensive end is expending a pick for a defensive end, no matter what the other facts are.
Then you have Ben at The Curly R saying that Jarmon has to get on the field in 2009 in order to justify the selection and agreeing with Greg at Hog Heaven saying that the third was a bit too high and that the pick was a sign of impatience.
The view here is that Jarmon doesn't have to play a single down in 2009 for the pick to be a good one and that the selection displayed some forward thinking for which the Redskins aren't known.
Actually, it would be disappointing if Jarmon did not see time on special teams. At 6-3, 278 with a 4.79 time in the forty, he would be a scary sight rolling down the field on kick coverage. But with Phillip Daniels starting at left defensive end and Renaldo Wynn backing him up there is no need to line up Jarmon at DE this year. He has the frame to pack on another 15 pounds or so and when he does that he will be the perfect size for a run-stuffing defensive end.
Unfortunately, Jarmon won't be able to accomplish that in the month of August. I see him getting a few snaps in the rotation but not much more than that (barring injury, of course).
And that's fine. Because in drafting Jarmon, the Redskins have done what they have failed to do so often in the past--succession planning. Daniels and Wynn are unlikely to be here in 2010 and certainly both will be gone in 2011. So the Redskins have replaced Daniels. They have their starting left DE of the future on the roster.
Was a third too high? Again, instant analysis of the value of a draft pick is an exercise in futility. It certain, however, that the Redskins would not have been able to get him had they bid a fourth-rounder for him. Lions GM Martin Mayhew has acknowledged that his team had bid a fourth and 0-16 Detroit would have had first priority.
But even if you don't buy Vinny Cerrato's assertion that with a full offseason workout and a combine appearance Jarmon would have been a second you can still make a case that he was worth a third. In the NFL, it's common practice to give up a pick in next year's draft that's a round better to acquire a pick in this year's draft. You pay a premium for getting the services of the player a year early. So, if you take the assessment that Jarmon was a fourth-round talent in the 2010 draft it's fair value to spend a third to get him a year early.
It's a good sign that the Redskins actually are thinking ahead. This doesn't mean that this will become a pattern or that Jarmon won't be a bust. But it is one small step away from the Cycle of Futility in which the team has been mired for much of this decade.
Rich Tandler is the author of The Redskins Chronicle, a Journey Through the History of the Redskins 1937-2008. You can get details at RedskinsChronicle.com. Tandler blogs about the Redskins at RealRedskins.com.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?