Move up in Draft

SKIN4LIFE · Post by **SKIN4LIFE** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:17 pm

The Browns would like to move down and since the free agent market has slowed, what do you think of trading 50/50 and the 9th pick for the 3rd pick to ensure we get a top flight wide reciever. We need a reciever who gives you a huge range for error. The 5-11 recievers require so much more accuracy. They can't position there bodies between defenders and the ball or just go up and get the ball when they are this short. With the recievers we have right now I still think Portis will see 8 man fronts to run against. We need a reciever that defensive cordinators look at and say, we must double team this guy.

Redskins4Life · Post by **Redskins4Life** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:26 pm

SKIN4LIFE wrote:The Browns would like to move down and since the free agent market has slowed, what do you think of trading 50/50 and the 9th pick for the 3rd pick to ensure we get a top flight wide reciever. We need a reciever who gives you a huge range for error. The 5-11 recievers require so much more accuracy. They can't position there bodies between defenders and the ball or just go up and get the ball when they are this short. With the recievers we have right now I still think Portis will see 8 man fronts to run against. We need a reciever that defensive cordinators look at and say, we must double team this guy.

This logic sounds good but I'd be utterly shocked if the Browns even consider this trade. Unless they feel they can get a premier defensive player at pick 9 and save a bunch of money I can virtually assure you that they wont make this deal. Rod Gardner alone will not compel them to move down SIX spots which is a LOT in the NFL draft.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:33 pm

We won't trade up. Joe already said that we won't trade up. We will pick up the best available talent at number 9 or we will trade down....assuming we find a trade partner. I would rather have an extra third or fourth rounder and the #9 overall than the #3. If we were to move up to insure that we get an impact player then we would have to pay them #3 money which is alot of bucks!

Chad

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:43 pm

I think that would be smart. We need Mike Williams desperately.

Hog Heaven · Post by **Hog Heaven** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:16 pm

chaddukes wrote:We won't trade up. Joe already said that we won't trade up. We will pick up the best available talent at number 9 or we will trade down....assuming we find a trade partner. I would rather have an extra third or fourth rounder and the #9 overall than the #3. If we were to move up to insure that we get an impact player then we would have to pay them #3 money which is alot of bucks!

Chad

I agree completely with this

Skin Diesel · Post by **Skin Diesel** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:20 pm

John Manfreda wrote:I think that would be smart. We need Mike Williams desperately.

I agree. There's not a whole lot of action on the Rod Gardner trade issue, so letting him go with the number 9 pick to get Mike Williams at number 3 would be a good idea. I know Gibbs will keep Rod if the Skins don't get a good trade offer, but what's the point in that? He's not happy in DC, and he has had his chance to be a top shelf receiver, and he has failed. So, we'd basically be letting Rod go and trading picks with the Browns in order to get a needed WR with a lot of potential.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:55 pm

Without comment on the thought of moving up to the 3rd pick, what in the world makes anyone think that the Browns would make this move for Gardner? It is rumored that the reason that a trade has not occured is 50-50's unwillingness to negotiate an extension... why would the Browns be any different?

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:08 pm

I don't agree. Simply being tall does not make it 'easier' to pass to you if you can't get open, or are not running a crisp route, can't keep defender off balance etc.

A team cannot commit 8 in the box, just because the receivers are short...if they can stretch the field and create the big play...their height does not mattter. (see The Posse) This is not a video game, you don't drop back and lob it up to the tall guy.

Marvin Harrison
Hines Ward
L. Coles
Gary Clark
Ricky Sanders
Deion Branch
David Patten

All examples of great recievers who are able to get open, that are not extremely tall. I do think Williams would be good for us, but Gibbs is not interested in trading up. He has entertained trading down for more picks.

Look...we pick 9, there's a good chance Williams and Edwards will be gone...that does NOT mean we can't get a great receiver with some height later in the draft.

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:11 pm

.. the reason teams trade back is to pick up draft picks.... they need help in alot of areas, so they want more draft picks to fill those needs... so to move up to a higher spot than number 9... then we're going to have to throw in a 2nd.... but "we ain'ts gots no second, so's we ain'ts movin up"... end of theory....

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:26 pm

To Cleveland: Rod Gardner and #9 pick

to Washington: #3 Pick

That would work wouldn't it?

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:40 pm

It would indeed, If we were interested. Gibbs already said he doesn't want to trade up though, I think he is more interested in generating more total draft picks, than trying to get Mike Williams.

njskinsfan · Post by **njskinsfan** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:48 pm

The signing bonus for us at #3 would be way too much for us to even entertain. Besides there is no one player that we are enamoured with.

If Edwards or Williams falls to #9 we will consider them. If not, Rolle or Pac-Man will fall to us. We will grab the best available at those positions or even DE if we ourselves do not move down from 9th.

SKIN4LIFE · Post by **SKIN4LIFE** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:07 pm

The Hogster wrote:I don't agree. Simply being tall does not make it 'easier' to pass to you if you can't get open, or are not running a crisp route, can't keep defender off balance etc.

A team cannot commit 8 in the box, just because the receivers are short...if they can stretch the field and create the big play...their height does not mattter. (see The Posse) This is not a video game, you don't drop back and lob it up to the tall guy.

Marvin Harrison
Hines Ward
L. Coles
Gary Clark
Ricky Sanders
Deion Branch
David Patten

All examples of great recievers who are able to get open, that are not extremely tall. I do think Williams would be good for us, but Gibbs is not interested in trading up. He has entertained trading down for more picks.

Look...we pick 9, there's a good chance Williams and Edwards will be gone...that does NOT mean we can't get a great receiver with some height later in the draft.

I must have been sleeping during the last three years when these recievers we obtained put up big numbers because if I recall correctly there has only been one big year between the both of the them. Please don't compare them to these proven recievers. I agree with the signing bonus point, I didn't think of this. However, for someone to act like we have such a stellar wideout corpse is crazy. Give me a chance at having a great reciever through the draft and I'll take my chances with Williams working with our corners. Plus there are still pretty good corners out there that we can aquire for little to nothing because of the late stages of free agency and the deep draft at DB.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:29 pm

njskinsfan wrote:The signing bonus for us at #3 would be way too much for us to even entertain. Besides there is no one player that we are enamoured with.

If Edwards or Williams falls to #9 we will consider them. If not, Rolle or Pac-Man will fall to us. We will grab the best available at those positions or even DE if we ourselves do not move down from 9th.

Yes! Thats all right!

Redskins fans might be enamored with M. Williams, but our coaching staff realizes that you can't be sold on guy and go out to get him at all costs. How many "sure things" bust in this league. Its not worth taking the guy at #3, and giving up what you would have to give up. Williams, Merriman, Rolle, Pac Man, Cody....any of them would be fine.

Chad

Tom C · Post by **Tom C** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:44 pm

Since this appears to be a fantasy thread… how about trading our #9 pick and Rod Gardner to the Vikings for their second first round pick #18, EJ Henderson and a 2nd round pick.

That would give the Vikings two picks back-to-back which would insure that they have enough time on the clock to get one pick off.

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:54 pm

Tom C wrote:Since this appears to be a fantasy thread… how about trading our #9 pick and Rod Gardner to the Vikings for their second first round pick #18, EJ Henderson and a 2nd round pick.

That would give the Vikings two picks back-to-back which would insure that they have enough time on the clock to get one pick off.

ROTFALMAO. nope. tice would then blunder for 32 mins, instead of 17.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:26 pm

Tom C -- good one.

While I'm a Md fan, I haven't heard much good about EJ..maybe Greg Wms could get him to come around..he's still young. Maybe he didn't get "coached up" in Minn his first few years.

While I really like Merriman I think I would trade our #9 for the Vikes 2nd first rounder and their 2nd rounder. Then trade Gardner for a 3rd or 4th rounder (somewhere between our 3rd and 4th round picks).

We'd have:
18th pick (from Vikes)
49th pick (from Vikes)
76th pick (Our 3rd rounder)
A Pick somewhere between 77-106 (for Gardner)
106th (our 4th rounder)
NO 5th round pick
6th round
7th round

Deal?

Tom C · Post by **Tom C** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:59 pm

I watched EJ for four years at MD. He wasn't the same in his senior season after the back injury. That said, I think he would be better in an attacking defense. Lateral movement was not his thing. In college, he was always where the ball was. The Redskins D might fit his talents better and we need a MLB.

I made a funny about the Vikings but I was wrong. They have the 7th pick not the eighth pick. That means they wouldn’t be back-to-back.

I’m not sure that a #18 and a 2nd round pick is enough for a #9 pick.

hatsOFF2gibbs · Post by **hatsOFF2gibbs** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:02 pm

THE NEWS

Buccaneers' head coach Jon Gruden continued to sing the praises of USC wide receiver Mike Williams on Thursday. "I love him as a prospect," Gruden told the St. Petersburg Times. "If you like Shaquile O'Neal, if you like power forwards that can run the floor and shoot and dunk and make big plays, you like this guy. He's got a flair about play-making." The Buccaneers hold the No. 5 pick in April's draft.

OUR VIEW

The question now is whether Williams can knock down free throws. Okay, so that won't be an issue in the NFL. The real question regarding Williams is whether he can keep his weight down, as some fear that he's a few Happy Meals shy of eating himself into becoming a tight end rather than a wideout.

www.fanball.com

That doesn't help us now does it?
We have to worry about the Buccaneers, Titans, and the Vikings. I think it's pretty clear that MWilliams is gone. I say we either pick a CB or trade down if possible.

Tom C · Post by **Tom C** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:12 pm

I'd be really surprised if we get a chance to take M. Williams. If we don't get him, I'm hoping he goes for those happy meals.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:57 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:To Cleveland: Rod Gardner and #9 pick

to Washington: #3 Pick

That would work wouldn't it?

I agree

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:02 am

John Manfreda wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:To Cleveland: Rod Gardner and #9 pick

to Washington: #3 Pick

That would work wouldn't it?

I agree

your both on crack....

hatsOFF2gibbs · Post by **hatsOFF2gibbs** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:11 am

BringThePain! wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:To Cleveland: Rod Gardner and #9 pick

to Washington: #3 Pick

That would work wouldn't it?

I agree

your both on crack....

Riverrat · Post by **Riverrat** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:24 pm

I think having good hand tight-ends can compensate for lack of size in the wide reciever position.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:28 pm

I know we're going through a slow news period at the moment, guys, but some of this trade talk really is a bit desperate.

Still, since it seems to be the only thing to do at them moment - how about trading 50-50, two plastic buckets and a small shrub (maybe one with some nice red berries on it?) to New England in exchange for some scented candles and a bicycle pump? :roll:

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Move up in Draft

Move up in Draft

Re: Move up in Draft