Roscoe Parrish to Skins..?

jeremyroyce · Post by **jeremyroyce** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:23 pm

Hey guys I found this on another site and I didn't know if I should put this in Hogwash or Around the League since it does talk about the Redskins I decided to put it in Hogwash. Please let me know if I put in the wrong section.
thank you

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/sh ... p?t=353186

Bills likely not done dealing

Friday, April 17, 2009

The trade of Jason Peters doesn't put the Buffalo Bills in the market for a left tackle. Langston Walker will move from right tackle to the left side of the line that Peters is being shipped to Philadelphia.

With their first pick (No. 11), the Bills are expected to select a defensive player, most likely a pass-rusher or linebacker, in the upcoming NFL draft. With the No. 28 pick, they can zero in on right tackle candidates.

Don't think that the Bills are done with trades. They continue to shop wide receiver Roscoe Parrish, and a natural fit for him would be the Redskins. Ideally, the Bills would like to get a fourth-round pick for Parrish, but the odds favor them receiving a fifth-rounder. Expect something to get done with Parrish either before or during the draft.

-John Clayton

What do you guys think of this?

ArlingtonSkinsFan · Post by **ArlingtonSkinsFan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:34 pm

If it's for depth, I think a fifth rounder is reasonable. He certainly won't compete for a starting job, although his speed would be beneficial if we put him in the slot. Maybe as a kick returner?? if we signed him, with Dorsey and Alridge already on board, we might actually be able to produce a pretty nice competition for kick/punt returning duties in 09...

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:27 pm

I enjoyed watching Parrish play in college, he was a very exciting player. However, he's been somewhat of a disappointment since he joined the NFL. He's very quick, but he's another smallish type of receiver at only 5'9. He's had more fumbles than TD's in the NFL. He's gotten better each year as a returner, but giving up a 5th rounder for a kick returner seems pricey. I think Parrish would probably be a petter option at PR, but I think ARE is a better option at the slot WR position.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:44 pm

I don't expect this to happen at all.

I do think Parrish is one of the best and most explosive returners in the league and think he would be a big improvement over Randle El at the return position.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:28 pm

I like him as a returner. He can also take Rock's slot as KR, too, since we showed last year we have no itention of letting Rock in the offenseive backfield.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:32 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:I like him as a returner. He can also take Rock's slot as KR, too, since we showed last year we have no itention of letting Rock in the offenseive backfield.

That's probably a good thing. I can recall two things about Rock running the ball; his monster game against St. Louis in 2007, and that he has a propensity for fumbling the ball in backbreaking ways (I remember one fumble of his that the Giants returned for 80 yards a few years ago also).

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:36 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I like him as a returner. He can also take Rock's slot as KR, too, since we showed last year we have no itention of letting Rock in the offenseive backfield.

That's probably a good thing. I can recall two things about Rock running the ball; his monster game against St. Louis in 2007, and that he fumbles the ball (most notably, the spine-breaking fumble against the Broncos a few years ago).

I mean, we picked up the TTB....

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:39 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I like him as a returner. He can also take Rock's slot as KR, too, since we showed last year we have no itention of letting Rock in the offenseive backfield.

That's probably a good thing. I can recall two things about Rock running the ball; his monster game against St. Louis in 2007, and that he fumbles the ball (most notably, the spine-breaking fumble against the Broncos a few years ago).

I mean, we picked up the TTB....

Yeah I know. And he was a total zero...

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:26 pm

Jake wrote:I don't expect this to happen at all.

I do think Parrish is one of the best and most explosive returners in the league and think he would be a big improvement over Randle El at the return position.

I completely agree. I just don't see him getting traded to us, but I would love to see us have a great returner. Anyone but ARE...

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:27 pm

no way...the last thing we need is another midget wr...

I heard a report last year that said one of Campbell's issues was having small targets and not being able to find them...Parrish is a squirt. I'd rather see us sign Ronald Curry as a tall WR for the redzone.

Just because he's from the U Clayton thinks we're the most likely destination...jeez.

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:43 pm

fredp45 wrote:no way...the last thing we need is another midget wr...

I heard a report last year that said one of Campbell's issues was having small targets and not being able to find them...Parrish is a squirt. I'd rather see us sign Ronald Curry as a tall WR for the redzone.

Just because he's from the U Clayton thinks we're the most likely destination...jeez.

Lets say that Kelly and Thomas show us that they are good and they get the 2nd and 3rd WR spots (I'm guessing Santana will keep the 1 spot no matter what). Then, if this happens, it would be ARE and him fighting for the 4th WR spot. So at best he would be the 4th WR. So we wouldn't have to worry about him being on the field a lot as a WR. I think the only purpose of making this trade would be to get a good PR/KR.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 am

Fact is that Moss is a #2 WR - we have to get a #1 - using Moss as a #1 has been a matter of necessity but we need to get him into the #2 spot.

IF they bring in Parrish it surely is as a returner and not as a primary WR

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:18 am

SkinsJock wrote:Fact is that Moss is a #2 WR - we have to get a #1 - using Moss as a #1 has been a matter of necessity but we need to get him into the #2 spot.

What do you mean by that? The #2 spot? Where exactly is that?

I understand what you're saying, but my point is, regardless of whether Moss is dubbed the #1, #2 or #3, they move him around all over the formation all the time. He lines up wide, he lines up in the slot and is motioned quite often. Zorn moved him around quite a bit last year. Hopefully Thomas can step up this year. He certainly has the speed and the size. If Thomas, Kelly, Cool

ey and Davis get more involved, which I have to think they will, that should limit the double and triple teams applied to Moss.

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:27 am

SkinsFreak wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Fact is that Moss is a #2 WR - we have to get a #1 - using Moss as a #1 has been a matter of necessity but we need to get him into the #2 spot.

What do you mean by that? The #2 spot? Where exactly is that?

I understand what you're saying, but my point is, regardless of whether Moss is dubbed the #1, #2 or #3, they move him around all over the formation all the time. He lines up wide, he lines up in the slot and is motioned quite often. Zorn moved him around quite a bit last year. Hopefully Thomas can step up this year. He certainly has the speed and the size. If Thomas, Kelly, ey and Davis get more involved, which I have to think they will, that should limit the double and triple teams applied to Moss.

I don't really think it matters what #WR Moss is as long as there is a good receiver on the other side of him. That will help him out a lot.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:42 am

MDSKINSFAN wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Fact is that Moss is a #2 WR - we have to get a #1 - using Moss as a #1 has been a matter of necessity but we need to get him into the #2 spot.

What do you mean by that? The #2 spot? Where exactly is that?

I understand what you're saying, but my point is, regardless of whether Moss is dubbed the #1, #2 or #3, they move him around all over the formation all the time. He lines up wide, he lines up in the slot and is motioned quite often. Zorn moved him around quite a bit last year. Hopefully Thomas can step up this year. He certainly has the speed and the size. If Thomas, Kelly, ey and Davis get more involved, which I have to think they will, that should limit the double and triple teams applied to Moss.

I don't really think what #WR Moss is as long as there is a good receiver on the other side of him. That will help him out a lot.

Agreed 100% and was exactly my point. A receiving threat from another player should lesson the pressure applied to Moss. To return to the thread topic, I don't believe Parrish would garner enough respect at the WR position to free up Moss.

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:18 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:
MDSKINSFAN wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Fact is that Moss is a #2 WR - we have to get a #1 - using Moss as a #1 has been a matter of necessity but we need to get him into the #2 spot.

What do you mean by that? The #2 spot? Where exactly is that?

I understand what you're saying, but my point is, regardless of whether Moss is dubbed the #1, #2 or #3, they move him around all over the formation all the time. He lines up wide, he lines up in the slot and is motioned quite often. Zorn moved him around quite a bit last year. Hopefully Thomas can step up this year. He certainly has the speed and the size. If Thomas, Kelly, ey and Davis get more involved, which I have to think they will, that should limit the double and triple teams applied to Moss.

I don't really think it matters what #WR Moss is as long as there is a good receiver on the other side of him. That will help him out a lot.

Agreed 100% and was exactly my point. A receiving threat from another player should lesson the pressure applied to Moss. To return to the thread topic, I don't believe Parrish would garner enough respect at the WR position to free up Moss.

No he wouldn't. I believe that he plays most if not all of his snaps at WR in Buffalo in the slot, and will play less with T.O. on the team, and if Thomas and Kelly step up which I think they will he wouldn't even be in the lineup.

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:20 pm

if he does come here at least it would allow ARE to focus on routs and precision in his catching. not having to think about returning all the time would give him a chance to improve his game.

NJ-SKINS-FAN · Post by **NJ-SKINS-FAN** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:29 pm

does vinny get a bonus for collecting guys from the U?

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:41 pm

I would have no problem trading a 5th rounder for Parrish. He has lead the NFL in punt return average each of the last two seasons. We spent a 6th rounder on a punter that we cut last season so why not trade a late pick for a player that is one of the best at his position and will actually contribute.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:10 pm

For those that are interested, we do not need Parrish as a WR - he might be OK for depth or to help out as the PR or KR but not as a WR.

Moss would benefit as our second receiver if we have a decent primary target. This is typically referred to as a #2 WR - IF we have a decent #1 WR we could then see a lot more production out of Moss and the rest of the passing game ....... just trying to clarify for those that want to try and defend the ineffectiveness of the Redskins' passing game last year - actually we did not have one, so please don't complain about what you do not have :wink:

I'm looking forward to a really great passing attack here this year, aren't you :lol:

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:01 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Moss would benefit as our second receiver if we have a decent primary target. This is typically referred to as a #2 WR - IF we have a decent #1 WR we could then see a lot more production out of Moss and the rest of the passing game ....... just trying to clarify for those that want to try and defend the ineffectiveness of the Redskins' passing game last year - actually we did not have one, so please don't complain about what you do not have

Alright, I see the confusion now.

The terms "#1, #2 and #3" receivers are primarily used by the media and fans, which they use as a rating system to grade the receivers from best to worst, if you will. I think that is what you're referring to when you call Moss a #2 receiver.

Teams and coaches use the letters X, Y and Z to identify where the receivers line up in the formation from left to right. Sometimes to simplify it, they also call them 1, 2 and 3. But this has to do with where they line up, which is what I was referring to and what I thought you meant by Moss being a #2 receiver... to which I responded by saying they move Moss around the formation.

Moss has been our primary target because he's been our best WR. Defenses recognize the threat Moss possesses and game-plan to stop him with double and triple coverages. So I think everyone would agree that this offense needs more weapons in the passing game to take the heat off of Moss.

I don't see anyone defending the passing game from last year, SkinsJock. But I do recognize that some feel it has only one way to go, and that's up. Before last years draft, Thomas was graded by most draft gurus as the top rated WR, primarily due to his combination of speed, size and athleticism. I honestly believe Thomas, Kelly and Davis will help alleviate the double-teams applied to Moss.

But you're right, Parrish is not that guy.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:11 pm

Thanks SF - that was all I was trying to say - I would like to see this passing offense be as effective as possible and to me that means that Thomas OR Kelly as the primary threat and then everything else becomes a lot more effective. I'm actually very hopeful that all 3 of the top picks from last year can be big contributors this year BUT Parrish is not a part of our passing game in my opinion :wink:

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:44 am

SkinsJock wrote:Thanks SF - that was all I was trying to say - I would like to see this passing offense be as effective as possible and to me that means that Thomas OR Kelly as the primary threat and then everything else becomes a lot more effective. I'm actually very hopeful that all 3 of the top picks from last year can be big contributors this year BUT Parrish is not a part of our passing game in my opinion

Agreed.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:59 pm

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ock-again/

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:00 pm

Jake wrote:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/21/roscoe-parrish-is-on-the-trade-block-again/

Don't think it flies. With R Thomas going down, I think we have other priorities to worry about.