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

fleetus wrote:I disagree about trading up to #2. I see your logic. CJ and Russell are the top 2 most coveted players. For that very reason though, the price required to trade up will be high. Just for arguments sake, lets say we can strike a deal like you propose:

#6, 2008 1st rd, Marshall and Springs for #2

A few things will result, IMO.

Our CB situation will be below average without Springs. Losing Springs will affect our wins column more than what CJ will provide us a #2 rookie WR.

If we use the #2 to trade down, I'm not sure we'll get all of that value back. I mean, if Detroit's best trade partner is US, then how are we going to find a significantly better deal to trade down from #2???

Maybe most importantly, we would YET AGAIN, be mortgaging future draft picks. We've been playing this credit card game for a few yeaqrs where we gamble future picks away to try and find the "missing piece" for this season. I think we've proven that in these gambles, the HOUSE usually wins. We need to keep our picks and develop some of our own talent. The few draft picks we have kept are not so bad:

Sean Taylor
Chris ey
Ladell Betts
Jason Campbell
Kedrick Golston
Rocky McIntosh TBD
Carlos Rogers TBD

as opposed to the players we've traded draft picks for:

TJ Duckett
Brandon Lloyd
Portis
Brunell
Laverneas Coles
Chad Morton

out of that group, would say Portis is the lone success. Some could argue that if we'd kept Bailey instead of trading him away plus our 2nd round pick, that Betts would have developed into a fine starting RB. With the 2nd round pick we sent to Denver, they drafted Tatum Bell. So which would you rather have? Tatum Bell/Betts AND Bailey OR Portis/Betts?

Anyway, hindsight is 20/20. Just trying to point out that these gambles seem to be somewhat low percentage successes. The draft allows you to pay less for a player initially, groom them into your system, putting them in backup roles for depth and allow them to PROVE their worth to you BEFORE paying them a ransom.

Not saying a trade up cannot work. Just that it would be very tricky to get proper value out of it.

1niksder wrote:I'd trade down while the Cards were on the Clock, would trade out of the top 13 but not below #19. That would allow for more picks (550-775 pts. worth), the trading partner would depend on who's available and which teams have a need. trading down to 10-12 wouldn't get a second rounder and that's what I'd be after. Wouldn't want to go below 19 because then other NFC East team will pick before us. Wouldn't mind picking up a 3rd round also, trading down again would be a option if it invovled another second rounder and a 3rd for the swap. Not likely but that would be my goal. Would do anything until draft day though.

1niksder wrote:

1niksder wrote:I'd trade down while the Cards were on the Clock, would trade out of the top 13 but not below #19. That would allow for more picks (550-775 pts. worth), the trading partner would depend on who's available and which teams have a need. trading down to 10-12 wouldn't get a second rounder and that's what I'd be after. Wouldn't want to go below 19 because then other NFC East team will pick before us. Wouldn't mind picking up a 3rd round also, trading down again would be a option if it invovled another second rounder and a 3rd for the swap. Not likely but that would be my goal. Would do anything until draft day though.

Now I might want out of the first round all together . So I'll call the the team that's doing the opposite of what it normally does (not the Skins) New England would have to give up A.) their early 1st rd. a 4th and the same thing next year, B.) their 2nd #1 a third rounder and next years 1st and 2nd. I don't think they'll go for that so I'll offer the 6th pick our 5th rounder (#143rd) and Springs for both their 1st rd picks (#24th & #28th) their 4th rounder (#127th) plus Asanti Samuels.

Send the #28th pick to Oakland for Burgess and a their late 3rd (#99), send that pick and the other 1st to the Bucs for both of the second round picks (#35 & #64), send the late #2 to Carolina for Jenkins, and take the best player available at #35

1niksder wrote:

1niksder wrote:I'd trade down while the Cards were on the Clock, would trade out of the top 13 but not below #19. That would allow for more picks (550-775 pts. worth), the trading partner would depend on who's available and which teams have a need. trading down to 10-12 wouldn't get a second rounder and that's what I'd be after. Wouldn't want to go below 19 because then other NFC East team will pick before us. Wouldn't mind picking up a 3rd round also, trading down again would be a option if it invovled another second rounder and a 3rd for the swap. Not likely but that would be my goal. Would do anything until draft day though.

Now I might want out of the first round all together . So I'll call the the team that's doing the opposite of what it normally does (not the Skins) New England would have to give up A.) their early 1st rd. a 4th and the same thing next year, B.) their 2nd #1 a third rounder and next years 1st and 2nd. I don't think they'll go for that so I'll offer the 6th pick our 5th rounder (#143rd) and Springs for both their 1st rd picks (#24th & #28th) their 4th rounder (#127th) plus Asanti Samuels.

Send the #28th pick to Oakland for Burgess and a their late 3rd (#99), send that pick and the other 1st to the Bucs for both of the second round picks (#35 & #64), send the late #2 to Carolina for Jenkins, and take the best player available at #35

PulpExposure wrote:

1niksder wrote:

1niksder wrote:I'd trade down while the Cards were on the Clock, would trade out of the top 13 but not below #19. That would allow for more picks (550-775 pts. worth), the trading partner would depend on who's available and which teams have a need. trading down to 10-12 wouldn't get a second rounder and that's what I'd be after. Wouldn't want to go below 19 because then other NFC East team will pick before us. Wouldn't mind picking up a 3rd round also, trading down again would be a option if it invovled another second rounder and a 3rd for the swap. Not likely but that would be my goal. Would do anything until draft day though.

Now I might want out of the first round all together . So I'll call the the team that's doing the opposite of what it normally does (not the Skins) New England would have to give up A.) their early 1st rd. a 4th and the same thing next year, B.) their 2nd #1 a third rounder and next years 1st and 2nd. I don't think they'll go for that so I'll offer the 6th pick our 5th rounder (#143rd) and Springs for both their 1st rd picks (#24th & #28th) their 4th rounder (#127th) plus Asanti Samuels.

Send the #28th pick to Oakland for Burgess and a their late 3rd (#99), send that pick and the other 1st to the Bucs for both of the second round picks (#35 & #64), send the late #2 to Carolina for Jenkins, and take the best player available at #35

Madden football trade aside, let me ask you this.

Can we afford to take the cap hit from trading Springs, and taking on Samuels (and giving him the monster contract he wants) and Jenkins, who sits on a 4.5 mill salcap number?

I kind of doubt it.

BUCS-LIONS WORKING ON A DEAL

Our friends at WDAE in Tampa have tipped us off to a rumor that we're in the process of confirming that the Lions have traded the No. 2 overall pick in the 2007 draft to the Buccaneers for the No. 4 overall pick and defensive end Simeon Rice.

A league source tells us that, while there is not a done deal, the talks are occurring regarding a flip-flop of No. 2 and No. 4. It's not presently clear whether Rice is part of the deal.

The Bucs presumably want to get in position to take receiver Calvin Johnson with the No. 2 selection, if the Raiders don't take Johnson with the No. 1.

The real intrigue on this one arises if the Raiders take Johnson. Would the Bucs then pick quarterback JaMarcus Russell or Brady Quinn? Or would they take left tackle Joe Thomas?

Recently, the Bucs conducted on-campus workouts with Johnson, Russell, and Quinn. They didn't include Thomas in the tour, and we've seen some evidence in the Tampa press of possible efforts by the team to bad-mouth Thomas, possibly in the hopes that he'll be available at No. 4.

It could be that the Lions are willing to make the deal to go down to No. 4 because they think they could still get Thomas at that spot. But if Johnson is the No. 1 pick, Thomas might be long gone by the time the Lions use the pick currently held by Tampa.

BUCS-LIONS DEAL DEAD, FOR NOW

A source with knowledge of the situation tells us that the trade talks between the Lions and Buccaneers for a flip-flop of the No. 2 overall pick and the No. 4 overall pick are dead. For now.

But the source says that the Lions also are talking to the Redskins and Falcons about a possible trade of first-round, top-ten picks. And the Cardinals (we're told) contacted the Lions for the first time on Wednesday to discuss the spot.

The Redskins hold the No. 6 pick, the Falcons hold the No. 8 pick, and the Cardinals hold the No. 5 pick.

The source also says that the Lions are confused by the Redskins' interest in moving up, since Washington doesn't have many other 2007 picks to offer. In addition to the sixth overall selection, the 'Skins have a fifth-round pick, two sixth-round picks, and a seventh-round selection.

We're also told that the Lions prefer to make the trade before the draft. We recently heard that if no trade is accomplished before noon on April 28 and if receiver Calvin Johnson is available at No. 2, the Lions would select him and then trade his rights to the highest bidder. Apparently, the Lions have figured out that actually drafting Johnson and then sending him to someone else would open the organization up to plenty of criticism if Johnson becomes a superstar (especially in light of the team's past misadventures with top-ten receivers). It would be far better to get out of the No. 2 spot before the picks start to fly.

rustedrootdown wrote:Then trade our second overall and Shawn Springs to New England for Samuels and their two first rounders. [/Madden Simulation]

1niksder wrote:The latest rumor has the Lions sending the #21st pick along with their #34th pick and the #s 66th and 70th picks to Washington for the Skins #6 and #143rd (5th rd.). This would happen if the Faiders go QB, Denver would give the 21st, 56th, and 70th this year and next years no.1 to Det. for the #2 and they'll pick Johnson.

fleetus wrote:

1niksder wrote:The latest rumor has the Lions sending the #21st pick along with their #34th pick and the #s 66th and 70th picks to Washington for the Skins #6 and #143rd (5th rd.). This would happen if the Faiders go QB, Denver would give the 21st, 56th, and 70th this year and next years no.1 to Det. for the #2 and they'll pick Johnson.

So what are the Skins getting out of this?

If I were Detroit, I'd stick with trading down to #4 and drafting Joe Thomas.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

fleetus wrote:

1niksder wrote:The latest rumor has the Lions sending the #21st pick along with their #34th pick and the #s 66th and 70th picks to Washington for the Skins #6 and #143rd (5th rd.). This would happen if the Faiders go QB, Denver would give the 21st, 56th, and 70th this year and next years no.1 to Det. for the #2 and they'll pick Johnson.

So what are the Skins getting out of this?

If I were Detroit, I'd stick with trading down to #4 and drafting Joe Thomas.

I realize we get a 2nd and 2 3rds to drop from 6 to 21, but that's a long way to drop in the first round to get it. I'm of a mind that you take premier players and build around them to go to Super Bowls, not a bunch of adequate ones. I'd like to trade down in the top 10 and take a DL, but not to 21.

Mursilis wrote:I don't know - New England has been pretty successful without a bunch of 'superstars'. I'd argue only Tom Brady qualifies as a superstar on that team, and the rest of those guys are merely pretty good. I'd be very tempted to drop from 6 to 21 for a 2, and 2 3s. That's of course assuming you have enough faith in the personnel department to find some good prospects to spend those picks on.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Mursilis wrote:I don't know - New England has been pretty successful without a bunch of 'superstars'. I'd argue only Tom Brady qualifies as a superstar on that team, and the rest of those guys are merely pretty good. I'd be very tempted to drop from 6 to 21 for a 2, and 2 3s. That's of course assuming you have enough faith in the personnel department to find some good prospects to spend those picks on.

We should do the trade because of New England?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Mursilis wrote:I don't know - New England has been pretty successful without a bunch of 'superstars'. I'd argue only Tom Brady qualifies as a superstar on that team, and the rest of those guys are merely pretty good. I'd be very tempted to drop from 6 to 21 for a 2, and 2 3s. That's of course assuming you have enough faith in the personnel department to find some good prospects to spend those picks on.

We should do the trade because of New England?

Mursilis wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Mursilis wrote:I don't know - New England has been pretty successful without a bunch of 'superstars'. I'd argue only Tom Brady qualifies as a superstar on that team, and the rest of those guys are merely pretty good. I'd be very tempted to drop from 6 to 21 for a 2, and 2 3s. That's of course assuming you have enough faith in the personnel department to find some good prospects to spend those picks on.

We should do the trade because of New England?

Uh, sure. That's exactly what I'm thinking. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Giibs won three SB with a bunch of good players and just a few great players. Right now he has the few great players, but he doesn't have the group of good players behind them.

I'll put it another way. He has about the same amount of grade A players, but he is real thin right now at the grade B type players. This team could really use a late firat round pick, a second and 2 high thirds more than it could use a top ten pick! We have enough play makers we just need a bunch of very good play stoppers. Lets face it we need two starting DL, a starting safety, a CB, a starting guard, some more depth at OL, and depth at TE and WR.

I would use those four first day picks on two DL and any combo of OG, S, CB, WR, or TE.

Mursilis wrote:I would use those four first day picks on two DL and any combo of OG, S, CB, WR, or TE.