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

RayNAustin wrote:No, MR. Gazoo I see no parallel in that analogy

RayNAustin wrote:I merely used Reggie White as an example

OMG you are so funny Ray. THIS IS THE POINT!!!!! Debate by example. OK, Ray, your argument is we need to look at what one guy did as a counter to the reality that most DL's are almost done in their late 20s. So my counter Ray is John Elway. He was the #1 pick in the draft, Ray. You're advocating we give him up. Bradford could be John Elway and then we're totally screwed for passing on him. Thanks for destroying the Redskins, Ray.

RayNAustin wrote:if course I could have just as easily used Bruce Smith as an example, too

Ut oh, increasing the stakes. Now you're using debate by two examples. OK, Ray, I got Peyton Manning. Bradford could be Peyton Manning, and you're giving him up to keep a 28 year old DL and a QB who sucks.

RayNAustin wrote:as well as several others that make it past 30.

Ouch, now the unnamed "several others." Let's pass on the #1 pick in the draft because of two guys we can name and several others we can't. I'll go with Troy Aikman and Matt Stafford.

You really are funny Ray. I enjoy these so much...

STOP IT KAZ! - you're cracking me up

got to agree with Kaz on this - don't think it's going to happen but we would make that trade in a heartbeat AND take Bradford

Devaney & the Rams are not doing that IMO

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:No, MR. Gazoo I see no parallel in that analogy

RayNAustin wrote:I merely used Reggie White as an example

OMG you are so funny Ray. THIS IS THE POINT!!!!! Debate by example. OK, Ray, your argument is we need to look at what one guy did as a counter to the reality that most DL's are almost done in their late 20s. So my counter Ray is John Elway. He was the #1 pick in the draft, Ray. You're advocating we give him up. Bradford could be John Elway and then we're totally screwed for passing on him. Thanks for destroying the Redskins, Ray.

RayNAustin wrote:if course I could have just as easily used Bruce Smith as an example, too

Ut oh, increasing the stakes. Now you're using debate by two examples. OK, Ray, I got Peyton Manning. Bradford could be Peyton Manning, and you're giving him up to keep a 28 year old DL and a QB who sucks.

RayNAustin wrote:as well as several others that make it past 30.

Ouch, now the unnamed "several others." Let's pass on the #1 pick in the draft because of two guys we can name and several others we can't. I'll go with Troy Aikman and Matt Stafford.

You really are funny Ray. I enjoy these so much...

I'm so glad. How's your math Gazoo?

1 * = Starter

2 ** = Quality Starter

3 *** = Star Quality

***Peyton Manning - 1st pick
David Carr - 1st pick
Tim Couch - 1st pick
Michael Vick - 1st pick
**Eli Manning - 1st pick
JaMarcus Russell - 1st pick
*Alex Smith - 1st pick
**Carson Palmer - 1st pick

Being very, very kind and giving Eli a marginal thumbs up, and Palmer, with only one true star ... and don't give me that Michael Vick story .. he sucked as a QB and still does.

3 Wins 5 Busts - 37.5% Success Rate 12% chance of being a Star

_____________________________________________
Ryan Leaf - 2nd pick
***Donovan McNabb - 2nd pick
Akili Smith - 3rd pick
*Vince Young - 3rd pic
Joey Harrington - 3rd pick
***Phillip Rivers - 4th pick
Bryon Leftwich - 7th pick
*Matt Leinert - 10th pick

This is 2 wins and 6 busts. 25% success rate 25% Chance for a Star
____________________________________________

**Jay Cutler - 11th pick
Duante Culpepper - 11th pick
**Ben Roethlisberger - 11th pick
Cade McNown - 12th pick
Chad Pennington - 18th pick
Kyle Boller - 19th pick
Rex Grossman - 22nd pick
J.P. Losman - 22nd pick
Brady Quinn - 22nd pick
***Aaron Rodgers - 24th pick
Jason Campbell - 25th pick
Patrick Ramsey - 32nd pick

3 wins 9 busts 25% success rate 8% chance of becoming a Star
____________________________________________

4 True Star Quality QB's

4 more Quality Starters

20 busts 17 of which are no longer Starting QBs

I'd say the odds a SLIGHTLY against your boy Bradford becoming Peyton Manning ... 14 % FAT chance

Quality Starter - 28% chance

Bust - 72% chance

Is this comprehensive enough for you?

Obviously you put some time into that analysis but your evaluation of some players makes zero sense. Culpepper a bust? I don't think so. Leftwich and Pennington certainly weren't busts either. Stars? no, but certainly quality players.

Campbell is signing a tender on Monday at the latest....

Restricted free agent Jason Campbell is expected to sign his tender offer by Monday at the latest.

As we saw with Seattle's Rob Sims swap with the Lions, signing the tender may be merely a precursor to a trade. If Campbell and his agent can't find a landing spot, he'll be welcomed back to D.C. as Donovan McNabb's backup

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... _teams=WAS

RayNAustin wrote:

kaz wrote:You really are funny Ray. I enjoy these so much...

I'm so glad. How's your math Gazoo?

What are you? Eight years old? Is this supposed to offend me? OK, Ray, just for you...

Please stop making my name sound funny, Ray, sob, sob, sob. I'm Kazoo, not Gazoo, please stop Ray. I can't eat, I can't sleep, my wife left me, my kids won't talk to me, my dog died and my truck broke down all because I can't stop talking about Ray calling me Gazoo. Please oh please Ray, have pity, stop calling me Gazoo!!! Sob, sob, sob.

RayNAustin wrote:1 * = Starter

2 ** = Quality Starter

3 *** = Star Quality

***Peyton Manning - 1st pick
David Carr - 1st pick
Tim Couch - 1st pick
Michael Vick - 1st pick
**Eli Manning - 1st pick
JaMarcus Russell - 1st pick
*Alex Smith - 1st pick
**Carson Palmer - 1st pick...

Let's recap the debate so far.

Kaz: Most DE's careers end in their late 20s.

Ray: Oh yeah, I can name one who didn't, bam. In fact, I can name two who didn't. And I'm pretty sure there are some others I won't name. Proving you wrong, bam!

Kaz: OK, doesn't counter my argument, so let's play your game. Here are a few QB's picked #1 who are franchise QB's...

Ray: Oh yeah, well I can think of #1 QB's who are not franchise QB's, so that proves you wrong, nanny nanny boo boo.

Now Ray, logically if I follow the silly debate we're having to the next logical step, what list would I provide you next? This is a simple question Ray. You named DL's who fit your agenda. I named QB's who fit mine. You named QB's who didn't fit my agenda. What is my next logical move in the game we're playing? In fact, let me give you a multiple choice here. Which of these would I name next?

1) More franchise QBs picked #1
2) Oprah Winfrey
3) A list of DL's who's careers ended in their 20s
4) A Philly Cheesesteak sandwich

Cue the Jeopardy music...

What's even funnier Ray is this statement:

RayNAustin wrote:3 Wins 5 Busts - 37.5% Success Rate 12% chance of being a Star

So let's analyze this one Ray. My point was that most DL's are ending their career in their 20s. You came back with that you could name two who didn't, bam, you win.

So I named some #1 QB's who were franchise QB's. What did you come back with? The majority aren't!!!!! Why do you get majority when it suits you and naming one when it suits you? I don't get either. You are so funny. Rock on my man!

Bam

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:1 pick for two players isn't a problem for the skins when they already have a starting QB and a potential backup in Grossman. We are looking to dump JC anyway. Besides we gave up 2 PICKS FOR ONE PLAYER in McNabb.

Right, we gave up two picks for one player, and now you want us to give up two players for one pick, further limiting our ability build through the draft.

What? How is trading players for picks not "building through the draft"?

Also, do you think that the holder of the #1 pick could potentially trade that pick for either 2 firsts (for a team desperate for Bradford) or a first and second? I do. It has been done in the past.

Not sure what your reasoning was on that post.

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:1 pick for two players isn't a problem for the skins when they already have a starting QB and a potential backup in Grossman. We are looking to dump JC anyway. Besides we gave up 2 PICKS FOR ONE PLAYER in McNabb.

Right, we gave up two picks for one player, and now you want us to give up two players for one pick, further limiting our ability build through the draft.

What? How is trading players for picks [not "picks," a single pick"] not "building through the draft"?

Also, do you think that the holder of the #1 pick could potentially trade that pick for either 2 firsts (for a team desperate for Bradford) or a first and second? I do. It has been done in the past.

Not sure what your reasoning was on that post.

You don't understand the word "limiting?" Or have you not read where I said 3 times previously that the deal only makes sense if you could trade down for more picks? Is your understanding of the English language really that bad?

Am I reading this right .....

The suggestion is that the Rams give us the number 1 pick overall and in return we give them a guy who throws his rattle out the pram when things dont go his way, plus a backup QB and we still retain our number 4 pick overall?

has cerrato joined the Rams FO or something?

I wish

Manchester_Redskin wrote:Am I reading this right .....

The suggestion is that the Rams give us the number 1 pick overall and in return we give them a guy who throws his rattle out the pram when things dont go his way, plus a backup QB and we still retain our number 4 pick overall?

has cerrato joined the Rams FO or something?

I wish

"I like to push the pram a-lot!"

Manchester_Redskin wrote:Am I reading this right .....

The suggestion is that the Rams give us the number 1 pick overall and in return we give them a guy who throws his rattle out the pram when things dont go his way, plus a backup QB and we still retain our number 4 pick overall?

has cerrato joined the Rams FO or something?

I wish

Apparently the consensus of the experts here view Haynesworth as some boat anchor rather than the most dominant DT in the NFL currently playing, and are ignoring the financial aspect in this vert hypothetical "deal". And I suppose you'd have to look deeper than the surface to recognize that securing a player of his calibre (a player we just signed last year to a 100 Mil contract with what 40 Mil guaranteed?) for 16 Mil over three years with no signing bonus, with another 2 year option at the end could be worth a great deal to a team starving for talent on both sides of the ball.

The Rams are far more talent depleted than the Redskins, so even though there is no cap this year, there will be the following year, and it's a pretty good bet that they're going to have to pony up a lot of cash for a lot of players to rebuild that team.

The second aspect that needs to be considered is whether or not the Rams are dead set on taking Bradford or not. If they are, then this hypothetical deal wouldn't make sense. But if they aren't ... and they are considering taking Suh with the 1st pick, and taking McCoy with the 2nd (as some suggest), then the deal makes a lot more sense.

Is the young Suh a better talent building choice long term? Yes. But, that 1st overall pick is going to cost big time money ... probably 4 or 5 times as much as what Haynesworth's current money due him over the next three years. That's a huge consideration for a team with lots of holes to fill, and not the the kind of deep pockets the Redskins have.

The Campbell portion of the deal fills in the veteran QB need they have on the cheap also ... that could serve as the interim answer at QB while getting a rookie like McCoy prep time (1 -2 years).

Again, if they are married to the idea of taking Bradford, then no such deal would make sense. But if they are considering a D-lineman as the 1st pick, such a deal makes a great deal of sense .. filling two holes with one pick at 1/4 the cost, giving them a lot more money available to fill other needs.

There are still a lot of people that think Jason Campbell is a viable starting QB who simply had his hands tied with the instability of the organization, and a lousy o-line, (that would not include me), so he could be considered the favorite projected starter for a team like the Rams.

Two veteran players and first day starters for about 7-8 mil a year, in exchange for one "potential" impact player that's gong to cost 60-70 Mil with 30 mil guaranteed before he ever plays a single down? You have to factor in the finances, especially with a team with so many needs.

This hypothetical deal isn't nearly as far fetched as you want to paint it.

As for the Redskins, they absolutely must get a blue chip OT in the draft. If Shannahan believes Bradford is the "franchise QB" that many feel he is, they NEED to get another top 7 pick in order to get both Bradford and a OT ... so I could see them including another pick in such a deal ... like next year's 1, or 2, with Carriker coming to the Skins ....

Haynesworth, Campbell + next year's 1 or 2, for the Rams 1st pick this year and Adam Carriker.

It doesn't make sense for the Skins though. Why waste Haynesworth and JC17's value on Bradford and a contract that will cost more than McNabb's when we just traded for McNabb? At #4 we will get either Okung or one of the two DT's. McCoy and Suh could play end in a 3-4. (like Haynesworth would probably do if he ever showed up to practice)

No, I see JC goin to Buffalo, STL or Oakland for a mid round pick. I se Haynesworth either swallowing his pride and showing up for camp this Friday, or being traded to Detroit, TB or Tenn for a 1st round pick.

fleetus wrote:It doesn't make sense for the Skins though. Why waste Haynesworth and JC17's value on Bradford and a contract that will cost more than McNabb's when we just traded for McNabb? At #4 we will get either Okung or one of the two DT's. McCoy and Suh could play end in a 3-4. (like Haynesworth would probably do if he ever showed up to practice)

No, I see JC goin to Buffalo, STL or Oakland for a mid round pick. I se Haynesworth either swallowing his pride and showing up for camp this Friday, or being traded to Detroit, TB or Tenn for a 1st round pick.

First, I never suggested we take Bradford if we got that deal ... I'd be more inclined to take the two best OL with the 1st & 4th picks, as I originally stated.

fleetus wrote:No, I see JC goin to Buffalo, STL or Oakland for a mid round pick

I think the reason JC signed the tender was to call our bluff. We're not going to carry his salary into the season, which means we cut him and he can go wherever he wants, work out his own deal and the team doesn't need to pay us squat. All he needs is patience. Clearly the plan is McNabb, Grossman and a baby QB. We know that, JC knows that and anyone who would trade us for him knows that. It's just a waiting game now.

RayNAustin wrote:

fleetus wrote:It doesn't make sense for the Skins though. Why waste Haynesworth and JC17's value on Bradford and a contract that will cost more than McNabb's when we just traded for McNabb? At #4 we will get either Okung or one of the two DT's. McCoy and Suh could play end in a 3-4. (like Haynesworth would probably do if he ever showed up to practice)

No, I see JC goin to Buffalo, STL or Oakland for a mid round pick. I se Haynesworth either swallowing his pride and showing up for camp this Friday, or being traded to Detroit, TB or Tenn for a 1st round pick.

First, I never suggested we take Bradford if we got that deal ... I'd be more inclined to take the two best OL with the 1st & 4th picks, as I originally stated.

If that Rams would make the trade, then clearly someone would give us better value for the #1 pick then our using #1 and #4 on guys worth #4 and #10.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Obviously you put some time into that analysis but your evaluation of some players makes zero sense. Culpepper a bust? I don't think so. Leftwich and Pennington certainly weren't busts either. Stars? no, but certainly quality players.

Well, my personal view is my personal view, and you are free to disagree.

Culpepper was a flash in the pan, and had a couple of good years in Minny, but what happened? I consider it less in terms of a total bust, and more in terms of "not the franchise player they invested in and hoped for" kind of thing. Leftwich is a similar case .... Pennington ... there is a case for considering him a success, so I could go along with that.

But Leftwich and Culpepper are for all intents and purposes, Jason Campbell.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

fleetus wrote:It doesn't make sense for the Skins though. Why waste Haynesworth and JC17's value on Bradford and a contract that will cost more than McNabb's when we just traded for McNabb? At #4 we will get either Okung or one of the two DT's. McCoy and Suh could play end in a 3-4. (like Haynesworth would probably do if he ever showed up to practice)

No, I see JC goin to Buffalo, STL or Oakland for a mid round pick. I se Haynesworth either swallowing his pride and showing up for camp this Friday, or being traded to Detroit, TB or Tenn for a 1st round pick.

First, I never suggested we take Bradford if we got that deal ... I'd be more inclined to take the two best OL with the 1st & 4th picks, as I originally stated.

If that Rams would make the trade, then clearly someone would give us better value for the #1 pick then our using #1 and #4 on guys worth #4 and #10.

Yeah, I think you get way more value down below the top 7 or 8. Trent Williams may be a better fit than Okung with regards to Shanahan and the ZBS. Bulaga is very good. I'd love to even get Iupati, even though he is more of a guard. RT could be the winner of a Dockery, Big Mike, Hicks and Heyer competition. But I digress, I like the idea of getting more picks further down the list in trade. Even a combination of 2nd-5th round picks might be nice and then we don't have a rookie getting paid equal to the best at his position.

chiefhog44 wrote:Looks like there is some major interest from at least four teams. Hopefully we get a second rounder out of them at the least.

Buffalo, Carolina, Oakland, Jacksonville and an unknown team are interested in Jason Campbell, according to ESPN Radio 980 in Washington D.C.

It's worth noting that this is the Redskins' radio station. Campbell never appeared to be a part of the new regime's long-term plans and now they'll take whatever they can get for him. There are no surprises on this list, although Campbell would have the best chance to start in Oakland or Buffalo

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubho ... ajteam=WAS

It would be insane to take a fourth round pick for Campbell, as well as an uncalled for insult. A fourth round pick these days has about and one out of ten chance of making an NFL team, much less being a starter. It would be far better to keep him as a backup. Matter of fact, keeping him is a good idea.

RT could be the winner of a Dockery, Big Mike, Hicks and Heyer competition

All three of these are guards...one being our starting LEFT GUARD. and Heyer isn't NFL caliber at any position.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Having another 2nd rounder to replace this one would nice, but I doubt we get it out of Campbell. If we get a 3 we are lucky.

Right on!

Sometimes I think we share a brain we think so much alike.

It's sort of the other way around. We'd be lucky to get a qb as good as Campbell if we had a 3rd round pick to spend on one. Considering the overwhelming statistical evidence available, it amazes me that people think quality players can be found after round two. When it happens, it's an anomaly. Most of the late round picks will be cut in training camp even before they get a chance to scrimmage.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Having another 2nd rounder to replace this one would nice, but I doubt we get it out of Campbell. If we get a 3 we are lucky.

Right on!

Sometimes I think we share a brain we think so much alike.

It's sort of the other way around. We'd be lucky to get a qb as good as Campbell if we had a 3rd round pick to spend on one. Considering the overwhelming statistical evidence available, it amazes me that people think quality players can be found after round two. When it happens, it's an anomaly. Most of the late round picks will be cut in training camp even before they get a chance to scrimmage.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Having another 2nd rounder to replace this one would nice, but I doubt we get it out of Campbell. If we get a 3 we are lucky.

Right on!

Sometimes I think we share a brain we think so much alike.

It's sort of the other way around. We'd be lucky to get a qb as good as Campbell if we had a 3rd round pick to spend on one. Considering the overwhelming statistical evidence available, it amazes me that people think quality players can be found after round two. When it happens, it's an anomaly. Most of the late round picks will be cut in training camp even before they get a chance to scrimmage.

My point had nothing to do with that. I didn't say anything about replacing Campbell (which is already done) or the quality of a player we would get with a 2 or a 3 pick. My point was I agreed with The Hogster that we are unlikely to get a second round pick for Campbell, we'll get a 3 if we are lucky. Clearly we should take the best deal we can get as right or wrong the JC era in DC is over.

BTW, I've actually been arguing the same side as you are that you don't just go draft immediate starters outside the first round, and even in the first round it's not certain.

I don't understand the lack of interest in Campbell, as I see it, here's the list of teams that could use him:

* Arizona Cardinals
* Buffalo Bills
* Carolina Panthers
* Cleveland Browns
* Denver Broncos
* Jacksonville Jaguars
* Miami Dolphins
* Minnesota Vikings
* Oakland Raiders
* Pittsburgh Steelers
* San Francisco 49ers
* St. Louis Rams

Hopefully things heat up after the draft.

I'm beginning to get worried that we're not going to be able to offload Campbell. I'm sure management is beginning to sweat. Kind of like when you are trying to dump tickets to a game and your asking price was too high originally, and now there are no takers. Been there many times. You end up taking what you can, and that's usually very little