Page 4 of 4
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:29 am
by PulpExposure
SkinsJock wrote:fleetus wrote:SkinsJock wrote:I think that for Gil Brandt to say that in his opinion Bradford looks like he will be a very good QB is really a very big deal
I don't think that Bradford should be the #1 overall draft pick BUT I do think we should take him at 4 no matter who else is available
I also do not want to try and trade up for him either
Brandt also told Holmgren if he drafts McCoy and runs the West Coast offense, he would make them forget about Joe Montana. you have to take these comments with a grain of salt. Although, I do like McCoy quite a bit.
totally agree -
both Brandt and Holmgren also thought the Redskins should take Bradford but if he's gone we should take Okung - I like the way these guys think - almost makes me feel like I know what I'm talking about
Operative word is
almost 
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 5:32 pm
by djactionman
The only defining reason I might say that Shan would draft Colt is *because* they aren't working him out. He did that with Cutler-who would have been an elite Broncos QB, they should have never let Shan go, and never let JMcD bobble that and make that mess.
The best thing the Skins have done in a long time is hire Shanny- a new era is upon us all. This offseason is a telling thing, smart moves, brains over wallet.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:30 pm
by riggofan
djactionman wrote:This offseason is a telling thing, smart moves, brains over wallet.
Still seems to be plenty of wallet to go around too!
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:50 pm
by fleetus
As an interesting note, read this about how intelligent we skins fans are, according to Peter King.
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
The impact of this note is moot now that the Redskins have acquired McNabb, but I find it an interesting sign of an intelligent fan base. The Washington Post asked its readers last week if they favored the Redskins moving up in the draft to acquire the draft rights to Oklahoma quarterback Bradford.
In most cases, fans of teams without a certain quarterback of the future would jump at the chance to take a kid who is a legitimate franchise quarterback prospect. That's why the result of this poll surprised me. Post readers, 25,330 of them as of this weekend, were 57 percent against, 42 percent in favor. (Don't ask me why it doesn't add up to 100 percent; I'm just reading off the paper's Web site.)
Those are some mature readers who know their football, readers who are tired of an aging, leaky offensive line getting passer Jason Campbell chased all over the field. Not that GM Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan are going to pay attention to the poll, but it's interesting that a solid majority of a team's fans would rather have a tackle many of them have never heard of than a quarterback who might be a longtime Pro Bowler.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... z0kM5dwArN
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:34 pm
by SkinsJock
sorry fleetus, but there is absolutely nothing that this scum says or writes about our Redskins that really interests me in the slightest
I think this article in the post was reported earlier in this thread and maybe even by me but more in line with supporting the fact that most fans here want to get the offensive line here fixed after what we saw last year
that being said - getting a future HOF QB (which Bradford is) here would be great - just not happening this year
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:35 am
by Countertrey
SkinsJock wrote:sorry fleetus, but there is absolutely nothing that this scum says or writes about our Redskins that really interests me in the slightest
Agreed... If we're so friggin smart, why did it take him so many years to come to the same conclusion as us about Art Monk?
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:40 am
by Deadskins
Yeah, who's this guy to say we're smart? Oh wait... does this mean we shouldn't agree?
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:52 am
by langleyparkjoe
aye holdup, he said a tackle that we never heard of? so he's calling us dumb again i guess because i'm dag gone sure all of us knew who okung was
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:16 am
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:that being said - getting a future HOF QB (which Bradford is) here would be great
Well, I'll say one thing. You have a 50% chance of being right!
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:40 am
by Irn-Bru
Countertrey wrote:SkinsJock wrote:sorry fleetus, but there is absolutely nothing that this scum says or writes about our Redskins that really interests me in the slightest
Agreed... If we're so friggin smart, why did it take him so many years to come to the same conclusion as us about Art Monk?
I believe he's the guy who outright admitted that he voted for Monk just so they wouldn't have to keep debating his candidacy year after year. (It was either him or the other numnuts . . . Dr. "Z"(??))
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:23 pm
by Deadskins
Irn-Bru wrote:Countertrey wrote:SkinsJock wrote:sorry fleetus, but there is absolutely nothing that this scum says or writes about our Redskins that really interests me in the slightest
Agreed... If we're so friggin smart, why did it take him so many years to come to the same conclusion as us about Art Monk?
I believe he's the guy who outright admitted that he voted for Monk just so they wouldn't have to keep debating his candidacy year after year. (It was either him or the other numnuts . . . Dr. "Z"(??))
It was he. Dr d'Zs still voted against him.