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

Esquirekj wrote:This may have been discussed previously, but this guy is a beast and is making a LOT less that Fitzgerald who just got paid. He appears to be saying all the right things but I think he could be had for perhaps a 2nd round pick or packaging a 2nd rounder with a lower rounder. Of course we would then have to show him the money, but he, along with "Tana and Randle El in the slot together with ey would be a devastating receiving core!
I hate to trade away picks, but if we were to do so to get a young, "big" pro-bowl receiver in his prime, I would be all for it.

Esquirekj wrote:I think he could be had for perhaps a 2nd round pick or packaging a 2nd rounder with a lower rounder.

Fios wrote:Does bold, large font make your point better?

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Fios wrote:Does bold, large font make your point better?

no, the smiley face waving his finger does. that dude is intimidating

Fios wrote:

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Fios wrote:Does bold, large font make your point better?

no, the smiley face waving his finger does. that dude is intimidating

He beats me ... ... see?!?! He does it because he loves me, that's why I stay in this cycle of violence = love

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

He played well 2 yrs ago. I saw his best game against the Rams. He has been productive when given a chance. I'm not suggesting benching Portis, I'm just saying that he is a decent backup.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

He played well 2 yrs ago. I saw his best game against the Rams. He has been productive when given a chance. I'm not suggesting benching Portis, I'm just saying that he is a decent backup.

If it came down to it, I'd have to accept it. I don't like him running and think that there are a lot more gems out there. There's just something about Rock that I don't like. He's a decent KR (but is not going to outrun anyone with any speed) and probably a decent RB, but he's never going to be great. I guess I have the same opinion of Rock that it seems the anit-Thrash people have. He's not going to get better, he'll either maintain or deteriorate in production. I won't be upset if he's doing KR/PR again this year; just wish he had a little more speed.

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

He played well 2 yrs ago. I saw his best game against the Rams. He has been productive when given a chance. I'm not suggesting benching Portis, I'm just saying that he is a decent backup.

If it came down to it, I'd have to accept it. I don't like him running and think that there are a lot more gems out there. There's just something about Rock that I don't like. He's a decent KR (but is not going to outrun anyone with any speed) and probably a decent RB, but he's never going to be great. I guess I have the same opinion of Rock that it seems the anit-Thrash people have. He's not going to get better, he'll either maintain or deteriorate in production. I won't be upset if he's doing KR/PR again this year; just wish he had a little more speed.

What's not to like. He's an overacheiver who can & has contributed. What more do you expect from a backup?

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

He played well 2 yrs ago. I saw his best game against the Rams. He has been productive when given a chance. I'm not suggesting benching Portis, I'm just saying that he is a decent backup.

If it came down to it, I'd have to accept it. I don't like him running and think that there are a lot more gems out there. There's just something about Rock that I don't like. He's a decent KR (but is not going to outrun anyone with any speed) and probably a decent RB, but he's never going to be great. I guess I have the same opinion of Rock that it seems the anit-Thrash people have. He's not going to get better, he'll either maintain or deteriorate in production. I won't be upset if he's doing KR/PR again this year; just wish he had a little more speed.

What's not to like. He's an overacheiver who can & has contributed. What more do you expect from a backup?

Exactly, and that's where I wanna keep 'em, 3rd string back up.

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't want Rock running. There's a reason why he's 3rd string at best.

He's been productive in the past. We also have other candidates for backup RB (Mason & Sherton). Betts is useful but not indispensble.

With 647 career yards, I don't think we can really get a good feel for him. He's never started long enough to show what or what he doesn't have, but from what I've seen, I don't want him having significant time behind the QB.

2005 27 199 7.4
2003 107 411 3.8 (starting FB that yr.)

He obviously wasn't a fit with Saunders, but he has produced in the past.

As previously stated, he has 647 career ground yards, I don't feel comfortable saying he's produced, especially since the majority has come almost 1/2 a decade ago. That's in the same boat as saying we should bench JC for TC b/c he had 4 good games in 10 years(in a system he studied for that long)....

He played well 2 yrs ago. I saw his best game against the Rams. He has been productive when given a chance. I'm not suggesting benching Portis, I'm just saying that he is a decent backup.

If it came down to it, I'd have to accept it. I don't like him running and think that there are a lot more gems out there. There's just something about Rock that I don't like. He's a decent KR (but is not going to outrun anyone with any speed) and probably a decent RB, but he's never going to be great. I guess I have the same opinion of Rock that it seems the anit-Thrash people have. He's not going to get better, he'll either maintain or deteriorate in production. I won't be upset if he's doing KR/PR again this year; just wish he had a little more speed.

What's not to like. He's an overacheiver who can & has contributed. What more do you expect from a backup?

Exactly, and that's where I wanna keep 'em, 3rd string back up.

I never said he should start. I wouldn't mind him as 2nd string.

Updated: April 23, 2008, 10:43 AM ET

The Arizona Cardinals have no interest in dealing wide receiver Anquan Boldin, despite trade inquiries from other teams and a trade request by Boldin's agent.

"We're not interested in trading Anquan," general manager Rod Graves said, according to the Arizona Republic. "That's the short of it."

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that the Cardinals have declined a trade offer from the Washington Redskins for the five-year veteran. The Redskins also unsuccessfully sought to trade for disgruntled Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson.

The Philadelphia Eagles also have inquired about Boldin and are dangling Lito Sheppard as part of a deal. The Cards are saying no for now.

Boldin is reportedly unhappy with his contract after the Cardinals re-signed fellow Arizona wideout Larry Fitzgerald to a four-year, $40 million deal. The Cards say that they won't re-do Boldin's deal so he's asked out, Mortensen reported.

Boldin's agent, Drew Rosenhaus, recently asked the team if it would be willing to trade his client, Cardinals officials said, according to the Republic. The Cardinals said no and don't plan to allow Rosenhaus to seek a trade.

"Anquan is a quality person and a great player," Graves said, according to the report. "We're hoping we can agree on a longer-term deal."

The newspaper reported that neither Rosenhaus nor Boldin could be reached for comment.

The roots of the trade talk extend to last summer, when Boldin and Rosenhaus met with Graves and coach Ken Whisenhunt to discuss a new deal. Rosenhaus, according to the Cardinals, made a proposal, and the Cardinals made a counterproposal in late November or early December, according to the report.

Graves said that offer would have put Boldin among the five highest-paid receivers within three years, the Republic reported.

"Drew did not respond to that proposal," Graves said, according to the report. "The proposal sat with him over a month. I called to ask him if he was going to respond, and he said he was going to wait until Larry Fitzgerald [contract] was done."

Boldin has three years left on his current contract with the team.