Redskins contact Rams about trade for DL Carriker
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:16 pm
The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era
Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Redskins contact Rams about trade for DL Carriker
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:16 pm
Why is Haynesworth so against playing NT? But I vote Nay. I dont think that our LB's can play in a 3-4. Orakpo is much better with his hand on the ground. If its not broken then why mess with it!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:19 pm
I would bet that it might be a Jason Campbell for Adam Carriker trade and then they would go DT with the first pick and Bradford would be available for us possibly at #4.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:23 pm
are you kidding me? - we could not be that lucky 
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:56 pm
Why not trade carter for him then get an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick out of it.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:32 pm
frankcal20 wrote:I would bet that it might be a Jason Campbell for Adam Carriker trade and then they would go DT with the first pick and Bradford would be available for us possibly at #4.
Yeah I'll take that bet. Nice theory though!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:44 pm
Carriker could be a good 3-4 end, he has played end and tackle in a 4-3 and has the size. Carriker, Kemoeatu, Haynesworth would be a nice 3-4 line IMO.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:02 pm
I think it's a bad idea. We need (a lot) of help on O. Any trade should be to help there.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:03 pm
andyjens89 wrote:Carriker could be a good 3-4 end, he has played end and tackle in a 4-3 and has the size. Carriker, Kemoeatu, Haynesworth would be a nice 3-4 line IMO.
Put in the Fridge Perry and we're SET....!!!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:11 pm
I like the idea because Carriker would be a good fit there, I don't like it if we have to give up a draft pick higher than 5. If they give up a 4 I won't lose sleep. If they could somehow deal him for Carter like someone mentioned that would be good.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:42 pm
And I like the idea because Steve Spagnuolo, who was basically responsible for one of the best pass rushes in NFL history, thinks he can't find a way to use Carriker, clearly the Skins will know better.
Oh wait. That's not what I mean at all! Carriker's worth about as much as Erasmus James was, no more.
Oh wait. That's not what I mean at all! Carriker's worth about as much as Erasmus James was, no more.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:10 am
brad7686 wrote:I like the idea because Carriker would be a good fit there, I don't like it if we have to give up a draft pick higher than 5. If they give up a 4 I won't lose sleep. If they could somehow deal him for Carter like someone mentioned that would be good.
Trading for Carriker wouldn't be a bad move unless we lose draft picks in the deal. Carter for Carriker would be a bad deal considering one guy had 11 sacks and the other guy missed ALL of last season due to a right shoulder injury, however if the Rams added a 3rd or 4th round pick would work. I settle for the Rams swapping their 3rd rounder for the Skins 4th to get the deal done. A D-Linemen for a D-linemen and a pick is unheard of in the era of 'the Danny" (unless Vinny was giving away a pick to sweeten the deal - normally to Shanny and the Broncos). For the QB hunger Rams, Campbell would cost them the same thing and they would have to agree to swap 1st round picks.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:58 am
move if we can get a 3rd-4th pick in addition to carter. We need depth, we need guys who can play NT. This will work well for us and Carter who won't flourish in this new defense. Sad to see such an awesome guy go tho.Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:05 am
Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:06 am
Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:40 am
Countertrey wrote:Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Is he due for a contract renewal? I'd assume we'd just accept what he already has...
Or are you referring to what it'd take to get him in a trade? I'd assume it'd balance for the most part. The major difference is the age gap but Carter is far from falling off. What may balance that out IMHO is that Carriker is coming off an injury and hasn't really lived up to expectations.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:53 am
Cappster wrote:Why not trade carter for him then get an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick out of it.
You're not going to get a 2nd or 3rd for Carter alone, much less with CArriker too.
Carriker would be good depth for a 3-4 line. Some scouts said he'd be a better 5-technique DE (3-4) than a one-gapper DT in a 4-3. The big question however, is health. He is young and entering the supposed prime of his career, but he's coming off a season ending injury and shoulder surgery. I think the Rams are ready to move in another direction. I don't think it will take much to pry him away. We might could get an extra pick by trading Carter for Carriker, but it'll be a late rounder.
If the price is right, Carriker might resurrect his career playing for his former DC Haslett but in a 3-4 system that suits his talents better.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:15 am
I love Carter, but he has no position here in a 3-4 defense. He has already ststed he disliked OLB and would not want to play it agin, well thats all I need to hear. Trade him for Cariker and a 6th rounder, or we could even throw in a late rounder to up their pick coming back.
Cariker + 3rd rounder for Carter + 6th rounder
The only thing that could stop these before it even starts is that Carter has a no trade clause. If he does not want to play in STL (understandibly) than he does not have to
Cariker + 3rd rounder for Carter + 6th rounder
The only thing that could stop these before it even starts is that Carter has a no trade clause. If he does not want to play in STL (understandibly) than he does not have to
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:36 am
skins2357 wrote:I love Carter, but he has no position here in a 3-4 defense. He has already ststed he disliked OLB and would not want to play it agin, well thats all I need to hear. Trade him for Cariker and a 6th rounder, or we could even throw in a late rounder to up their pick coming back.
Cariker + 3rd rounder for Carter + 6th rounder
The only thing that could stop these before it even starts is that Carter has a no trade clause. If he does not want to play in STL (understandibly) than he does not have to
I've also heard that Montgomery might be traded for Carriker. This would mean the staff does not see Montgomery as a 3-4NT or at least, not a very good one for backup purposes.
Carter could still be valuable here. I like Carter but I think he might have more value with a 4-3 team. If he stayed, he'd be a 3rd down OLB rush specialist at the very least. He could play as an OLB in the Merriman/Ware role where he just wouldn't drop into coverage much. This style 3-4 is almost like a 4-3, or like the old 49ers defense from the 80's where they had the "elephant" position. The other 3 lineman played some two gap to allow the 4th lineman to just rush the QB all the time. Versatility is important in the NFL so teams can't scout you week to week. But if someone makes a good offer for Carter, it might be for the best all the way around.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:18 am
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Countertrey wrote:Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Is he due for a contract renewal? I'd assume we'd just accept what he already has...
Or are you referring to what it'd take to get him in a trade? I'd assume it'd balance for the most part. The major difference is the age gap but Carter is far from falling off. What may balance that out IMHO is that Carriker is coming off an injury and hasn't really lived up to expectations.
I am not talking about his contract.
What would the Rams want in order to consumate this deal? Assumptions about what that would be do not help to understand that cost. You have no idea if this involves a trade for Carter... for Campbell... for a pick... a combination of players and picks? What?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:54 am
Countertrey wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:Countertrey wrote:Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Is he due for a contract renewal? I'd assume we'd just accept what he already has...
Or are you referring to what it'd take to get him in a trade? I'd assume it'd balance for the most part. The major difference is the age gap but Carter is far from falling off. What may balance that out IMHO is that Carriker is coming off an injury and hasn't really lived up to expectations.
I am not talking about his contract.
What would the Rams want in order to consumate this deal? Assumptions about what that would be do not help to understand that cost. You have no idea if this involves a trade for Carter... for Campbell... for a pick... a combination of players and picks? What?
I don't think the Rams will require a a steep price to trade Carriker. Just MHO. I don't think a Carriker trade involves Campbell either. I guess you could do some deep draft speculation and say, Shanahan wants a QB in the 1st round, so by trading Campbell for Carriker, it increases the odds that the Rams take a DL with pick#1 and increases the possibility of a QB being available at #4. but I think that speculation is a bit far fetched.
I say, It'll either be Montgomery for Carriker with some small bits thrown in (maybe Brennan or future 6-7th rounder) OR Carter for Carriker with STL throwing in some late pick.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:21 pm
Countertrey wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:Countertrey wrote:Getting Carriker would not be a bad move... but we have no idea what the price would be. None.
How can you judge the quality of a trade if you don't know the cost?
Is he due for a contract renewal? I'd assume we'd just accept what he already has...
Or are you referring to what it'd take to get him in a trade? I'd assume it'd balance for the most part. The major difference is the age gap but Carter is far from falling off. What may balance that out IMHO is that Carriker is coming off an injury and hasn't really lived up to expectations.
yes... We're all just speculating, what's the problem with that?
I am not talking about his contract.
What would the Rams want in order to consumate this deal? Assumptions about what that would be do not help to understand that cost. You have no idea if this involves a trade for Carter... for Campbell... for a pick... a combination of players and picks? What?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:50 pm
There's not problem with that, Chris, but the question in the first post was "Yea or Nay". How can you yea or nay if you don't know what it costs????
Getting Carriker, if he is free, is an outstanding move, an absolute "yea". A staight up trade for Carter, a quality, productive DE? I'm not convinced.
Getting Carriker, if he is free, is an outstanding move, an absolute "yea". A staight up trade for Carter, a quality, productive DE? I'm not convinced.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Stl is a small market (for the NFL at least) and Carriker, as a 1st round pick has a somewaht large salary. Maybe the Rams want to get rid of him to save money and are just looking to see what they can get in return. If that's the case, we may very well not need to part with any player but only a very late draft pick. I'm not suggesting that this is the likely scenario here, but it is a possibility no one is talking about.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Countertrey wrote:There's not problem with that, Chris, but the question in the first post was "Yea or Nay". How can you yea or nay if you don't know what it costs????
Getting Carriker, if he is free, is an outstanding move, an absolute "yea". A staight up trade for Carter, a quality, productive DE? I'm not convinced.
Dead right. Carter is too good to trade for Carriker, who was unproductive even before his injury. I'd rather have Carter just when we're in the 4-3 and maybe for depth in the 3-4 than Carriker full time. The spec about Campbell is looney tunes but the spec that we can get Carriker for a backup makes some sense.