Page 1 of 4

Not a bidding war for Campbell...yet

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:55 am
by chiefhog44
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

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:03 am
by Irn-Bru
The prospects look pretty good for us getting something out of him.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:51 am
by frankcal20
Some are saying a 5th but I would say a 3rd b/c of age, experience and the fact that he's the best QB available there and coaches will think that they can coach him up.

Re: Not a bidding war for Campbell...yet

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:05 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
chiefhog44 wrote:Hopefully we get a second rounder out of them at the least

No one is going to give us a #2 for Campbell. I'd be surprised (and thrilled) if we got a #3. We should just take whatever we can get. I'm sure we can get a low rounder.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:27 pm
by The Hogster
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.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:40 pm
by skinsfan#33
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.


A 3rd from Buffalo or Oakland would be great! I don't know that he improves the QB situatuion in Carolina or Jacksonville! I would jump all over the Rams 3rd if offered!

I think San Fran should consider him as an upgrade over their current starter.

I would think Arizona, Minnisota, and even Pittsburge should consider a 3rd or 4th very good insurance to their QC "situations". I would jump all over JC for Sage and a 5th (considering Kyles history with him).

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:26 pm
by frankcal20
I think that SF is a team in the mix. I could see us getting SF's two first round picks for our #4 and JC. The value chart would be pretty close if SF grades JC as a late 2nd, early 3rd round pick.

I see JC being the type of QB that SF wants though. Tough - that's Singletary and JC also IMO.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:46 pm
by UK Skins Fan
I love the "unknown team" garbage. Just a fallback position for the "news" organisation to use when he signs with any team other than the four that they have speculated.

If we get offered a third rounder for him, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:47 pm
by skinsfan#33
frankcal20 wrote:I think that SF is a team in the mix. I could see us getting SF's two first round picks for our #4 and JC. The value chart would be pretty close if SF grades JC as a late 2nd, early 3rd round pick.

I see JC being the type of QB that SF wants though. Tough - that's Singletary and JC also IMO.


I would jump all over that, but why would SF want to spend 2 #1s to get 1? Who would they want at #4 that wouldn't be there at #13?

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:08 pm
by Pablo
I dont see getting much from Campbell. San Francisco is ok with their QB Smith, Buffalo biuld through the draft alwas, Carolina already have a QB and Okland wont give up much for Campbell. I think he gets stays here as a back up or gets released...the only scenerio I see getting something for Cambell is in draft day packaged with other player or picks for some extra picks. I also see Carter being traded durind draft...cant wait to see what happens...we are defenetily getting better...

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:20 pm
by Sir_Monk
They have mentioned Campbell a few times on the call in shows here in St. Louis.Most people think he would be a huge upgrade over Bulger as a mentor for Bradford.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:57 pm
by frankcal20
skinsfan#33 wrote:
frankcal20 wrote:I think that SF is a team in the mix. I could see us getting SF's two first round picks for our #4 and JC. The value chart would be pretty close if SF grades JC as a late 2nd, early 3rd round pick.

I see JC being the type of QB that SF wants though. Tough - that's Singletary and JC also IMO.


I would jump all over that, but why would SF want to spend 2 #1s to get 1? Who would they want at #4 that wouldn't be there at #13?


Russel Okung. Here's one take on their needs and their current projection at 13:

13. San Francisco 49ers -- OT Anthony Davis(notes), Rutgers: The 49ers' offensive line was terrible by just about any measure in 2009; it's the one thing that could keep the team from winning the NFC West. Davis has some question marks regarding his technique and work ethic, but he's a very good pass-blocker with a good punch when opening lanes for running backs. Perhaps a supreme motivator like Mike Singletary could keep Davis' head straight, allowing him to live up to his potential.

Here is #17. San Francisco 49ers (from Carolina) -- QB Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame: Aaron Rodgers(notes) and Brady Quinn(notes), say hello to Jimmy Clausen. He might drop down the first round just like you did. The recent explosion of spread offense quarterbacks who find professional transitions difficult may have people overestimating quarterbacks who played in pro-style offenses but come up short in other important areas. Clausen was productive in the right kind of system at Notre Dame, but a good dose of film review should have a lot of teams balking in the end. He's got a very limited palette when it comes to deep throws, and he telegraphs his reads far too frequently. He's more Jeff Garcia(notes) than Joe Montana. That doesn't make him a bust, but it also doesn't make him a top-five quarterback.

Now I would take JC over Claussen any day of the week.

Here's how the trade value chart pans out:

#4 Pick: 2200 points

#13 Pick: 1150 pts
#17 Pick: 950 pts

Even though this basically an even trade there and SF would actually get a bargain because they get the best OT and their QB for the next several years. I think JC can be that guy b/c SF's new Offensive Cord. is interested in running the ball a lot and JC will only be asked to make little plays and manage the game - not win it.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:03 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
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! :up:

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

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:05 pm
by frankcal20
I think a 2nd is also a stretch but who knows. Someone may be dumb enough to do it.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:13 pm
by TincoSkin
frankcal20 wrote:I think a 2nd is also a stretch but who knows. Someone may be dumb enough to do it.


Al Davis?

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:21 pm
by riggofan
frankcal20 wrote:I think a 2nd is also a stretch but who knows. Someone may be dumb enough to do it.


Yeah a 2 is a huge stretch. I'd say the same about a 3. We haven't really done much to help raise JC's value the past few years.

I like what you guys are saying about maybe packaging JC and our 4th rounder to pick up a couple more picks in the draft. That sounds like a possibility.

I kind of think Shanny/Allen must have something in the works either way.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:31 pm
by riggofan
btw I see the Rams just released Bulger which is kind of weird timing. Maybe something in the works with them...?

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:57 pm
by chiefhog44
Two pieces just crossed...http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... _teams=WAS

The Redskins will reportedly allow the player rep for restricted free agent Jason Campbell to seek a trade for his client.

Washington is "open" to retaining him as Donovan McNabb's backup, but Campbell would obviously prefer a chance to start elsewhere. Redskins coach Mike Shanahan is expected to address Campbell's situation further at McNabb's introductory press conference Tuesday. In the unlikely scenario that Campbell sticks around, he'd collect $3.14 million per his one-year tender.

*****

Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio denied Monday that the team has any interest in restricted free agent Jason Campbell.

Strong armed and a good decision maker, Campbell would arguably better fit Jags coordinator Dirk Koetter's offense than David Garrard. The Jags would be smart to consider Campbell if he's still available over draft weekend.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:19 pm
by HEROHAMO
It is highly unlikely a team is going to give up a second rounder for an unproven Jason Campbell. I would love that. I just dont see that happening. I expect a fourth rounder.
It does not hurt to shoot for a second rounder. It wouldn't hurt at all.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:27 pm
by frankcal20
Wouldn't that be the same as drafting a QB - unproven? But that's why I think the draft is so messed up and once we get a pay scale for rookies, I think compensation for Vet's will make more sense.

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:44 pm
by Manchester_Redskin
Jacksonville have said they are not interested

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:48 pm
by frankcal20
sure

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:03 pm
by yupchagee
frankcal20 wrote:I think that SF is a team in the mix. I could see us getting SF's two first round picks for our #4 and JC. The value chart would be pretty close if SF grades JC as a late 2nd, early 3rd round pick.

I see JC being the type of QB that SF wants though. Tough - that's Singletary and JC also IMO.


They would have to value JC at 300 points, #60 overall. I think he will be valued closer to 75-80 points, early to mid 4th.

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:29 am
by KazooSkinsFan
riggofan wrote:btw I see the Rams just released Bulger which is kind of weird timing. Maybe something in the works with them...?

I see what you're thinking. Bradford...

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:14 pm
by markshark84
riggofan wrote:
frankcal20 wrote:I think a 2nd is also a stretch but who knows. Someone may be dumb enough to do it.


We haven't really done much to help raise JC's value the past few years.


Then again, neither has JC.