Should the Redskins have made a move?

by Skin Patrol on Oct 16, 2007 9:25 PM EDT in Redskins Analysis

Trade deadline was today at 4PM Eastern and it was, as per usual, pretty boring. Chris Chambers went to San Diego for a 2nd round pick. Kind of a wash for the franchise, since it was a 2nd round pick they burned to draft Chambers, though I say good move by Miami nonetheless. Chambers is not a good WR and they can fill a need next season with that 2nd round pick. He will underperform in San Diego, in my opinion. Guy drops passes.

The other trade was Michael Bennett to the Bucs from the Chiefs. I have no comment on this but encourage yours below.

In any event, Football Outsider's Bill Barnwell, now writing for IGN, lists 5 teams that should've could've but didn't make transactions today, and sure enough there's Your Washington Redskins on his list:

3. Washington Redskins: The Redskins are another team in a tough division with two hard-luck losses to their name. While the Redskins usually struggle when injuries expose their lack of depth, they've stayed relatively healthy short the offensive line, where RG Randy Thomas and RT Jon Jansen are out for the season. With backup QB Mark Brunell as an interesting trade chit, the Redskins could've flipped him to a team with offensive line depth and acquired a replacement for the ineffective John Wade.

First, need to get it out of the way that I'm a big fan of Bill Barnwell, because I don't know if I agree totally with what he's saying here. No argument whatsoever that we hurt at offensive line. I don't know that Randy Thomas is out for the season, though, as I'm naively hoping that he returns per him. The team has not yet given up on his return as he isn't on IR.

I also disagree that Mark Brunell is an enticing trade carrot and also that Todd Wade is totally ineffective. I think he's ineffective at guard where we tried to use him in replacing Derrick Dockery. He's played at varying times adequate and inspired tackle, when healthy. Obviously his injury, along with pretty much everyone else's, puts us in a tough spot on the offensive line. But if he can play at tackle to replace Jansen for the rest of the season, things could be worse.

I think Barnwell is recongnizing that a team that likes to make transactions is in serious need of players at a particular position, and that's reason enough to think that Washington should've pulled the trigger on something. However, if Mark Brunell isn't, as I've suggested, a qb another team is interested in, it will be our draft picks. And I am near-categorically done with giving up draft picks. I'm putting the fixing of the offensive line on Coach Bugel.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I completely agree.

Brunell has little trade value. And what NFL team would give up a decent reserve lineman for him?

I call b.s.

by smutsboy on Oct 17, 2007 12:40 PM EDT reply actions

Chambers

I think he may have a little resurgence of sorts in San Diego. Turner would love Rivers to have another guy to throw to on the outside besides Vincent Jackson. I think he'll get 5-10 passes thrown to him a game.

Whatever, that's speculation. How about this? How can you not be better playing with Phillip Rivers, LT and Gates over Jay Fiedler, AJ Feeley, Trent Green, and the other castoffs that have Qb'ed Miami.

by Blitzburgh @ Hogs Haven on Oct 17, 2007 6:06 PM EDT reply actions

There's no doubt he'll be

better than he was with better personnel around him. I just think he's bad enough where that won't matter. Even if his catch % goes up by, say, 10% -- which is very generous -- he's still not a very good wide receiver.

Then again maybe he becomes a really big red zone target or finds some other niche that makes him valuable in a way that gets past his inability to catch footballs. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that he improves his stock substantially.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Oct 17, 2007 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions