Is There A Draft In Here? Washington Redskins Draft Theory #134,769
by Sugar on Mar 15, 2010 4:11 PM EDT
in NFL Draft
44 comments
Over the course of the next month and a half, many rumors, scenarios and conspiracy theories will be bandied about involving players, draft picks and franchises around the league. We don't intend to be left out of the fray. With every move made by general managers around the league, the ever-changing landscape produces yet another scintillating possibility for the Washington Redskins. Sure there are going to be reaches...you can bet Kevin is going to roll his eyes and you can rest assured that "professional" journalists will probably stop short of conjuring at least some of these scenarios. But if I learned anything from Lionel Hutz, it is that "Hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence."
So let the conjecture and hearsay begin! Today I start with the draft pick loaded Cleveland Browns....
They have built for themselves a battery of quarterbacks to rival what we saw here in 2001, when we had Tony Banks, Jeff George, and Kent Graham. Unlike the 2001 Redskins, I seriously doubt the Browns intend to actually embark upon their 2010 season with their current slate of mediocre signal callers (Jake Delhomme, Seneca Wallace, and Brett Ratliff.)
I have spent way too much time in recent weeks trying to figure out the scenario that would have us dip into that bucket of draft picks they have in Cleveland. I think we finally have the one that makes the most sense, though. For a while, I actually believed the Browns might have interest in Jason Campbell-which isn't to say that trading Jason Campbell is necessarily a priority in my opinion. But the signing of Jake Delhomme in Cleveland satisfies their need for a veteran QB to compete for a starting job or serve as a backup or bridge to a younger player. That player was thought to be Brady Quinn, until they shipped the former Golden Domer off to Denver for a song.
Word on the street is that Mangini and Holmgren covet yet another Golden Domer in Jimmy Clausen. Given the perceived interest out of Seattle for Clausen as well, the Redskins finally have the opportunity they need to try and orchestrate the sought after "Trade Down" scenario everyone loves.
My proposal:
Washington's #4, and 2011 4th round pick
For
Cleveland's #7 overall, their 7th and 28th picks in the 3rd round and Peyton Hillis
Based on the precious and overused "Trade Value Chart", which has been preventing decent deals from happening for years, the move up from #7 to #4 should cost Cleveland 300 "points." The pair of 3rd rounders more than covers that ground, possibly necessitating the inclusion of our 4th round pick in 2011 to even things out. I am not certain we would need to be the team that evens the equation out since I suspect we could leverage a possible deal with Seattle to keep Cleveland from asking too much.
Enter Peyton Hillis. Mike Shanahan knows Hillis well. He was a two-way player for Shanahan in 2008, playing linebacker and running back, as well as special teams. Hillis seems to be the kind of player who will do anything you ask of him, and on a team that is full of holes, this is the kind of guy we need to have around. If Shanahan liked this guy, he would be a good pickup for our roster. And Cleveland might be willing to use him to seal the deal...who knows?
[Image via static.episode39.it]
0 recs |
44 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
with the 7th pick...
I like the theory behind this, but who do you take at #7? A. Davis or E. Berry? We’re passing on pretty much a lock for the next decade at LT.
Hail to the Redskins!
Take best player available
I agree that we definitely need an OL, but no other LT is worth a top-10 pick (maybe Bulaga). I say do the trade, take Berry to solidify our DB’s and upgrade the OL with later picks and free agency.
Hail to the Redskins!
I still think Okung will go to the Lions.
Millen is gone, remember!
Apparently Bruce Campbell did not do well in Maryland's game against California.
Granted he only played 17 games in his college career and the California game was early in the season.
Kirwan’s mock drafts: 1.0 | 2.0
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d816f37c9&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
26. Arizona Cardinals, Charles Brown, OT, USC
"Bruce Campbell is much too raw to take and play in Arizona. Watch the Maryland-California game from Sept. 13 if you don’t believe me."
There must be other videos out there that would be positively influencing scouts.
by Jefferson1935 on Mar 15, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Campbell would be a Raider-esque leap
Bulaga if he’s there would be my choice. Davis is dropping like Mike Williams’ poundage.
I would go with the best available OL at #7
Then we can either take another OL at the top of the second and go RB and LeFevour in the 3rd, or take a RB at the top of the 2nd and go OL/LeFevour in the 3rd.
If we come out of the first 3 rounds with two OL, a RB, and a QB with promise…I would need to wear my rubber underwear for a week.
Honestly, I'd much rather just take Okung.
Why do we trade down to 7 and take a lesser prospect who maybe doesn’t pan out at left tackle (Anthony Davis) or has knee problems (Bruce Campbell)? I don’t think you can afford to take risks with the way this team is constructed. Just take the sure bet, third round picks and an average RB just aren’t worth it.
Only if Okung's still available
A lot of mocks have Okung going to the Lions at #2, and then Suh, Clausen, McCoy, and Berry for 3 thru 6. The level of talent drops considerably after these guys, and we’d have to hope KC takes another OL for one of these to fall to us at 7.
Hail to the Redskins!
We have a lot of holes to fill
And I would really like to see Allen and Shanny uncover a couple of 3rd round gems. We should be able to haul in TWO OL capable of starting for us with 4 picks in the first 3 rounds (right now we have 2 picks in the first 3 rounds).
Why take a QB
We don’t need a quarterback at our state. JC can handle being behind this line we have. If he doesn’t do good yet again than I might say go QB next year.
Sugar this
PFT picked up on your write-up and is highlighting it as what the browns may do….sorta
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Holmgren said he’ll consider draft a quarterback with the seventh overall selection, and that he’ll consider trading up to get one, per Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
I really want to play poker with Holmgren
Why would he reveal all that?
"I am excited about starting 2009. We are looking forward to an outstanding year. We're on our way. We have a lot of healthy players this year." - Vinny Cerrato
by Kevin Ewoldt on Mar 15, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, so Sug stole my thunder
While this write up reeks of my recent fanpost,
http://www.hogshaven.com/2010/3/15/1374029/my-draft-day-scenario
I will give Kevins Sugardaddy credit for a much better thought out scenario. I am definitely intrigued by Hillis. Frankly, I didn’t know anything about him until the trade, but it sure as hell does seem like he was a “Shannyguy”. I was wondering myself whether we would make a play for him.
While I am blue in the face from arguing AGAINST drafting Berry, I would say that the prospect of him being there could entice yet another team to trade up, then add even more picks to our collection. My scenario called for us acquiring offensive tackles with our first two picks, which I believe would be a coup the likes of which we haven’t seen around here in a very long time. I say we try to accomplish that with whichever scenario makes it possible and feasible.
One problem...
I’m pretty sure one of the main reasons the browns traded w/ the broncos was for the inclusion of hillis. In my opinion, hillis is the best player in that trade and is a huge part of the future of the browns. Especially with the browns not resigning jamal lewis, they needed a complement to harrison. My alteration to this trade would be to take hillis and our fourth out of the equation, and make it our one for their one, three, and a five. We still get more picks, they move up, and we take berry, davis, or maybe trade down again (?!) if possible to around 12 and pick up spiller.
you had me
up until you said Berry. Also, I don’t see Shanny drafting a runningback in the first round either. But the rest of your idea jibes with me.
I'll give you that
There are many other needs before Berry. I love the tape on Berry, but you’re probably right. I would completely hate the spiller move as well. So scratch that, and just assume that i said williams and bulaga instead of berry and spiller. There, fixed it!
nothing
except for the fact that he’s a safety – a position we’ve drafted top 10 twice in the past 6 years – which is twice as much as any other team ever. Safety is not a position of NEED. Not only that, but we don’t even know if Berry is the best player at his position in the draft. Some people, including Mike Mayock, are saying Thomas is better.
And, lastly, why would we want to spend (yet another) high pick on a guy who is furthest away from the ball. A safety in the first round is a luxury pick. You make that pick if you already have the rest of your roster set, or at least the majority of it.
Do you really think the Browns will trade Hillis so soon after acquiring him? This sounds like some fantasy scenario.
I do not think the Browns will trade Hillis
But I do think he can be pried away from them…I doubt there are any untradeable Browns outside of Harrison and Cribbs.
Is there
a rule which says a player cannot be traded twice in the same season?
by G Fan in England on Mar 16, 2010 5:59 AM EDT up reply actions
no but there is a rule that says once you get vinny cerrato…bad things will happen to you and he will not leave for a really really long time
by les boulez bomber on Mar 16, 2010 6:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Are we trying to get better?
Did I miss something, or is the goal to become like the Browns and Seahawks – a team without a QB?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Or are we simply trading down and keeping JC?
Sorry, I’m on meds and not feeling all that great.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
In this scenario...
we are trading down and keeping JC. The QB I mention picking up at the end of the 3rd round would be a guy for the Shanny’s to develop.
I agree with the trade,we must trade down but,If we keep Campbell we will have yet another losing year
If we do not get either C.McCoy.T.Tebow or D.Lefevour at QB in the draft we will regret it for a long time.These QBs have the IT facture,and will turn out to be Great QBs.Campbell just does not have what it takes right now,and does not know how to win the big games,or even any 4th quarter comebacks.Another year with Campbell= another year of losing.
hahaha. nothing is more convincing than the "It Factor"
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Not to mention "IT facture!"
A very good argument if stated strongly, is not confused by any other verifiable data, and is followed with certainty by another subjective argument.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Thats a big "IF"
Trading down with Clevland does make sense in some aspect, they are all over Clausen’s whatcha calls. I think Maginie would marry him if he could. IF that trade does happen, where does it leave the Skins. They are woefully hurting at Offensive line, with the loss of Samuels hurts even more, the defensive secondary is also a source of concern. LaRon Landry is horrible in coverage and was burned several times last year. I subscribe to the old addage, “Offense wins games, Defense wins Championships” having said that, traiding down to 7 could land the skins a very very good Safety, then in the second round pick up Colt McCoy or LaFever at 37 and either Javid Best or Toby Geheart at 38. Lets face it, Portis is on the down side of a decent career. Does anyone remember the 75 yarder he ripped off last season but got tackled at the 7? The Portis of old cuts that back and scores easily. Just my humble opinion
Better yet
I have all kinds of ideas lol.Rams #1 for JC and Andre Carter who knows Cooley might be worked out instead of Andre Carter. This will give us Bardford at number1 and we still have our number 4.Carter isnt happy at all with 3-4 so saying that we need a LB also.
our #4 if we keep this pick it will and has to be to get Okung unless for some reason the Rams dont pick Bradford. The Lions will be picking a DT more then likely. We dont want Spiller at number 4 best bet would be the Fresno Runningback early in the second.
Trading our #4 to the Browns wouldnt have been so bad for their picks if their recently traded Wimbley was part of the deal but think Big Rogers is on the trading Block also.
If we trade our #4 we have to get a much need player plus a early first rounder and some extra picks giving this Cooley, Andre Carter and JC if for some way we get Bradford will still be on the block for bettering our deal. If the Skins were so worried about a Safty and I think we shoulda went and grabbed Rolle from Arizona. So if we trade down it will have to be early enough to pick the best LB on the board(I forget his name). Clausen is a joke let Seatle have him. I like JCs public prowess but dont think he is SuperBowl material but he’s better then Clausen.
After all of this heres who I think we need in these scenerios: Bradford….Okung….the best LB……the runningback from Fresno and from there its up in the air
Better Yet
Are you talking about the kid from Texas, Sergio Kendle? The skins have good linebackers, Orakpo, Fletcher, McIntosh. The forth LB needs to be an Athleat, that kid from UCF Jean-Paul would be a very good fit. Big, fast, strong with quick feet and a good motor.
Rams at #1
By the way lthough the Rams need this first pck they r seriously hurting for money I dont think it would take alot to convince them to trade their first rounder for the right deal
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Hogs Haven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
