Community Draft: Round 1, How Should We Use the 6th Overall Pick?
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 7:06 PM EST
Email
PrintWith so much speculation about how we’re going to handle this year’s off-season, I was curious to know what the general consensus on how we should handle this year’s draft was.
I’m going to make a few assumptions to set the scenario;
- Trading up will cost us this year’s First, Second and Third round pick, as well as next year’s First and Second
- If we don’t trade up, the first 5 picks will be Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, Matt Kalil, Justin Blackmon and Morris Claiborne (in no particular order)
- If we trade down we will end up with the 17th, 49th and 81st pick (I know no team actually owns all three of those picks, but I think it represents a fair value)
236 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
that trade up scenario is way out of proportion unless you talking about moving up to get Andrew Luck
the trade up option should be something more reasonable and closer to the trade value chart to get a accurate pulse of what should be done in offseason. Cause you are willing to give a fair value for trading down and unreasonable demand to trade up.
I don't think that value is too far out of line with what we would have to give up (I could be wrong)
Bare in mind that it looks like we would have to outbid Cleveland Browns who are sitting on a good stock pile of picks, and next years picks have less value.
Our top 3 picks this year still don’t equate to the value of the second overall pick this year coupled with the fact that our main competition for the spot has the most firepower this year, we’re going to have to sell the farm
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
exactly a lot of RG3 trade up lovers dont see that point they just assume it will be a easy trade up situation and will cost up almost nothing
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
Trading a 2012 1st and 2nd , and 2013 1st and 3rd is not nothing
people against trading up just like to make it seem like the trade will be a Ricky Williams or Herschel walker type of deal, or people who would trade up is advocating trading your whole draft for 2 years when that is far from the reality
by Highspeed30 on Jan 29, 2012 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
is it really or are you just so hard press on the idea of getting RG3 that you wont even fathom any other options???
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
It is not being hard pressed for RGIII
cause i would take Andrew Luck as well, i just feel the QB situation has got to be finally taken care of and not with the same type of Bums they been starting at QB the last 20 years. I have seen how the Tannehill,Foles, Weeden movie end and it aint good see Patrick Ramsey,Jason Campbell, it is time to solve this QB problem that have plagued this team for years and these 2 guys Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III are two of the best QB prospects to enter draft in years
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
We've waited 20 years
you don’t suppose we can wait one more?
by TheDeepBall on Jan 30, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
i agree that the QB position needs to be resolved
but just because a QB is not a first round pick doesnt mean he cant be the answer to our prayers. It just seems that you want to trade up to fix the need because that answer can only be a 1st round pick and not anything less. You are lableing a player by what round they go not by their ability and how they fit the system. Now i am all for RG3 if he falls to us because he is a great prospect and he fits the system but he will also fit any system. There are other guys that fit our system that we can get without selling the farm and that will allow us to fill needs in other positions that still need depth.
you are obviously set on the idea of trading up no matter the cost so lets leave it at that.
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
First and foremost you NEVER heard me promote trading up at ANY cost.
the deal in this post i would reject and i did not vote cause i dont think that will be a accurate trade up scenario.
Secondly it is not about what pick a QB is drafted but about if he is considered a Top QB prospect, Mike Vick and Drew Brees was the top 2 QB prospects but Brees was drafted in 2nd rd. Or Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers was the top 2 QB prospects in their draft year. So the proof is in the pudding about the quality of QB’s you can get after the top 2 QB prospects. yeah it is possible to get a Tom Brady in the 6th rd, or a Undrafted guy to be your Franchise guy but the chance of doing that is less than 5%
Correct me if im wrong but was Campbell drafted after Rodgers. look how that turned out.
Also some notiable names that had great careers or at least better than what the redskins have enjoyed. in 2001 Quincy Carter was a 2nd round pick behind Brees and took the Cowboys to the playoffs. 2005 Kyle Orton 4th round and Matt Cassel 7th round, Ryan Fitzpatrick 7th round all have done better than some of the QBs the redskins have trotted onto the field
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
So which one of those QBs would you want to be your Franchise QB??
I would not want any of them, but that is just me. I could see if there was about the same amount of successful QB’s that was not considered a Top QB prospects, but there aint QB is the biggest drop off in talent than any other position.
The Chances of finding a guy in the later rounds at QB is real low is my point, like i said there are some exceptions but not many
Your right finding a QB in the later rounds that will be successful is rare
however it is not impossible. We just need to find the right guy in the 2nd round who will fit the Shanny system.
I personally like Foles. Great size, great arm, accurate and is mobile (more mobile than many give him credit for). He is accurate if he uses good footwork. So coach up his footwork and i could see him being a good pick up.
Tannehill needs time behind a Vet before he starts. A Vet that we dont have and time we dont have.
Weeden is TOOOOOOO Old for my taste. He is a good prospect if he wasnt 28 (29 when the season starts). Y would anyone want a QB for only 5-6 years before we get a new one. If we draft a franchise QB i want to see him for 8-10+ years.
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
Look at it this way
The Browns two 1st round picks are worth as much as our 2012’s 1st, 2nd, and 2013’s 1st. My proposition is an extra 3rd this year and an extra 2nd next year, which is the same value as two 3rd round picks (not exactly a huge amount). The Browns can easily match that with their 2nd round pick, in which case we would be unable to compete.
Trading for Luck is not an option, see the link I posted
It all depends on how much the Browns want RG3 and if the Redskins are willing to trade up. If the Redskins are willing to trade up for the 2nd or 3rd overall and the Browns really want RG3 they HAVE to enter a bidding war with us, or they will miss out.
If two teams are scrapping for a potential franchise QB, some teams would be prepared to give up whatever is necessary.
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 30, 2012 4:39 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
They got other Major needs to get into a bidding war just to move up 2 spots
that price is way more expensive for them to jump 2 spots. when they have a young QB on there Roster and with a Major need for playmakers so all this bidding war with the Browns is not gonna happen. Holmgren and Heckert dont operate like that. Look at their track record
Franchise QB is the hardest position to try and fill and you can not keep tryna fill that spot with 2nd rate type of talent cause 20 years is proof that it dont work, so you have to draft the best QB prospect you can and clearly the 2 best this year are Luck and RG3 in fact these are 2 of the highest rated QB prospects in at least 10 years so you have to have one and if it means trading some draft picks then you do it.
-Highspeed30
my point is we dont have a QB on our roster. Our Cupboard is empty no starting QB and a half of a back up in Rex Grossman, and no young QB to groom or guy with some potential. They have a chance to add a guy in RG3 that is a great prospect. if you have that chance to get a Franchise guy you get him
-Highspeed30
sometimes you have to overpay a lil bit to get what you want.
-Highspeed30
the value of a Franchise Qb justify the trade
finding the guy is so hard to find and if you have a chance to get him you do it.
-Highspeed30
To get the face of your Franchise giving up 2 starters, 1 possible starter and a depth type of player is not too much to give up.
-Highspeed30
What I want to know is, how are any of these things you’ve said about the Redskins not applicable to the Browns? Based on your own posts, since the Browns are in need of a franchise QB they should be willing to do whatever it takes to get him, even if it means overpaying because the value of a Franchise QB justifies the trade.
Furthermore, they would only be giving up 3 starters in order to trade up and block us out from moving ahead of them (2 firsts and a 2nd is all it would take to outbid us). Well according to you, that’s worth it to get a franchise QB.
You can’t just say all that about the Redskins when it can just as easily apply to the Browns. They need a guy too.
because they have a young qb thats on a bad team with no weapons.
their offense makes our offense look good!!! al we need is a good wr and a few olinmen and a good qb and we are in good shape. the browns need alot more
They have a much better OL
And they have a young, up and coming WR in Greg Little. All the browns need is another good WR, a good RB and a good QB. That’s less than what we need.
the right side of the Browns OL is horrible
they have no TE’s either, they are far from a finished product that you are making them out to be.
compared to our entire offensive line that is horrible...
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
you love to take things out of context
I also said that the Browns are NOT in the same position as the Redskins. They dont have the #6 pick like the Redskins nor do they have the Redskins in front of them picking in the #4 spot. And that is a big difference into how a team should go about the draft. Cause by being in the #4 spot they will get a MAJOR need filled either way so the urgency to move up simply is not there. grossly over pay just to move up 2 spots when you are gonna get a playmaker WR in Blackmon, and have a young QB in the wings already in McCoy with just 21 starts just dont make sense.
The Redskins and Browns are in 2 totally different situations, they have a Young 25 year old QB with experience in there system to go with, The Redskins do NOT we got 2 over 30 year old bums in Grossman and Beck.
The Browns dont have to trade up to get Griffin III if nobody trade up cause Rams, and Vikes dont need QB’s, the Redskins will have to trade up to secure Griffin III. The Browns if they stand pat and dont trade up will get one of their MAJOR needs met and the Redskins will not get a MAJOR need met so that is why it is a difference between the Redskins situation and the Browns.
coaches do things that dont make sense to the fans all the time. if the coach thinks it is the best move then they will make that move
You are right though the Browns dont have to trade up if they dont want to. But knowing that the skins might move up to get griffen then if Holgrem really wants RG3 then he will move up to get him.
Also Holgrem really like Cam Newton last year and Griffen is almost completly similar to Cam (except for size). If Holgrem really liked Cam and really like RG3 then he will pull the trigger and get him.
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
woulda loved to see rg3 play in the pro bowl game instead of cam
i even think rex coulda done better lol
Your argument is flawed here even within the context of just this post.
First, you’re telling m 21 starts isn’t giving a guy enough of a chance. Well, John Beck only has 7 starts to his name, and I think it’s safe to say we have gotten a pretty accurate evaluation out of them.
Colt McCoy has a noodle of an arm. His offensive line is better than ours, his receivers are at about the same level, and he has had at least an OK running game with Hillis and Hardesty.
That said, here are the stats for Colt McCoy and Rex Grossman.
265/458 57.9% 3151 yds 6.88 ypa 16 TD 20 INT 72.4 rating
265/463 57.2% 2733 yds 5.90 avg 14 TD 11 INT 74.6 rating
Guess which one is Colt? The 2nd one. Colt McCoy is TERRIBLE.
Tiller just made a post about how important arm strength is for a QB in the NFL. Well, McCoy doesn’t have it. You say they might want to groom him but you can’t “groom” arm strength. It’s difficult to fix a lack of pocket presence.
The simple fact is that McCoy is almost as bad, if not as bad as Rex Grossman is, and it’s going to be very, very difficult to fix that.
So in that regard, the Browns are almost definitely in the same boat as the Redskins. They absolutely need a QB and like you said,
these are 2 of the highest rated QB prospects in at least 10 years so you have to have one and if it means trading some draft picks then you do it.
and even though thy might have to overpay, in order to outbid us,
sometimes you have to overpay a lil bit to get what you want.
and
the value of a Franchise Qb justify the trade.
Yeah, they need a WR, maybe a RT and another TE but then again, so do we. We are in almost the exact same boat as them. The only difference is that they will have an easier time getting RG3 than we will.
you comparing Rex Grossman who been in the NFL for 9 years
with a 2nd year guy in McCoy, that show you how bad Rex is.
take a look at Drew Brees stats in his 1st 2 years as a starter
2002
320/526 60.8 % 3284 17 TD 16 INT 6.2ypa 76.9 QB rating
2003
205/356 57.6% 2108 11TD 15 INT 5.9ypa 67.5 QB rating
so you can not just say that Colt McCoy can not be the guy when like i said he had NO receivers, NO Run game, NO TE’s. so the Browns still got the option to stick with him who do the Redskins have the luxury to stick with?? i will wait? NOBODY
And I see you conveniently left out the fact that the Browns dont technically have to move up because they pick before the Redskins and that they would get a MAJOR need met if Blackmon falls to them which make the need to move up less than the Redskins which wont get a MAJOR need met by staying at 6
Colt still has no arm and no pocket presence.
He will never amount to Drew Brees, and I will make that a guarantee. And what do you mean, no major need? RT, RG, WR, and CB are all major needs.
And I see you conveniently left out the fact that the Browns dont technically have to move up because they pick before the Redskins and that they would get a MAJOR need met if Blackmon falls to them which make the need to move up less than the Redskins which wont get a MAJOR need met by staying at 6
No, they’re WILL outbid us if we try to move up because
the value of a Franchise Qb justify the trade
finding the guy is so hard to find and if you have a chance to get him you do it.
those are not MAJOR needs
they are just needs cause you have guys right now that you can get by on. RT J Brown,Smith, Polumbus, RG Chris Chester, CB D Hall, J Wilson.
And I like a lot of the sleeper receivers in this draft, i feel you can get one later in draft.
But i dont think you can get a decent QB later on in this draft.so QB and WR are MAJOR needs
If a "major need" is not having someone we can get by on
then QB is not a major need because we can “get by” with him.
Oh, one more thing.
All you have to do is Go put on the tape on any of these receivers and see that these guys are good, in fact it is easier to find WR in later rds, you have to remember that Shanny took Brandon Marshall in the 4th rd, I guess he just some late rd bum too
And I like a lot of the sleeper receivers in this draft, i feel you can get one later in draft
Then explain to me why Cleveland should sit back and let us move ahead of them for RG3? Why settle for just fixing WR with Blackmon when there are good WRs in the later rounds? Then they’d be filling TWO major needs on offense. Any way you look at it, your own arguments say Cleveland will take RG3.
The Bottom line is I dont see them trading what it take to trade just to move up 2 spots
and you feel that they will. I already explained why the Browns have more options than the Redskins and their incentive to stay put. since you are a trade down guy if you was the Browns would you trade up for RG3? when you have as many holes as you have NO playmakers on offense to even make a fair evaluation of Colt McCoy. If the Trade meant you had to give both 1st #4, #22, and 2nd # 37?? and i am saying be objective
If RG3 is as good as you say he is
And is a QB is as important as you say it is, then the Browns will do whatever it takes to make sure they get him, even if it means outbidding us for the #2 or 3 spot.
I am not asking you what you think the Browns will do
I am asking you if you had that decision to make would you trade up to get RG3. Would you trade both 1st #4, #22 and 2nd #37 and maybe even a 4th rd pick if it is this bidding war like you say?
Me? Personally? No.
But that’s because I don’t value QBs as highly as you do. If we had all of the Browns picks, and the Browns had ours, and the Browns tried to trade ahead of us you’re telling me you wouldn’t block them out?
no i wouldnt
almost any1 left for them can be a stud player of need for tyem. if we stay put tere is a good chance we only have richardson left so we either get him or reach for a projected guy in the teens. i think the browns are hoping we will trade with them instead of the rams or vikes to be honest.
If i was in charge of making that decision for the Browns
I would probably not trade up, especially for that price both 1st #4, #22 and #37 that is too much for 2 spots, cause my opinion on McCoy is undetermined if he can be the Browns starter.
I have stated before if the Redskins was picking #4 that i would probably not trade up, cause Blackmon could fall to me and i could either take him or trade back and pick up some picks.
So what you're saying is
2 firsts and a 2nd is too much for RG3
but
2 1sts. a 2nd, and a 3rd is not too much for RG3?
That doesn’t make any sense! Forget about the number of spots we/they would be moving up, that’s completely irrelevant. Consider only who the target is for the trade (RG3).
Not to mention, there’s no reason not to go get RG3 and settle for Blackmon if there are plenty of adequate 3rd/4th round WRs like you say.
That is my opinion of the WR's in this draft
which could be shared by the Browns front office, but Justin Blackmon is the best WR in this draft, and could instantly upgrade their offense or they could trade him or the pick for more picks in the top 40(they already got 3 picks)maybe they move back to 7 with jacksonville and pick up another 2nd and 3rd or a 2nd and 2013 1st. then they would have 2 1st #7,22 2 2nd’s #37,#38 and 2 3rds #68,#71. I just think they have way more options than the Redskins do and trading up would mess up some of their options
WEll obviously trading up limits your options
But for that Franchise QB, I thought that was worth it?
What we have here are 2 teams that need that Franchise QB, and one has more ammunition to get him. I think it’s pretty clear cut.
its worth it for us
not them. they have a young qb.and have good talent at a spot 100% of need coming to them. if some1 jumps them, then that player is even better! why you think the browns gm said we the redskins should move up for rg3? because it helps the browns get a better player of need.
that young QB
does not have the tools to succeed in the NFL.
Besides, there are plenty of positions we can fill staying at 6, so the point is moot.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 31, 2012 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
That is an unreasonable trade-up price. Taking that deal is not an option.
by sofutomygaha on Jan 29, 2012 11:56 PM EST up reply actions
that type of deal to trade up is way too high from a trade value standpoint
the #2 spot in draft is worth 2600 and the # 6 pick is worth 1600 that is only 1000 points to make up. your out of proportion trade up scenario is giving up about 3900 in value which is about 1300 too high. but you expect to pay higher than 2600 in value maybe like 3100 in value.
In Comparison look at the Julio Jones deal last year between Atlanta and Cleveland. The Browns pick was worth 1600 in value, Atlanta gave up 2011 1st #27, 2nd #59, 4th, #122 and 2012 1st #22, and 4th #118. for a toal trade value of 1880. so the Browns picked up 280 points in value.
It doesn't work like that
Next years 1st rounder is roughly equal to this years 2nd round pick. The Falcons weren’t directly competing with anyone, that was just the leverage required to get the Browns to not use that pick. We’re not only trying to ask them not to use an extremely valuable pick, but trying to out muscle another team who is in a much better position to compensate them for that pick then us.
Also, the Draft Value Chart isn’t a rule, it’s a guideline.
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
you cant say if the Falcons was competing with other teams or not, I am sure other teams wanted Julio Jones
and they was competing against the Browns cause that is who the Browns wanted to pick.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 29, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
As much as I want Griffin
We are just not in a position to give up that many picks for one guy. If somehow Griffin fell to number 6 than it is a no brainer, but that is very unlikely. I say either trade back and get more picks or select the best OL or CB available with the 6th pick. Take Tannehill, Cousins, or Weeden in the late 1st or with our 2nd rounder.
While it is true that the Browns have more picks to Trade up
they also would be paying more if they choose to move up cause they only going up 2 spots. for instance if
The Redskins offer 2012 1st,2nd and 2013 1st and 3rd.
The Browns would have to offer something like this to beat it
2012 1st #4, #22, #37 which is 3,110 in value just to move up 2 spots that is not realistic if they do that they might as well throw a couple more picks and try to move up to #1 for Luck.
For all of that they might as well add a few picks to get Luck
but what most are missing is that the Browns are in a situation where they can get one of there MAJOR needs met either way by staying put a offensive playmaker is there biggest need whether it is QB, WR, or RB they need a playmaker and if they stay put and a team do trade up in front of them then they get a need met anyway in Justin blackmon, if nobody trade up they will get either RG3 or Blackmon depending how the draft go. so if say the Redskins trade up to get RG3 they could take Blackmon at #4 and get another quality starter at #22 like a Mike Adams to play RT. Remember the Browns have a lot of holes to fill and they got a fall back in Colt McCoy, i am not saying he is the answer but he is still young and may be better with more weapons, he had no run game, no WR’s, no playmakers
by Highspeed30 on Jan 29, 2012 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
just as we can get a major need met as well by staying where we are, or like this post proclaims we could fill multiple needs by trading back.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The Redskins would NOT get a MAJOR need met by staying at 6.
there are 2 MAJOR needs for the Redskins QB and WR. everything else is NOT a major need. the QB play have been horrible and the WR play have been equally as bad which is a by product of the bad QB play. Kyle was talking in a interview about the WR’s catching a touchdown pass all season where they ran it in the end zone that is horrible. Every TD pass was caught in the End zone except B.Banks play to Moss and Helu screen in Weeks 17. so there will be nobody to fill a MAJOR need for the Skins at 6. Rieff, Martin, Kirkpatrick, Richardson, Jeffery, Claiborne, none of them fill one of the 2 MAJOR needs QB and WR.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
I would not
it is not nearly as important to this team right now than QB and playmaker WR. you can get by with J Brown, Smith and Polumbus. you cant get by with Rex, Beck, and no Wr’s Hankerson is still raw.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
Agree that QB is top priority. But I would much rather get a stud RT to protect our QB and solidify the running game than a WR. Oline is far more important than WR
by StephanHart on Jan 30, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
I feel like there are other options later in the draft to fill both RT and WR
but i dont like the other options later in draft to fix the QB. Like i have said I would strongly consider trading back if Blackmon fell to #6 he would get me the best deal.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
how can you say that
in your other post you are so set on trading up to get a QB. you forget that in your opinion we should trade up. so how are we gonna get a star WR or OL if we just traded our 1st 2nd and maybe 3rd or 4th?
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
No you said we traded our 1st,2nd,3rd or 4th
I said it will cost 2012 1st, 2nd and 2013 1st and 3rd or 4th. to move up.
I also said feel like there are other options later in the draft to fill both RT and WR. There are guys that can be developed in later Rds.
See the difference is that you are of the opinion that after the trade we wont have any picks which is not the truth. 3rd,4th,4th,6th,6th,7th left in this years draft if you make the trade.
and what would we get with the 3rd,4th,4th,6th,7th.
Not a starting WR capable of taking over for Moss or Gaffeny. So we would be still trotting out these old recievers and have some project players that need a year or so to be coached up. then we wouldnt get any startes just mostly depth player and they wont be ready to play for a couple years.
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
I believe we have 8 picks this year in the draft
with no 5th round. But that is where you are wrong there is plenty of WR’s in this draft that are capable of making a impact and by the end of the year could be starters
Brian Quick 6’3" 220 Appalachian State
Marvin McNutt 6’2" 215 Iowa
Jeff Fuller 6’4" 217 Texas A&M
AJ Jenkins 6’1" 195 Illinois
Juron Criner 6’2" 220 Arizona
Stephen Hill 6’4" 210 Georgia Tech
Gerell Robinson 6’3" 223 Arizonia State
Marvin Jones 6’2 210 Cal
all of these receivers have a ton of upside and can be had in rds 3/4, and a guy like Greg Childs can be had in the 5th rd cause of injury
and a couple of these guys are rated higher than Hankerson
J.Howard 6' 2" 197lbs Frederick Community College
He’s got the body build to be a great football player and is a high character guy. With a little coaching he could make a great pick up in later rounds, he also has been known to catch the ball very good in the parking lot while practicing his toe tappers on the edge of a curb.
I guess I’m worth it.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
All you have to do is Go put on the tape on any of these receivers
and see that these guys are good, in fact it is easier to find WR in later rds, you have to remember that Shanny took Brandon Marshall in the 4th rd, I guess he just some late rd bum too
Def sounds like a good pick up.
The guy isn’t afraid to roll his ankle off of a curb he def would be a good guy to have over the middle
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
and all have their area that they need improvement
A lot of scouts think most of these guys will have a problem in the pros at first for one reason or another. I know Criner, Quick, mcnutt and hill all are predicted to have a issue with separation at the next level (of course this is all just talk till we see them in action at the next level). And with the exception of Criner they are all predicted to be nothing more than WR2 or slots. But i do agree they are all nice prospects and i would be happy to have McNutt or Criner
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
yeah but I think
Quick, have the potential to be like B.Marshall not as big but a #1 type of guy, and McNutt can be a solid 2 or 1A. AJ Jenkins have some good speed and route running.
And Greg Childs have all kinds of ability if he can get over his injuries i would not pick him before 5th rd though
Marshall is just a freak.....I am not apposed to they idea they all look really good
I would be happy with Quick, Criner, or McNutt
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
I think Gerell Robinson is the closest thing to Brandon Marshall in this years draft
He’s got similar size, a similar skill set and even posted similar stats
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 30, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
well the truth is
we need the qb more. its alot less likley to get a good qb late then it is on any other part of the team. there is something called FA too. so we can get a WR there we havent drafted a good wr in years so drafting a wr in the 2nd or 3rd is pretty much a waste of pick at this point. we can get deth with the 3rd and 2 4ths. and get projects with the 6th and 7th. we aint gonna do all these trade backs like last year. when we have plenty of picks now and a coaching staff that could be gone any year now. making a move up is the right thing to do imo.
you can't get by with any of those guys
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Thank you squigums
….I’ve been saying trade back take Floyd, then (Tannehill Foles Weeden the OLmen) that can all be done in the first 2 rounds if we can trade back
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
cant say I agree with this
I think the line needs more help the WR. Frankly think CB and S may be more of a need than WR.
When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." -Russell Ziskey
not to mention OL is supremely more important than WR
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
the problem with that is the Browns offer is even more valuable than the Skins one
If we wanted to say swap the Browns 4 and 37 for our 6 and 39, we’d have to make up over 200 points of trade value (based on the chart alone) which our 3rd rounder in 2013 wouldn’t do since it is essentially worth a 4th rounder. And our first rounder isn’t worth as much as the 22nd pick overall. For us to match that value, you would at least need to include our 2nd rounder next year, and probably a 4th this year.
If the Browns offered 4th, 22nd and say their 4th rounder, it would be the equivalent of your proposed trade.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
It is real funny how the trade back option is almost equal in value but your trade up option is 1300 more in value
if you gonna give options they all should be reasonable, and i expect to give a lil more value to trade up but nothing that high of a price. If that was the price to move up neither the Browns or The Redskins would make a deal like that and let the Rams pick either Kalil or Blackmon and deal with the Vikings.
the Draft Value Chart isn’t a rule, it’s a guideline.
It’s supply and demand, limited supply and high demand will raise the cost. Seeing as our main competitor has more collateral and that the team we are trading with knows that we are trading to secure a potential franchise QB (again, limited supply) the price will increase further.
Next years first and second are approximately worth the same as this years second and third, not this years first and second so if you work it out on a rough guideline (the Draft Value Chart)
[1600+(520*2)+(240*2)] – 2600 = 520, not 1,300
It’s an unfavorable situation for us, and a move that I wouldn’t want the franchise to make but I believe that is what it would take to outbid the Cleveland Browns.
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
Even with RG3 the Redskins probably will still be picking in the top 15 next year.
The only reason why people say that a pick this year is equal to a round later is cause they dont know where the pick could be potentially it can be from 1 to 32 but in this case it is a good bet that they pick in the top 15. Even still no pick they will have next year will be less than 590 but it is safe to assume they aint going to win the SB, even if they made the playoffs and lost in first round it would be around 20 -24. If a GM look at it like that then Atlanta fleeced the Browns last year for Julio Jones cause they only gave up 1400 points in value for a 1600 value point pick but in real life they gave up 1880 for 1600.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 29, 2012 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
while it is true you don't know exactly where the pick is and that is why the value is decreased the other issue is of course you are waiting a year for that value
The Rams and Fisher might like an idea of an extra first next year, but they could prefer the idea of a pair of firsts this year. Plus an extra pick or two. In terms of the Browns they weighed it it more beneficial to get a significant part of the deal next year. The problem here is we are probably competing with a team that can offer the Rams instant gratification.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
i dont think the browns are even in it at all.
i dont see them giving up either the best lineman or the best WR plus all their picks to out bid us just for a qb when they just drafted 1 a few years ago. just wouldnt make sense for them. they are in perfect shape and the only way to mess it up is to try and out bid us. so i think only the seahawks is the team we have to worry about. but they will really have to over pay to move up that far. we can offer 2 picks in the top 38.#6 and #38th overall this year.
That is cause most are assuming the Browns are in the mix
I am saying that they are in the mix cause they pick before the Redskins, so the Skins would have to trade up, but the Browns dont have to move to get RG3, they will get either Blackmon or RG3 pretty much either way. so it makes NO sense to assume that they will move up, i know that if they want to they could outbid the Redskins but the bigger question is do they want to??? Like i said that would be a hefty price to move up just 2 spots giving up #4, #22, and 37, i dont think they would do that .
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
Your way off with the trade value.
Plus, you need to edit this sentence:
•
Trading up will cost us this and next year’s First, Second and Third round pick, as well as next year’s First and Second
R.I.P JVP 1926-2012
Cheers, I fixed that
What do you think would be a fair value?
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
If it's trading up for RGIII it will costs at least two firsts and a second
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I'd say
Obviously swapping firsts this year, plus we give them our 2nd(2012), and 1st and 3rd(2013) – Possible we could get away with 1st and 4th in 2013, if we added one of our 4th’s this year as well(we have 2 anyways).
Either way, we kiss this years 2nd goodbye, but we still have our 3rd and 2 4th’s to add depth.
Imagine we get our 1st franchise QB in 20 years. I’d then target a C in the 3rd, and a WR in the 4th.
I really think we’ll all be getting a big clue as to what direction this staff is going to go by mid March. If we see a rush to bulk up the line in FA, and a possible #1 WR brought in, I’d go out on a limb, and say were going to do whatever we can to get RG3.
R.I.P JVP 1926-2012
by Tiller56 on Jan 30, 2012 8:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This
I'm worried about the beer supply. After this case, and the other case, there's only one case left- Barney Gumble
by CptChaosSidekick on Jan 30, 2012 9:53 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
but we don't need WR depth. we need WR starters (at some point)
Not saying that WRs are high priority for me, but that’s the difference when you trade up:
fewer better prospects
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
we got our Franchise QB
6 years ago
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
Todd Collins?
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I think we should trade back...as many times as possible.
Until we have every 6th and 7th round pick in the draft. That will give us 64 picks.
That way we don’t have to be worried about whiffing on a first round pick. How does this sound?
I see it as more cushion for the pushin'
by iH8dallas on Jan 29, 2012 8:21 PM EST via mobile reply actions
It sounds solid
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
I like the trade back scenario.
Cleveland owns the picks you named, and it’s well within reason they’ll want Richardson.
But i I could pick two, it would be trade back, then take the best OL available.
We need Draft Selections
We be bold & smart an trade back as many times as possible to select 2 guards, 2 tackles, one center, 2 large wide receivers, one large running-back, 2 huge tight-ends, 2 quarter-backs, 2 large corner-backs, one large free-safety, one large strong safety, one huge nose-tackle, another defensive tackle, and a large inside-line-backer. Whatever else we need we may even want to use the free agency for the guards & safety position (ss) or even the defensive end & quarter-back, we can make it happen in this draft.
Dude that's 19 draft picks.
I see it as more cushion for the pushin'
by iH8dallas on Jan 29, 2012 8:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Can never have enough Depth
The deeper the roster the farther the team can go and be that much better.
That is the dumbest thing i heard 19 draft picks
Lets be realistic you aint gonna draft 19 guys and if you did most of them wont make the final 53 man roster, and the rest might not even pan out. Let be resonable.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 29, 2012 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
I had about 15 draft picks in Madden one time
Maybe that’s the type of strategy being planned
You are the Yin to Vinny Cerrato's Yang
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 29, 2012 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
The Facts will Show
We have to get younger, stronger, faster, to be competitive and that is the key to the draft, selecting the correct players together that want to play as one that will win us many Super-Bowls. Otherwise you might as well stay home. Unless we play to win it all that is how it will end. Just take a closer look at both of the teams playing for the Super-Bowl now, it is the proof.
If it's much more than this year's and next year's first round picks
plus maybe a second or third round pick either this year or next, I just wouldn’t do it, mainly because there are solid second tier QBs, plus Flynn and one or two others. And St Louis could draft RG3 and trade Bradford, and Manning could come free. And there could be other surprises. And, of course, there are always Favre and Beck. (Relax – a little levity never hurt anyone).
Everyone's Job is up for Grabs
That means no one if safe, so if it takes 19 picks to do so be it. Believe me everyone from last years team will not be there. Take a close look at the roster now and after the season starts then a idiot like yourself can then talk.
First off they dont have 19 picks and if they did
all 19 picks WONT MAKE THE FINAL ROSTER. I know everybody from last year wont be on this years roster, cause there is turnover every year but 19 rookies would be stupid. cause you wont get 19 quality guys.
I would rather have Quality over quantity give me 3 Blue Chipers pro bowl caliber guys that make a impact, than 9-10 bodies with maybe 3 starters
Who to take at 17, 49, 81?
While the trade down option is in the lead, I thought it would be good to look at some potential names at each of those 3 spots:
17: Cordy Glenn- My top choice unless Mike Adams or Jon Martin are available. Let’s fix the RT need.
C Peter Konz- If the Skins didn’t grab Chris Myers in FA, Konz would be a great option
G David DeCastro- I love DeCastro but this could be a stretch for him to last this long.
WR Michael Floyd- I like Floyd a lot, but this WR class is super deep, so I’d probably pass
ILB Donta Hightower- could start over Riley and be the heart and soul of this defense when Fletcher needs to hang them up.
SS Mark Barron- Landry might not be retained leaving SS a major need.
Our 2nd rounder- QB, be it Tannehill or Weeden i think we go QB here.
49th: SS George Illoka, WR Rueban Randle, WR Brian Quick, don’t really see a good OL fit here, ILB Bobby Wagner, WR Dwight Jones, DE BIlly Winn, DE Jared Crick, CB Chase Minnifield (might be gone)
our 3rd: S Markelle Martin, S Harrison Smith, CB Leonard Johnson, WR Stephen Hill, WR Nick Toon, G Kevin Zeitler, OT Zebrie Sanders,
81: OT Matt McCants, C Ben Jones, C David Molk, WR Marvin McNutt, WR Joe Adams, CB Casey Hayward, CB Brandon Boykin, S Antonio Allen, RB Isaiah Pead, DE Kendall Reyes, Audie Cole, WR Tommy Streeter, OT Bobbie Massie, RB LaMichael James, CB Josh Norman
Now obviously some other guys could fall, and some of the guys I mentioned (esp. later in the draft) will likely be off the board, but most of those guys should be on the board at those picks (as it stands now).
My personal choice would be Cordy Glenn, Ryan Tannehill (Weeden very close), Minnifield (if gone Illoka), M. Martin (if already taken a safety, L. Johnson), Marvin McNutt
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
If it was up to me...
I’d go Mike Adams, Weeden (I think Tannehill goes in the late 1st), Kevin Zeitler, Casey Heyward and Antonio Allen/Kendall Reyes (depending on what happens with Carricker and Landry)
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 30, 2012 4:51 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I honestly hate the trade back approach
unless it is a desperate, last resort. I don’t like many options in the late 1st. I hope our offensive line needs are filled in FA, leaving us maybe one position to fill in the draft.
I’m not a fan of Tannehill. I just can’t stomach a weak armed QB, and I truely believe, after watching 5 games of his this past season, that he lacks arm strength, and will struggle in the NFL because of this. This, avove all, is the one thing I can’t stand in my QB’s(a weak arm). Tannehill’s passes(especially the deep out) float too much. He’ll be a turnover machine in the NFL.
R.I.P JVP 1926-2012
I'd much rather Cordy Glenn
than Mike Adams. If Adams underperforms in the NFL like I think he will at OT, your basically screwed. If Glen underperforms at OT, you have the option of kicking him inside to G.
If we were to trade back for an additional 2nd, I may be inclined to go Glenn in the 1st, Foles and Potter in the 2nd, Jones or Molk in the 3rd, and Criner or Fuller in the 4th.
R.I.P JVP 1926-2012
If i trade down i would
1st rd #17 SS Mark Barron can play in the box with good coverage skills
2nd rd #39OT Zebrie Sanders has experience playing both left and right T good size and long arms.
2nd rd #49 WR Brian Quick he got a ton of upside, good size 6’3" could be like B.Marshall
3rd rd #70 CB Josh Norman good size can play the run with good ball skills with soft hands.
3rd rd #81 TE Ladarius Green 6’6" Big target with soft hands, can add weight to frame
4th rd #102 C Molk is a undersized scrappy great for Zone Blocking system
4th rd #113 QB Kirk Cousins or BJ Coleman
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Rex or a free agent
I like Highspeed’s scenario
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 30, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Bring in a couple of Veterans in training camp
maybe Orton, Brady Quinn, Shaun Hill, Chad Henne or Dennis Dixion. I think i could not hurt to bring some guys in but i would let Rex and Beck go.
I really would like to see what the Shanahans can do with a guy like Brady Quinn i just dont think he ever really got a fair chance in Denver, and when he did play in Cleveland he ended up getting hurt slowing is progress.
But of course that is a plan that is way down the line.
But i would not get none of the 2nd tier guys Foles, Tannehill or Weeden unless i could get Weeden in the 4th but I would go with Cousins or Coleman if i am gonna take a flier cause it would be a late rd pick no pressure if they pan out good if not oh well
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Love the Green pick...
he is going to be a stud for sure, and will definitely help a young QB out
"Honey Badger Don't Care"
I like that pick there too.
Adding another weapon for Weeden Tannehill or Foles
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
getting Tannehill, Foles or Weeden in the 2nd rd is just a waste of a pick IMO
because they are not that much better than other guys you could get in 4th-7 like Cousins, or Coleman. I would rather get a possible starter in the 2nd rd with a position player than waste it on a guy i am going to have to replace again next year or in 2 years.
SPENDING 5 PICKS ON RG3
IS A WASTE OF FIVE FUCKING PICKS
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
why so hostile?? but it is NOT a waste if he turn out to be a top 10 QB
The Giants and crying about the picks they gave up for Eli i would say it worked oout for them 1 SB win and in another 1 this year.
And like I been saying I would not promote the trade in this post, and i did not vote cause it is unrealistic it would be more like 4 picks and a net of 3 players over 2 years.
BECAUSE....
4 high round picks is 4 high round picks. That could turn into 7 high round picks just by trading back. Then you add the bust factor if we bust on moving up for him than thats 1 bust and a loss of 4 quality players. That sucks. THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS THAT SUCKS!!!!! And then if he does work out it’ll be 2014 before we can draft anyone for him but by then fletch will be gone so we’ll be spending a high round pick on lB also we’ll need to spend a high round pick on CB and then we can work towards getting him weapons in 2015. Your taking our 5 year plan and making it a 10 year plan all because you got too happy for one player and blew your load all over him. If were not bad enough to draft him at 6th then we don’t need him. We were bad enough to need the 6th best player not the 2nd.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
First off you so hell bent on him being a bust.
that is what the coaches are there for, to develop him and any other player into good players, and if Shanny feels like RG3 is a Franchise QB then i feel he will put the resources into making him successful.
As far as getting him weapons as i stated before it is far easier finding guy in the later rounds at every other position than QB and there are other resources such as Free Agency and there are already guys on the team like Helu, Royster, Hankerson, Sleepy Davis, Cooley, 3rd rd pick WR (McNutt, Fuller, Quick, Criner), 4th rd TE (Ladarius Green) so that he wont have the weapons crap dont hold water.
well even if he isn't a bust
count the 4 players that we lost as bust
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
only reason we traded back was because we had no picks and we needed alot of changes was needed on defense
this year we need alot of change at QB. he already failed with mcnabb, rex and john. and he wouldnt even give the qb he drafted a chance to even go against beck so that doesnt look good for that pick….. and he dont have time to do the trade back thing this year while we are so close to the top pick. if he does that again and gets us a few starters to improve the team a little then goes out and signs another FA qb to start untill the 2nd round qb is ready. chances are we are 7-9 to 8-8 at best and will stay at that record almost every year untill we either trade up or sign a bigger name qb in FA.. but i really doubt shanahan can last that long….so by then we will be stuck with these second grade system guys and we will need a whole new team. and alot of you will be bashing shanny and allen just like u did with vinny and snyder…i think its worth a shot at adding a top projected qb, use what ever picks is left to get depth maybe a few starters out of this draft and next before we hit the 8-8 team with no qb so it wont take a ricky williams trade to trade or left having to do a carson palmer type trade.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
that's not a bad play, but I have begun to worry about Sanders, I think he is more of a 3rd rounder now, and maybe not an early starter.
I also like Green, but wouldn’t take him that early. I’d only take him if he fell to the late 4th.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
how does it make sense that we have to give up
our 6th overall our 2nd 38th overall and our 3rd round pick. plus our first and and 2nd round picks next year to move up 4 spots.
then if we trade back from the 6th to the 17th and we only get a late second and 3rd round pick for the trade?
im guessing ur plan is to trade up to the 1st pick? i wouldnt do either trade at the cost of that trade up and i wouldnt let another team rip us off for that trade back
The value chart kinda goes out the window when the pick is player specific...
and you’re bid is a competetion. If we offer the same thing the Browns offer, we’d lose, because obviously, they have higher picks. Whatever is fair for the Browns to trade for him…we basically have to add a 3rd or 4th to their offer to justify falling back the extra 2 picks in each of the rounds.
"Honey Badger Don't Care"
That is the reason why it is more expensive for the Browns to pull a trade to move up
Cause they only moving up to spots they should only have to trade 2012 1st, 2nd and 4th to go up 2 spots, but they would have to go 2012 1st #4, 1st #22, 2nd #37 minimum just think if you are the Browns do you make that trade to move up just 2 spots???? Especially when they have Colt McCoy (not saying he the answer) with only 21 starts and NO weapons last year. and if there are no trades they could have there pick of RG3 or Blackmon. if Rams take Kalil and Minny take Claiborne.
by Highspeed30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
its not based so much on number of spots, but rather where they are
The top 10 picks are considered to have a far greater value (and that is even before looking at specific players)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
round and round we go...
we keep making the same arguments for each’s proposal. I love how weighted each side favors their premise, with biased, unrealistic hypothesis. Shanaplan, I thought you wanted to know what people were thinking. Then you create a pathetic scenario, driving the survey towards “trade down”. I think it is insincere. If you want to know what people think (I not sure why, since this topic has been debated about for weeks now), DO NOT create some pathetic scenario. (Yes, I’m sure it is realistic in your mind, but as far as I am concerned, completely biased).
Think for a minute...
Why is my opinion pathetic or biased? If the Browns are going to take Griffin, and we want him then we have to outbid them, if they don’t want him then he will likely fall to us, which would be the best case scenario for us. The ‘pathetic’ scenario I set, represents the Redskins making a move for him and forcing the Browns hand. There is nothing biased about it. Isn’t it more biased to assume that we can get the 2nd or 3rd overall pick, while another team who has more to offer for that said pick would just stand by and let us undercut them?
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 30, 2012 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
hahahaha
so true the browns will get him or he’ll fall to us. Either way its a win win. As long as were not trading our precious picks away.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
this is so wrong...
IF (and it is a big if…) Cleveland wants him, and they know we want him, then they MAY trade up, offering their 2 1st picks & a lower pick.
But this idea of getting into a bidding war with Cleveland is ludicrious. We will make an offer to the Rams, and either it will be accepted, or rejected, or they will come back to us informing us of Cleveland’s interest, offering us another opportunity to revise our proposal, which I doubt we would do… We are not giving up as much as ShanaPlan suggests…
it is biased...
due to an unrealistic scenario created by your hypothesis. You’re assuming that Cleveland wants him, that they are going to trade up for him, forcing us to offer a large sum. But this assumption is based on nothing but conjecture, due to the fact you think Colt is a bum.
In the real world, teams throw out multiple fictional offers to mess with other teams, but the end cost of actually trading is usually standard costs. Since we are talking only moving up 4 positions, your scenario is “pathetic”. This FO would not offer more, because they are worried that Cleveland is trying to trade up. A FO makes an offer, maybe a slight tweek, if given the opportunity, but they have already figured the ceiling of what they would offer.
Everyone who keeps mentioning the Falcons trade keep forgetting that they were trading up from #26. They had to offer a ton. We would not. So, that is why I refer to your scenario as pathetic. It would never happen. This FO would not give up that much. There is something called Precedent, and I don’t believe they want to set the new bar. If we want to trade up, it will cost our 1st, 2nd and next year 1st. If Cleveland offers more, or there offer is more attractive, then we trade down…
Wow...
The Browns have undergone major coaching changes this year, that coaching staff has the potential to draft a franchise Quarterback at the start of their tenure, or stay with a below average quarterback who also has a history of concussions. I have never said he is a bum, the fact that he is below average and injury prone is a FACT, not my ‘biased’ opinion… Imagine if the Redskins were in their position, what would you do?
Nobody knows what is going to happen on draft day, and I can’t say that the browns are 100% sold on him. But, it is a scenario which makes a lot of sense and is by no means unrealistic or based on conjecture. What is conjecture is teams throwing out multiple fictional offers, how do you know that? Which teams front office do you work for? If a team was making a move for a pick, why would they listen to other teams? Surely they would only deal with the team they are looking to deal with, not what other teams were ‘apparently’ willing to give up? Also, if the team was run by a chimp who did believed the competitors fictional offer, couldn’t that distort the value and raise it even further?
My opinion is not biased because I WANT us to draft Griffin AND I wouldn’t be opposed to trading up for him HOWEVER my realistic and unbiased opinion is that the Browns will be in the market for him and they could easily out muscle a trade that favours us. The trade up price represents what it would probably take to outbid the Browns if they wanted Griffin. Did I say this is what Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen would give up to get him? No.
This post was called the Community Draft for a reason. I wanted to see what other members of the Hogs Haven community would do in the worst case scenario for us. The best case scenario is the Browns not being interested in RG3 and him falling to us on a plate at #6 however that is unrealistic and biased towards the Redskins.
There's always next year...
by The Shanaplan on Jan 31, 2012 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Wow...
take a breath. I am not attacking you, just responding to YOUR post. I agree with you, in regards to my desire for RG3. I also agree with mosts assessment of Colt McCoy. RG3 is much better a prospect than Colt.
All I was taking exception to was your “assumption to set the scenario”.
Which teams front office do you work for?
None, just a lowly salesman. But even I know there are rumors and “fictional” reports spread around by teams to throw other teams off there trail, on who they desire to select.
If a team was making a move for a pick, why would they listen to other teams?
Isn’t this the premise you base your assumptions on? The idea that Cleveland would attempt to trade up and what we would need to do to out-offer them? You base that assumption on stories you hear. FOs “hear” a lot of stories. That is what I meant by “fictional offers”.
I apologize for the “biased” comment. I assumed you were with the trade back group. I guess that makes an ass out of me…
No need to further nit-pick; I would rather agree how much RG3 would bring to this team. Finally, if we are lucky to pull off a trade for him (or Luck @ #2), IMHO, it shouldn’t cost us so much.
I am not saying that the Browns wont trade up
I just think it is unlikely, I maintain that they would be thrilled to have Justin Blackmon or Trent Richardson if they could not land RG3. I would even guess that they make a inquiry to the Rams about how much it would be to move up, but i think they call the Colts to see how much it would be to move up to #1, but i think at the end of the day it does not make sense IMO to pay both 1st #4, #22 and 2nd #37 and maybe even a 4th rd pick cause that is what it will take to beat a offer if the redskins would make that is about the value of #2 pick 2600 or a little over the value of the pick.
But we have a long way before any of that come into play, after Free agency we will have a better idea to what teams will or will not do, everything right now is just speculation.
the rams could lie and say the browns want him so we offer more.
i think we give them a offer if they come back and say the browns want him. then we must say they can have him. but i think we should at least make a good fair offer that they will take if another team isnt out bidding us.
ABSOLUTELY...
This has been my point throughout this entire post. We make a fair offer and let the Rams decide…
umm how is it 'pathetic', 'unrealistic' or 'biased'
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I like how everyone is argueing the fairness of the trade up.
it’s a scenario, the scenario is what it is. So don’t say you don’t think it’s the right scenario, just pick the best deal given in the scenario.
I’m all for trading up for Griffen but the deal that this scenario represents is too rich for my blood so I chose to trade down.
good scenario
I think it was a thoughtful post and appreciate the work in it. I think you make a decent case that the trade up may be expensive. Also, I think it’s important for the trade up no matter what, to understand how far they would be willing to go (or may have to go).
What might be interesting would be some poll for what people’s max offer would be for a trade up. IOW, what is the maximum you are willing to spend (if competition drives the need).
Same scenario, getting to #2, picking RG3.
1. Would not trade even fair value.
2. Trade fair value.
3. FV plus 5%
4. FV plus 10%
5. FV plus 20%
6. FV plus 30%
7. FV plus 50%
(explain with picks)
I'm not voting because your assumed trade is too high
You’re trying to determine the concensus by dictating the terms of the trade.
what's the 'alternative' trade up?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
the more realistic cost...
of our 1st, our 2nd this year, and our 1st next year…
(Maybe a 4th next year, though I don’t think that will be neccessary….)
it is realistic...
because it is based on facts that are known, how much value is it to trade up 4 spots.
Your belief is based on theories. You don’t even know if Cleveland wants RG3. You think so, because you think Colt is crap (which he may be). But all this “they are going to know that we know that they know we want RG3” is BS. The only thing I can guarantee is the Skins will make an offer to the Rams for the #2 pick. Whether they accept it or not, or if Cleveland makes an offer (if it is better), all that is speculation…
oh, based on that, then...
from this day forth, every trade up will be for more than valued. You are saying that precedent has been set…
Just trying to get a clearer understanding…
It's true though
1. With the rookie wage scale bringing down contract costs for top prospects, high draft picks are worth a lot more than they were in previous years. So all trade-ups should exceed the draft value chart, by a considerable amount.
2. In this particular draft, you have 1 top QB prospect available. Luck is a Colt, count it. RG3 is the only top QB prospect, which further inflates the value of the pick it will take to get him.
yes, I'm sure that is true...
but I would like to stay in the world of reason. I would love to have RG3, but I don’t, for one moment, believe that this FO would trade so much to move up 4 spots. If that is what the Rams are asking for, then you say “have a nice draft”. Or, if there is some irrational team out there offering so much, then you let them sabotage their team.
Again, this is my personal feelings, IMO, I don’t believe Cleveland is going to offer much, if anything, to trade up. Our offer will be the best, since we are @ #6. I consider offering this years 1,2 and next years 1,4 is, not only fair, but a substantial offer. Either they take it, or some team offers more…
I think...
I was new to this blog, can right into discussion about Andrew Luck, and I may have gotten a certain reputation. I hope, the more posts I put up, and the more discussion we have, I come across more “reasonable”.
I also admit, I think this is one of the best sites I have discovered. I had never blogged before, but I cannot think of a better way to spend some of my time (at work) talking about my favorite team…
The Falcons did not grossly overpay to trade up for Julio Jones
and the Jags certainly did not over pay to move up to take Blaine Gabbert the Redskins only got a 2nd rd pick.
Sign Matt Flynn and Dwayne Bowe and Draft TRENT RICHARDSON
We just seriously upgraded every offensive skill position dramatically
you wanna a an RB with the 6th pick?
It the one position on the O were I think everybody agrees we actually might have some talent and depth (Helu, Royster, and Hightower). If we take an RB it should be a guy like Rainey in the 5th who could add a different dimension and return kicks
When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." -Russell Ziskey
I liked Rainey he would be a amazing pick up
I like Brandon Banks but he is kinda a waste of a WR slot at least with Rainey he would be versatile in the run/pass/KR and he is bigger so less worry bout injury
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
If we got OL
in the 2nd and 3rd, and an ILB and CB in the 4th, could be fine
and without an offensive line we will see very little benefit
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I want
1 – tradeback
1 – Floyd/Jefferies
2 – RT
2 – Weeden (from tradeback)
3 – ILB
3 – C/G
3 – SS or CB
FA – CB
FA – SS
FA – C/G
you don't want
1. RG3
2. na
3. na
4. project
5. project
6. project
7. project
2013.
1. na
2. CB
3. depth
4. na
5, project
6. project
7. project
that just seems so useful #sarcasm
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
the whole idea that it would cost us 1, 2, 3 this year & 1 and 3 next year...
IS THE BIGGEST JOKE IN THIS ENTIRE POST!!!
We would never pay that much, nor would the Rams require so much. If Cleveland wants RG3 (and none of us know if they do…) and the Rams find there offer more attractive, so be it. But our FO is not going to get into this huge bidding war you guys keep referring to…
If clevland wants him
and your saying its a must we get him. Then yes it will cost this much.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
I never said it was a must...
when we have discussed Luck @ #1, then yes, I would get into a bidding war for him. But, no, there will be no bidding war for the #2 pick. I personally don’t believe Cleveland wants to give up any picks, making it possible for us to trade up and select RG3…
I think Cleveland does want them
They don’t have anything right now. And they’re in a perfect position to draft him, they have an extra 1st, so moving up would really just require them to lose an extra pick…one they already had.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
they may....
but it doesn’t matter if I agree with you that Colt is NOT their future. What matters is what their FO thinks (Holgren). Then the strategy begins, determining what offer to make, based on what they think may/may not be happening. If they short change their offer, the Rams may take our offer.
One thing it won’t be is a bidding war for RG3. It will be an offer, then we’ll see where the chips fall.
Personally I would rather
1 – trade back
1 – DeCastro
2 – CB
2 – Adcock
3 – WR
4 – ILB
4 – SS
FA – Matt Flynn
FA – Carl Nicks
no a franchise qb is the most important position if the rams don't take our offer then we'll just have to give them an offer they cant refuse
7 1st round picks (seriously why do we even need those when we’ve got RG3)
4 2nd round picks (do i have to mention we will have RG3)
1 3rd round pick ( I tried to offer more because Griffin is worth it but they said they’d exceed the max amount of picks they were allowed to have.)
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
this is more what it would look like even with a trade up
1st Robert Griffin III
2nd traded pick
3rd WR McNutt or Brian Quick
4th TE Ladarius Green
4th CB Bill Bentley or C Molk
6th T Markus Zusevics Iowa can play T or G
6th WR TY Hilton Florida International 4.3 speed WR/KR
7th ILB Korey Williams Southern Miss.
if we do a trade back i dont want a 2nd round qb...
rather get flynn or some other qb in FA. we are not gonna get a good second rounder qb unless we trade up back to the late first or up in the second. i just cant see a team in the late first with older qbs not grabbing a foles or tennihill to set on the bench for a few years until their older qb is done or wants more then he is worth.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
All those players have great potential
and can be developed in 1 or 2 years and all of them can play special teams while they learn how to play in the NFL.
And a guy like Green can be a starter
Molk could be a starter
Bentley can be a starter with some seasoning
Hilton is a good receiver and can take Banks spot in the return game.
And Williams is a high motor guy that will excel on Teams and maybe he can develop into a starter
Why Trade back over RG3
The trade back scenario should only be considered if our best possible offer for RG3 is turned down. While the Redskins have many holes and needs the biggest and most important hole is at QB. It’s one thing to trade back because you see a QB you really like in the 2nd/3rd round, and you believe he can be the answer. I also understand trading back if you don’t think RG3 is the answer.
What I don’t follow is the belief that we shouldn’t give up a couple of draft picks for a franchise QB. I have seen the trade back route before, when we drafted Kelly, Thomas, and Davis, and it is not guaranteed to work. If we trade back what is the long term solution to the QB position. In the best case scenario, saying that all the picks work out, we probably won’t be picking in the top 10 next year. So we won’t have a chance to draft a top QB next year. If you don’t think that we should trade up this year, then you probably won’t want to trade up next year right.
Simply hoping that the major need at QB goes away can not be a plan of action. Could we find our star QB in the 6th round like Tom Brady, of course we could, it’s just not likely. Could we find our Franchise Qb in free agency like Drew Brees, of course we could, its just not likely. Regardless of how you feel about RG3, the instability and uncertainty that not having a franchise QB creates makes it imperative that a solution be found as soon as soon as possible.
I like RG3, but more importantly I think that the Redskins need a Franchise/Long Term solution to QB position, and that this should be our #1 concern.
Define "Best possible offer".
And you can’t use Malcolm Kelley and Devin Thomas as an example because they were drafted by Vinny Cerratto.
I would give a
2011 1st and 2nd and 2012 1st and 3rd, but then again I’m a big fan of RG3. QB’s that can run like that and have that kind of accuracy are hard to come by. The funny thing is that if he’s 6’1 or 6’0 we probably wont be having this discussion.
I think Kelly and Thomas are good comparisons because of the current state of the offense. The skins offense has no identity now just like it had no identity when we drafted Davis, Thomas, and Kelly. The lack of an identity makes it more likely that we will fall into the trap of drafting players who do not mesh well with the scheme. We have seen it countless times over the decade. Brandon Lloyd comes in he looks washed up, he leaves and leads the league in receptions. Rogers leaves and goes to the probowl. Ryan Clark leaves and goes to the probowl.
These aren’t mere coincidence. Its a lot easier to find something when you know what your looking for. Its hard to have an identity(offensively) when the QB position is in constant turmoil. So the lack of a QB also makes it more likely that the draft picks we don’t want to give up will not meet their full potential.
by bigmikeemike09 on Jan 30, 2012 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
fixed
QB’s that can run like that and have that kind of accuracy have never won a superbowlare hard to come by
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
steve young didn't have RG3 type speed.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
Steve Young didnt need speed he was fast enough and ran like a RB he was a MONSTER and my favorite QB of all time
HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!
John Elway was mine
I wrote to him in 4th grade sent him a card to sign (This was 1998 their 2nd superbowl) he hand wrote me a letter back signed the card and put it in a protective case. I should write him a thank you card.
I had an awesome 4th grade teacher that was our homework…to write to a player in the NFL or MLB or NHL everyweek.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
You're being nit-picky. The fact is that Steve Young was an extremely mobile QB, accurate, and he won multiple superbowls
by StephanHart on Jan 31, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
He did have Jerry Rice
we have Jabar Gaffney….holy shit were going to the Superbowl next year if we get RG3 paired with Tripod
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
So your saying RG3s most comparable pro athlete is Steve YOung?
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
I'm refuting what you said above
QB’s that can run like that and have that kind of accuracy have never won a superbowl
by StephanHart on Jan 31, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
well we gave away a 2nd and 3rd round pick for a aging mcnabb
that was benched for rex grossmen the same year….. but i dont blame shanny for trying. and i cant really blame vinny and snyder for trying in the past either. a trade back was needed last year. and we got lucky with the picks that were made. mostly because the switch to 3-4 turned our defense from a top 15 to dead last in a single season. so almost any pick on D was a upgrade or good looking depth. as bad as our offense has been we really aint that bad as our d was. so we should go for the franchise which will improve us right away. specialy with rg3 skill set which can make our lines job easyer, make our rbs better, and make bad wrs look better.and make kyle`s job more easy. i think alot of lost games can be put on bad qb play and kyles bad play calling.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
nice, hail mary...
so we have to take ALL YOUR HISTORY REFERENCES AT FACE VALUE, where as, you can discard any that we offer. How nice for you. It makes it so that you are unreasonable, not worth arguing any point of importance.
I believe Mike makes a valid argument. You don’t have to agree with it, but acknowledge it’s validity. He, at the very least, gave a reasonable explanation of his position. I happen to agree with his assessment.
no idea what you are talking about. i was replying to deepballs vinny comment.
i agreed with big mike on another thread when he said almost the same thing. im new here and the reply doesnt always post under who i am trying to comment to. i just dont think we should keep bashing vinny when our current crew has been far from perfect.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
munson...
I was not responding to your comment, even though it places it under your comments. Anyone who responds to your comments will appear under you, indented.
My comment was directed to DeepBall, above….
The trade down scenario doesn't look that appealing
If I hold the sixth pick and I’m trading down to seventeen then I want both of the Bengals first round picks. We could trade down with Seattle at twelve and get their second rounder, why would we move down to seventeen for less value?
Offer personel
What if we threw in Stephen Davis and Landry…if a team would take them.
Then what draft positions would we possibly need to give? We can get TE and SS in later rounds or FA. Even though Davis had a suspension, he is still a pretty darn good TE. We need a QB-Period. What team needs a strong safety who can knock out players for 6-8 games a season, which is what I expect he can deliver at best next year and a starting TE? Lord willing, Landy just might recover from his injury. Stranger things have happened. Just thinking out loud. Could be different player(s).
Thoughts on players and draft positions?
haha, no.
Davis is worth very little now with his recent suspension and Landry has been injured and would likely miss much of next season if all doesn’t go well and he needs surgery. Not to mention we’d have to resign them both first, so if we can’t trade them away we’re stuck with them or we have to pay out whatever guaranteed money we offer.
Think of any other players who might interest top 5 teams?
Just asking. Would like to see us get RGIII and build from there-dreaming I know. If we don’t get that HOF QB and we play better next year with maybe a Fole type QB (2nd tier), improved OL and DB’s and a top rate receiver, we may not be able to draft high enough to get that HOF QB next year-with luck won’t need one. Would hate to see us giving up so many positions ( as posted today ) because we did so well with last years draft. But, would also hate to see us trade our good young players. Trading players up, well we just don’t have enough depth to do that do we? I do hope Davis and Trent’s issue was a one time thing. We have a lot of character players now who will be on their butts for sure, so it doesn’t happen again. I pray for them they see and appreciate the rare and precious opportunities they have. It’s almost impossible for me to comprehend the depth of the stupidity, if they thought they could get away with it. Brings into question their judgment. Then again, I believe they are embarrassed enough now to keep straight. Main thought again was, do we have ANY trade bait- D. Hall? Thanks TheDeepBall for your thoughts.
Well, trading back could net us an extra 1st round pick next year
and we’d have the ammunition to trade up for Barkley or Bray.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 30, 2012 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
But no, I don't think we have any trade bait.
That’s just how bad our team is.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 30, 2012 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
i think we can offer brandon banks
could be good with a better play caller. who throws wr screen to slower players on the the team.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
First option should be RG of course
Second option Claiborne… Third option best pass rusher…. Fourth option trade back for more picks and draft Osweiler beginning of the third round
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 31, 2012 1:15 AM EST via mobile reply actions
There are 6 Studs in this draft. Get whichever one is sitting there.
Luck, RGIII, Kalil, Blackmon, Richardson and Claiborne
Eh. Here you go
There are 6 Studs in this draft. Get whichever one is sitting there.
Luck, RGIII, Kalil, Blackmon, Richardson and Claiborne
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
we dont need him
i left the 6. He is a stud but we don’t need him in this system. Also Rbs are a dime a dozen and they flare out quick
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
i agree we should look to trade back if richardson is the only 1 left.
problem is. there is 2 to 4 teams behind us that dont really need him either. so its not likely we will even get a offer for him so the team wanting him would just offer one of them instead of us.. so maybe we are forced to draft him and trade helu or royster to move up next year. or get a number 1 from a team that loses their number 1 rb in mid season playoff hunt.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
another top 10 pick spent on the secondary, huh?
Ugh.
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
you either are joking or have not seen or heard any football news lately...
FYI, Vikings have a QB, drafted last year, his name is Christian Ponder, he went to FSU. He was selected much higher than expected.
Also, given that they are NOT in the market for QB, they have made it clear that the #3 pick that they have is also available to anyone who wants to trade up….
Go to their blog and read it
http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/1/20/2720834/vikes-should-draft-rgiii-or-luck-if-available
At least the fans want a new QB, Ponder isn’t all that.
if that is your source, that would explain it all...
The problem though is that the Vikings are likely “committed” to Ponder on some idiotic pride level and will build the offseason around him and Frazier’s old coaching buddies and be content to march out the same losing combination next season.
this is a direct quote from the author. But this in no way makes him an expert. His comments alone, expose him (he believes it is “some idiotic pride” thing. That is just insane. He doesn’t like Ponder, WISHES for RG3, but “Ain’t gonna happen”, one year after drafting a QB @ #12…
I voted trade back .
I’m also greedy , and think we should try to trade back the #38 pick as well . Going with the OP , #17 , #49 , #81 , for the #6 . How about say #52 , #84 , and #116 , for the #38 pick ?
That would give us 1st – #17 , 2nd – #49 & #52 , 3rd – #70 – #81 & #84 , as well as 3-4th rd picks . We could fill alot of holes on this team , draft a QB that we like in the 2nd round , if he doesn’t seem to be the answer , draft one of the 5 top tier QB’s available in 2013 draft .
Barkley , Murray , Bray , T.Wilson , and L.Jones , will all be available in the 2013 draft , with less NFL teams in need of a QB . It should be much easier to get a franchise QB in 2013 draft , and our overall team will be much stronger with all the extra picks from 2012 .
I love all these mystery trade back scenarios
The 17 pick belong to Bengals, they may have interest in Richardson but they wont be ringing the Redskins phone cause there are four teams behind the Skins that already have backs that they can trade with for cheaper. You have to have a trade partner and be able to get proper value for your pick
these are the same people who...
tell you, so quickly, how the guy you are trading up for WILL bust…
yet, all the players they suggest will develop into All Pros. Given that premise, sure, we should trade down, but……
problem is eldond, the cost of a rookie isnt as high any more
so if a team like the steelers or saints have a really bad year they can draft that good rookie prospect to keep on the bench for 1-3 years. then when they current qb is either too old or wants more then he is worth they can just dump him and have the rookie step in. without the worry of trading up or going threw a rebuilding season. i would love to get all those picks! but man i dont see a qb that could help us in any of them. i am having my doubts about us being able to get a 2nd round qb we would like with the 38th pick in the draft. im pretty sure he will be gone by 49th.
by munson21502 on Jan 31, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
