Dre Bly Trade?

by Skin Patrol on Mar 7, 2007 10:27 AM EST in Analysis Comment 13 comments

Update [2007-3-7 11:22:46 by Skin Patrol]: Curly R weighs in.

Update [2007-3-7 10:33:22 by Skin Patrol]: And the Denver Post which is still talking about Ladell Betts. He's not going anywhere (I hope)!

Update [2007-3-7 10:30:9 by Skin Patrol]: I am so late on this. War Cry! and this morning's Post have additional details and commentary.

Redskins Insider and Tandler (and I'm sure Mile High Report soon will be) are buzzing over the Dre Bly to Redskins trade rumors which, given our trade history with the Broncos, is beginning to sound a bit inevitable. Also given our trade history with the Broncos the whole idea is a bit terrifying, as we always seem to get gamed by them.

Not so fast. Tandler thinks it goes down like this:
Denver sends Dre Bly, the 21st pick, 56th pick, and the 87th pick. The Redskins send the #6 pick. Mathlete Tandler:

Bly gives the Broncos the asset that they need to get to #6 without burning any of their picks for next year. Looking at the draft point value chart, the sixth pick is worth 1,600 points. Denver's #21 (800 points), #56 (340) and #87 (155) total 1,295 points. The gap of 305 points (equal to a late second-rounder) would be bridged with Bly.

Redskins Insider is the same kind of sort of:
He's got Denver sending Bly, 1st round pick, 2nd round pick and/or third round pick. With a conditional late round pick thrown in the mix.

So, I still think there is a very good chance we see Bly come to DC, along with Denver's first-round pick, and second- and/or third-round pick, plus maybe a conditional late round pick, in exchange for the 6th overall pick.

Obviously that and/or is kind of important as it is the difference between two or else three Day 1 draft picks. It would be especially juicy if we could get our third round pick back from Denver that we lost in the TJ Duckett fiasco.

Let me just say that I'd take Tandler's trade in a heart beat. Dre Bly was an early 2nd round pick and we'd be getting him for a late 2nd rounder, and I'm fine with that. We'd get 3 day 1 picks and, again, I'd be fine with that.

I also want to suggest another possibility; Shanahan still likes Shawn Springs and, per Jason La Canfora, we already tried to trade Springs to Denver. If we're making waves as if we're going to cut Springs anyways why not go all the way and really get some value out of Denver? Throw Springs in to get some additional picks or perhaps ask (again) for some cap assistance seeing as we're the ones losing the 6th overall draft pick. From Canfora:

I heard today that these trade talks actually stretch back to before the combine and have taken on various forms (including the Springs for Bly proposed swap that the Broncos killed because the Skins wanted cap relief, as reported first on this lil blog Sunday).

Wouldn't something along these lines still remain on the table?

Here's why I want to trade Springs:

Better to trade than cut as we get value with the former and none for the latter.
If we wheeled and dealed for Bly we would have Springs, Bly, Smoot, and Carlos Rogers and I place them in that order on the Depth Charts. Even presuming that Springs misses a bunch of games in 2007 -- a safe assumption -- it still bumps Carlos Rogers or else Smoot to nickel duty for many games and off the field for others. Given his regression in '06 I could live with Rogers as our nickel back but I really don't want to hinder his development completely by pushing him to the very bottom of the depth chart. He's still a good corner that this team can and should develop into a star one day, and crowding the Defensive Backs too much won't accomplish that.
Finally, if we're already dealing with the Broncos and they previously expressed an interest in him, why not pull the trigger? Strike when the iron is hot says I.

Reader(s), is there any legitimacy to throwing Springs in the mix? Would you take the above trade proposals? If you would throw Springs in, what would you request back for him?

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would prefer they trade springs in the deal

for a few reasons or else not make the deal at all
and they would almost certainly have to get cap space help if they traded him in this deal.

For one your right about rogers getting pushed down really far, lets not forget the CB's were on their heels last year with no pressure on the QB,he played injured for awhile and if my memory serves me correct didnt he have a cast on and play for some time?,also CB's need on-field transiton time in order to become really good.In my opinion rogers is really close to becoming the #2 CB on any team(or at least he deserves the chance to)and having 4 quality players at the position might hurt him.Having prioleau back this season will certainly help in passing situations.

Anyways as far as what we should get back for springs,who knows,cap help?(prefered),maybe compensatory picks?,maybe backup help at some positions like O-line?,maybe some kind of combination of these.

by Sincethebeginning on Mar 7, 2007 12:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Broncos...

are not going to mortagse their draft for 1 pick/player. Let me say, if they do they are complete idiots.

To give the Redskins a start CB AND three picks is ludicris.

Now, add Carlos Rogers to the mix and maybe. Springs might get the deal done, as long as the Broncos don't have to help financially.

The Redskins made their draft bed, the Broncos aren't going to give them all those picks back for 1 player....

TSG
MILE HIGH REPORT

by TheSportsguru on Mar 7, 2007 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

They'd have to for the #6 pick

If the trade is dictated by the Draft Value Chart, just like their last one was, then they're going to have to honor the spirit of that value chart. A #6 pick isn't cheap and the Broncos really don't have much compensation with their own picks. As Tandler pointed out, a #6 straight up for the Broncos 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounder still isn't fair to the Redskins. Dre Bly represents the remaining points.

I have no problem throwing Springs in the mix if it would it would get us the 1st, 2nd and our third pick back.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 7, 2007 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm thinking...

that the Snyder of 2 or 3 years ago would have already made the trade. And Betts would already be gone.

I think having Rogers, Smoot, Bly and Springs could work. Playing time would not be an issue. It would also lend to the possibility of Springs moving to safety, which could be interesting.

I'm not sure with Springs' contract that he's tradeable. The same reason the team wants to unload him is the reason other teams wouldn't want to pick him up.

The system that Williams runs uses a lot of coverage, so I could see all 3 or 4 on the field at the same time. Rogers will be just fine. At one point, this team had Smoot, Bailey and Green... and they all saw significant playing time. You cannot have too many quality CBs.

The trade for Bly, their 1, 2, and 3 round picks for the # 6 pick is a pretty good value. It helps fill a lot of holes... and the team can still get a top tier DE at the #21 spot in the draft. Maybe a Carriker.

I'm looking forward to seeing what goes on here.

by TexSkins on Mar 7, 2007 1:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think Gibbs

understands and really wants to enjoy the benefit of a 2 back system.

Re: Springs contract, remember that we're the ones who pay his signing bonus if we traded him and then his contract is fairly reasonable. He essentially becomes a 4-5M a year player hit for whichever team picks him up, and I think that's a fairly reasonable amount of money for him to receive if you think he'll remain semi-healthy (which any team that is trading for him necessarily would).

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 7, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just read on your MILE HIGH REPORT

that the broncos were dangling wilson along with 1st 2nd and 3rd round picks for the redskins #6 overall pick

So with springs not included,I think its possible that bly is inserted for wilson

so essentially they are not "giving all those picks back" for 1 player,the broncos are using the draft point chart.

by Sincethebeginning on Mar 7, 2007 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's the same...

report you guys are talking about. La Canfora's column, and I, for one, think the Broncos would be complete idiots for doing that.

There is noone at 6 that is worth mortgaging our draft over. The Broncos aren't one player away, in my opinion. We had the worst special teams in the league last year, and are thin in a number of areas. I wasn't saying it wouldn't take all those picks to get the #6, just that I didn't think the Broncos would do it...

TSG
MILE HIGH REPORT

by TheSportsguru on Mar 7, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And I think...

The Broncos may have done it during the Combine becuase they wanted Adrian Peterson, who at the time was falling to #8 or so in a lot of Mock Drafts.

No way that is going to happen now, becuase Peterson will probably go #3, and the Broncos grabbed Henry. I know we are still really high on Betts, but if I were the Redskins I would hold onto him. All he does when he plays is produce...

TSG
MILE HIGH REPORT

by TheSportsguru on Mar 7, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most of the mock draft I saw...

had the Broncos taking a DE. Most of them had Carriker, but that's kinda a moot point. You're not high on Jamaal Anderson or Gaines Adams or Alan Branch to fit in with the existing Broncos defense?

And the trade in question would leave the Broncos with, I believe, the #6 pick, the #6 pick of the third round, and then the rest...

I think it makes sense if the team feels it's a player or two away. You're saying the team isn't, and I can'ty really argue because I don't know much about the team.

But who would you target in round 2 that wouldn't fall to the top of the third round? You can easily get Special teams players in rounds 3-7, plus the free agency period after the draft.

I dunno... I know it makes sense for the Redskins. I'm still trying to figure out why it doesn't make sense for the Broncos.

by TexSkins on Mar 7, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a fan...

of Branch.

Have Adams or Anderson is nice, but the Broncos need 2 D-Linemen at the very elast, and still have a weakness at safety. Plus, if we are trading Bly without getting a CB in return we are thin there as well. That may chance if we sign Macklin, but right now we'd be right where we were.

The Broncos would essentially have given up the following --

Dre Bly, Tatum Bell, George Foster, #21 Pick, #56, #87 and a 5th Rounder

And received the follwing --

#6 Pick, Detroit's 6th Rounder

All the moves would have to be looked at from the Broncos perspective, not each individually...

I wrote a whole post on how the Portis/Bailey deal helped the Broncos, and it went alot farther than just Bailey. I don't want the same thing to happen the other way around.

TSG
MILE HIGH REPORT

by TheSportsguru on Mar 7, 2007 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What happened to...

scrach my back I'll scratch yours?

Would the Broncos want Springs? Given the fact, as SP said, that the Skins would be paying his bonus money so he'd only be a $5 mil CB, that's not a bad price.

So then, #6 and Springs for #21, #56, and the Skins old 3rd rounder (what is that, #71?)

You'd upgrade at CB (I think Springs is a better CB) and move up to take a pass-rushing DE, while still having a 3rd rounder to use at S or at the other DE spot. I think it makes sense, but what says ye?

by TexSkins on Mar 7, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs