Redskins Potentially Interested in Trading Up For Gabbert

Not to show my frustration towards you SS, your the messenger, but WHY THE F#CK WOULD WE TRADE UP FOR LOCKER??!?!?!?!?!

he's supposed to go late in the draft, and should definitely be there for us at 10, so why would we waste picks on a third round talent in the first round. It's going to be like the Raiders taking Heyward-Bey.

I'm already pissed that we want to draft a QB, I'm more pissed that we want to trade up/draft Gabbert, I'm extremely pissed that we still want Locker in the first round, I'm Fing Livid that we want to trade up for his crappy inaccurate ass!!!

Because someone ahead of us wants him?

Because someone ahead of us wants him?

Basically, the rules kind of go out the window with QBs. He'll land somewhere between 5 and 15 (in my opinion) because the prospect of him being awesome is too enticing. More so, I suppose, than the fear of him being a bust

Funny that QB is the one position where it's generally accepted that guys are going to be over-valued. Parcells touched on this last night, where a position like RB has become almost under-valued these days.

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

Yeah that's funny because I remember when I was the driver of the Bradford bandwagon and I got reemed because "he's injury prone" or "the spread offense doesn't help him in the NFL" etc .

I have been saying it until I am blue in the face on here...if Gabbert is the guy they think can be their franchise QB then I am all for them doing whatever they have to do to get him.

Personally I am hoping that locker is the guy they really want...but my main concern is that when the dust settles on Saturday we have secured Shannys guy.

The term "smokescreen" comes to mind. Plus, when is JLC ever right?

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I was against getting Bradford because it would have meant trading up to get him. I also didn't think we had an offensive line to protect any QB, let alone a rookie. As talented as Bradford is I don't think he would have had the success he had in St. Louis here with us with an offensive line minus Trent Williams.

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I'll take my lumps here. I was against taking Bradford at #4 last year (partly because I was firm on the Colt McCoy in round 2 bandwagon). Suffice it to say...my opinion may have been a tad off.

That being said. Sam Bradford passed for 50 touchdowns in his last full season in the NCAA. Gabbert passed for 16. Both operated in pass oriented systems.

Locker at #10!!!

I was against getting Bradford because it would have meant trading up to get him. I also didn't think we had an offensive line to protect any QB, let alone a rookie. As talented as Bradford is I don't think he would have had the success he had in St. Louis here with us with an offensive line minus Trent Williams.

Wait you don't think he would of had the same success why? Do you really think the Rams are that much better then the Skins. Umm no. They are not. The olines are pretty equal. We have better Wr's and a better tight end. Running game no, S Jackson def helped but I think Sam would have done pretty good here

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I was very against taking Bradford after the McNabb trade happened.

Before that wasted effort, I was against it mostly due to his injury, but would have accepted it, just like I came to accept the trade for McNabb.