Russell to the skins?

rvd420 · 03-16-2007, 02:18 PM

whoever thinks we are getting russell needs to stop smoking meth cause it aint happenin.

rvd420 · 03-16-2007, 02:22 PM

:smashfrea we are not trading portis and we do need a tall reciever but it will be in the later rounds if we do.

Southpaw · 03-16-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And specifically at the Warpath, we are supposed to be smarter than fans at other Redskin sites. This is where we come to have KNOWLEDGABLE discussion about the Redskins.

....

rvd420 · 03-16-2007, 08:21 PM

:smashfrea were more than likely trading down.we have more than one need.portis gets hurt one year and everybody thinks hes done.how sad.
portis is goin no where.

holcknowsbest · 03-16-2007, 11:52 PM

wait wait, we werent there looking at russell, we are there looking at laron laundry. the falcons love this guy and they are at 10, if we show intrest in laundry then that gives us another potential trade partner. its all gamesmanship by gibbs and company......why would we want russell when we already have a guy with the same style and skills as him. its a joke so calm down fokes.

Crazyhorse1 · 03-17-2007, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

No way. No one will touch AA's contract.

I'm hoping we can trade AA for Bly and that JaMarcus with fall to us at #6. After that, I'd like to pick up Gaines Adams in the third and Okoye in the fourth. Maybe we can pick up Calvin Johnson after that but think we might have to settle for Branch.

jsarno · 03-17-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I'm hoping we can trade AA for Bly and that JaMarcus with fall to us at #6. After that, I'd like to pick up Gaines Adams in the third and Okoye in the fourth. Maybe we can pick up Calvin Johnson after that but think we might have to settle for Branch.

WHAT??? Adams in the 3rd??? You mean 3rd pick overall right? Cause he's a top 10 prospect. This post makes absolutely no sense...come to think of it, why am I even bother to make a reply on a pipe dream? Shame on me.

dmek25 · 03-17-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100% PURE WHOOP ASS

2 players we dont need....are you serious, outside of moss/ Lioyd and randell at best is poor 2nd and 3rd receivers, antwann a great returned, but Calvin Johnson is a beast a freak of nature, and adrian peterson, is probably going to be a stud in 2 yrs, we still have Betts, and Jason Campbell will have a speedster and big target to through to, which means betts and peterson, will keep the 8 man from honest.....I LOVE PORTIS, THINK HES GREAT, but how much longer you think he will hold up, i hope forever but last year is a bad sign,........but sorr dmek25, i guess your opinion is the only one that counts

first off, I'm not trying to say my opinion is right, I'm am just stating it. and secondly, all 3 of those receivers are proven NFL players. we do not need another reciever. and if you watched the redskins last season, ladell betts is a fine BACK UP. i don't think any of us want our main ball carrier to fumble as much, especially in crucial times, as betts as shown a tendency to. and if we do what you want, who the hell is playing defense? i for one do not want the same cast as we had on the field last year. we already proved that doesn't work

JoeRedskin · 03-17-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvd420

aa for bly could happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvd420

just like no one would give dockery a ludicrous contract!thats proof that aa for bly could happen.

So, an unrelated transaction in which a team needing O-Line help, paid an exhorbitant amount for one of the top 3 guards on the market in a market flush with new money, IS ABSOLUTE PROOFthat a team with a hard hitting safety that is a liability in coverage (John Lynch anyone), having just traded 2 starters and a fifth round choice for a top-flight CB, will turn around and trade that CB for a third string safety that everyone acknowledges is a liability in coverage.

Why yes, the logic of your statement is irrefutable. The sun comes up every morning PROVES that cows give milk.

rvd420 · 03-17-2007, 03:51 PM

archy is not third string.he just doesnt fit our system.i mean look at how he was when he played for the rams.thats why we got him last year,but he didnt work in our system.

JoeRedskin · 03-17-2007, 06:47 PM

you're right. He's not third string. He's not even rated that high.

Yeah, he doesn't fit our system. He doesn't fit any system that requires him to play deep and cover someone - so he should be fine as long as they don't want him to play safety. Oh, wait ...

riggoraider · 03-17-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

If we do this, I'm done. I'll start spending my time concentrating on my actual life and getting a job.

LMAO...LMAO

I know that your parents are praying that Russell comes to the 'Skins

riggoraider · 03-17-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canthetuna

If Russel was available at #6 (and he won't be) and we didn't take him I'd be pissed. With the Raiders showing that they may not be as interested in him as once thought, different scenarios may play out that allow him to fall, so the FO has to be prepared for that, and if he's available why would we not take him?

Again, the Brees/Rivers thing was a good problem to have. Having Brunell as a backup doesn't give us much options in the coming years and Joe Gibbs himself says the #1 most important position on the team is the starting QB, and the #2 is the Backup QB...

I also think, if we hadn't already spent all of our picks, and were in a position to make a move we should.... but thats completely hypothetical and doesn't matter because we are not in a position to do so and would give up entirely too much if it were calling for movement up to #1 to take him...

But... what if he falls to #4, and we could give up Adam Archuletta, Sean Springs, and our #6 pick to move up to take him... and somehow get dre bly in the process... would we do it?

I think that people are missing the point of the article. They were not talking IF Russell falls to #6 they were talking about us trading down to #1 with Campbell packaged in said trade so that we can draft Russell.

Just wanted to set the facts straight.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-18-2007, 12:18 AM

The facts are that I have a better chance of being on the Redskins next year than Jamarcus Russell. There is less than zero chance that he will be here.

riggoraider · 03-18-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

The facts are that I have a better chance of being on the Redskins next year than Jamarcus Russell. There is less than zero chance that he will be here.

You may be correct but how could you be so positive?

If there is one dude in the league who shows that this is my money and I am going to spend it the way that I want to spend it. It is Daniel Snyder.

03-16-2007, 02:18 PM	#106
rvd420 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 227	Re: Russell to the skins? whoever thinks we are getting russell needs to stop smoking meth cause it aint happenin.

03-16-2007, 02:22 PM	#107
rvd420 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 227	Re: Russell to the skins? :smashfrea we are not trading portis and we do need a tall reciever but it will be in the later rounds if we do.

03-16-2007, 08:21 PM	#109
rvd420 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 227	Re: Russell to the skins? :smashfrea were more than likely trading down.we have more than one need.portis gets hurt one year and everybody thinks hes done.how sad. portis is goin no where.

03-16-2007, 11:52 PM	#110
holcknowsbest Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 240	Re: Russell to the skins? wait wait, we werent there looking at russell, we are there looking at laron laundry. the falcons love this guy and they are at 10, if we show intrest in laundry then that gives us another potential trade partner. its all gamesmanship by gibbs and company......why would we want russell when we already have a guy with the same style and skills as him. its a joke so calm down fokes.

03-17-2007, 03:51 PM	#115
rvd420 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 227	Re: Russell to the skins? archy is not third string.he just doesnt fit our system.i mean look at how he was when he played for the rams.thats why we got him last year,but he didnt work in our system.

03-17-2007, 06:47 PM	#116
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 50 Posts: 7,140	Re: Russell to the skins? you're right. He's not third string. He's not even rated that high. Yeah, he doesn't fit our system. He doesn't fit any system that requires him to play deep and cover someone - so he should be fine as long as they don't want him to play safety. Oh, wait ... __________________ My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

03-18-2007, 12:18 AM	#119
Pocket$ $traight Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Fairfax, VA Age: 36 Posts: 4,261	Re: Russell to the skins? The facts are that I have a better chance of being on the Redskins next year than Jamarcus Russell. There is less than zero chance that he will be here.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Russell to the skins?

NFL Draft Central