Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


Trading up to #2

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2005, 03:35 PM   #1
Impact Rookie
 
ST21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 519
Trading up to #2

Since we all want an impact player in the draft, why not trade...Garner, #9 and Betts, to Miami for there #2 and take Braylon Edwards....then we can compete with the Eagles in the Division for the Title...... or if we could Trade to get the #2 who would you take?
ST21 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-05-2005, 03:37 PM   #2
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,463
Re: Trading up to #2

I'm not really sold on Edwards. As anyone knows, I'm one of the bigger Williams supporters. I definitely would not want to lose our depth at RB. If SOMEHOW we could get the #2 (which I don't think could happen in any situation), of course I'd take Williams. If all the players I listed in MY preferred draftees list are gone, I'd say trade down for more picks.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 04:16 PM   #3
Special Teams
 
Red Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Age: 44
Posts: 306
Re: Trading up to #2

Malcolm once again I agree with you on most of your comments. I however feel we should pass on Williams and get the best corner available in the draft. I think "pac-man" Jones would do more for us. The replacement of Smoot is obvious but Jones is also an explosive return man. Morton has not really done much for us an I suspect he will be cut in June. IF NOT that I think like you that trading down for more picks is a better option.
Red Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 04:55 PM   #4
Playmaker
 
cpayne5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,807
Re: Trading up to #2

I say trade down, collect picks, and make good, solid 'for the long term' selections.
__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."
cpayne5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 05:09 PM   #5
Fight for old DC!
 
Redskins_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Falls Church, VA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,085
Re: Trading up to #2

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpayne5
I say trade down, collect picks, and make good, solid 'for the long term' selections.

Agreed, if we can't get Williams then trade down.
Redskins_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 05:18 PM   #6
Impact Rookie
 
PSUskinsfan11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the port, PA
Age: 29
Posts: 692
Re: Trading up to #2

I would love to have williams but I say CB is more important right now. I say Rolle at 9 and if he is gone trade down and get Rogers or Miller in the mid 1st
PSUskinsfan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 05:57 PM   #7
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,408
Re: Trading up to #2

You never know, but, Vinny C. said on the extremeskins chat that the Skins aren't interested in trading up mainly because of the cap concerns that goes along with a top 5 pick.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 07:14 PM   #8
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Trading up to #2

Both the Niners (at #1 overall) and the Dolphins (at #2 overall) are ACTIVELY looking to trade down. The reason is that the consensus this year is that the draft is one of the worst ones in memory in terms of "star players" and "impact players".

Everyone will be looking to try to get more picks in lower spots (smaller cap hits) and so that market may be difficult to navigate. Now if a team really wants to move up and thinks it has some kind of scouting edge, they COULD grab the #1 and #2 picks this year. If a team does that, their scouts better be right because those contracts will become painful in about 3 years...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 07:46 PM   #9
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,408
Re: Trading up to #2

Yeah there really is no clear cut #1 pick, not a good year to be a bad team!
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 08:29 PM   #10
Robert Griffin III
 
Monksdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 33
Posts: 1,495
Re: Trading up to #2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72
You never know, but, Vinny C. said on the extremeskins chat that the Skins aren't interested in trading up mainly because of the cap concerns that goes along with a top 5 pick.
He was very adamant about it too Matty. Moving up in this draft has been addressed. And we are not doing it.
__________________
Robert Griffin III
Monksdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 09:17 PM   #11
Pro Bowl
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Age: 32
Posts: 5,411
Re: Trading up to #2

If we move up in the draft it will be on draft day, and not more than a few slots. IF,and this is a big if, IF they are really sold on a guy and really want him they might make one of thoes moves where you go up a pick or two just to make sure you get him. Assuming you think someone else wants the same guy. I do see this happening a lot in this years draft, probably not with us though.
__________________
"I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis
SKINSnCANES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 09:30 PM   #12
Inactive
 
KLHJ2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DC Metro Area
Age: 35
Posts: 5,829
Re: Trading up to #2

I do not see us moving anywhere at all. I believe that we have a good position in the draft minus a second round pick. Low enough to get an impact player, and high enough to not have to pony up the dough for him. However, I am no pshycic. The draft will prove to be interesting.
KLHJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2005, 11:28 PM   #13
The Starter
 
wolfeskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: chesapeake,va.
Posts: 2,160
Re: Trading up to #2

i agree with you angryssg. i think the 9 spot is a good place to be. i'm torn between the skins picking a cb or a wr.
wolfeskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2005, 08:45 AM   #14
Playmaker
 
BrudLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE
Posts: 3,494
Re: Trading up to #2

I wouldn't mind moving up (with a trade of the 9th, our third rounder, and Gardner) to the #2 pick, only to move down to around 15th in the first and second round.
__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.
BrudLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2005, 11:04 AM   #15
The Starter
 
backrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 36.28 x 76.22
Age: 62
Posts: 1,808
Re: Trading up to #2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72
You never know, but, Vinny C. said on the extremeskins chat that the Skins aren't interested in trading up mainly because of the cap concerns that goes along with a top 5 pick.
In addition to us not trading up, it is impossible to trade down unless you receive a trade proposal from a team wishing to trade up! A number of folks have wistfully proposed a trade down gathering more picks in the process.

Fine, but you have to have a trade partner propose such. I have scanned several Mocks for the 10th - 32nd picks, less the cowroids, gints & egirls picks of course. Any position in that area looks great on paper, and I'm for it. But please don't think trade-downs grow on trees!

The most likely scenario is us sticking at the #9th spot, and picking the BPA! Unfortunately, we have yet to determine who that BPA is! Do not mock with your heart, pre-supposing it will be a "need" either! The BPA is simply that, the BPA, regardless of need!

I've seen fans pre-suppose we need a WR because of Coles and Gardner.
They seemingly forget the acquisition of Moss & Patten.
I've seen fans pre-suppose a CB because of the loss of Smoot. The FO signed Walt Harris last year in anticipation of a potential loss of Smoot this year! Great thinking!
Some fans pre-suppose we need a MLB, because we lost Pierce, but we have several ladies-in-waiting, Lemarr, Clifton, and Mike Barrow (possibly).
Some say we "need" a TE. The best indicator of us not needing one is last year's draft with KWII ready, willing, and admitting he was as good as drafted by the Redskins. Didn't happen. We got a Hybrid H-Back in Cooley, and have Royal, who came on late last year.

So, I'm just not sure that we draft purely for "need"!
And from what I've read, we aren't trading up. What HOF Coach Gibbs is doing is laying down a very thick smoke screen with camoflage and mirrors regarding this upcoming draft.

Now, compound all of the above with all of the many varied possible selections of teams drafting 1-8, and you have a monumental task to guess who is coming to dinner when Commisioner Tagliabue steps to the Microphone and announces: "With the 9th pick in the NFL Draft, the Washington Redskins .............................
__________________
'37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship!
backrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.27220 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25