Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=WaldSkins;368881]i still say we are good enough at reciever.[/quote]

what have you seen so far that makes you say that? we need wr's in the worst way. but ocho cinco is not coming here.

Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;368886]Not to say he wouldn't be a GREAT addition, but seriously, let's try to work with the draft some. Let's look at a young WR in the second or third rounds and see how that works out.[/quote]

Probably like Mike Westbrook, Desmond Howard, Rod Gardner, Darnerien McCants and Taylor Jacobs. :)

Re: Trading #85
 

In case I'm judging your sarcasm correctly or not... are you saying that since those picks haven't worked out we should just give up on drafting WRs?

Re: Trading #85
 

I'm not sure Gibbs would mesh well with Hall of fame class of ???
Is he more anican than vader? Meaning, do you see him as being more Portis type "fun" or does he have some TO destructiveness in him?

Re: Trading #85
 

I was hoping this thread was discussing the options of trading Brandon Lloyd. The is no way the Redskins would ever sign Chad Johnson. He is not a Gibbs type player. Nor would Chad Johnson want to go to Washington. If I were the Bengals, I would demand a ridiculous trade offer.

Re: Trading #85
 

what kind of value do you think we'd get for lloyd? i mean, we gave up a 4th rounder right? he's done nothing for us...the best thing we'd have going for us by trading him is to shed salary. I'd say 6 rounder at best...

Re: Trading #85
 

In all honesty this might be Gibbs last season if he doesn't make a move close to the super bowl his contract is up after this season so this talk about CJ not being a Gibb-type player might not matter.

Re: Trading #85
 

[QUOTE=LaRon + Sean = Hell 4 U;369198]In all honesty this might be Gibbs last season if he doesn't make a move close to the super bowl his contract is up after this season so this talk about CJ not being a Gibb-type player might not matter.[/QUOTE]

You're kidding right?

Re: Trading #85
 

[QUOTE]You're kidding right?[/QUOTE]

No I seriously thought this is the last year on his contract I might be wrong

Re: Trading #85
 

[QUOTE=LaRon + Sean = Hell 4 U;369203]No I seriously thought this is the last year on his contract I might be wrong[/QUOTE]

You are. It's 2009, not 2008

Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=TheBigD;368894]WHAT! 2 first round picks, who is this Ocho Cinco you speak of? He is a good player, no doubt, but no reciever would be traded for 2 first round picks.[/quote]

Joey Galloway ring a bell?

Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=TheBigD;368894]WHAT! 2 first round picks, who is this Ocho Cinco you speak of? He is a good player, no doubt, but no reciever would be traded for 2 first round picks.[/quote]

I agree no one will pony up two first rounders for Chad. Moss went for the #7 pick and Nap Harris when he went from Minnesota to Oakland (NE stole him this past year) and Javon Walker went for a #2. I don't think Chad is going anywhere, especially since he is not lobbying to get out of the Queen City. Those other guys all wanted out. Probably would take a high #2 to get him, but the way the Skins trade it'd probably be Sean Taylor and a first round pick [bitter sarcasm obviously].

P.S.

Remember the good old days when we got two first for Sean Gilbert?

Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;369212]I agree no one will pony up two first rounders for Chad. Moss went for the #7 pick and Nap Harris when he went from Minnesota to Oakland (NE stole him this past year) and Javon Walker went for a #2. I don't think Chad is going anywhere, especially since he is not lobbying to get out of the Queen City. Those other guys all wanted out. Probably would take a high #2 to get him, but the way the Skins trade it'd probably be Sean Taylor and a first round pick [bitter sarcasm obviously].

P.S.

Remember the good old days when we got two first for Sean Gilbert?[/quote]
Yep, these days, GMs and team presidents know very well the value of draft picks. I think it has to do with the quality of the players coming out of college. I mean look at next years draft and how many good RBs it will have. WRs these days don't have to be great, good one are fine with all the new rules that won't allow DBs to get near them till they get the ball.

Re: Trading #85
 

[quote=SouperMeister;368937]CJ will demand far more money than we're already paying Moss, and I have my doubts that Gibbs will ever loosen the reigns on Campbell. The Cowboys and Packers all but handed us a blueprint to attack the weak Giants secondary early and often, yet Gibbs stuck with a conservative approach with the lead in that game, as he did last week vs. Arizona with the lead. I guarantee that if Brady gets us down, he will step on the Skins' collective throats on Sunday. Gibbs seemingly prefers to play for a 17-14 win than to bury an opponent that's down. CJ's talents would be wasted here.[/quote]


I agree with you thought on Gibbs killer instinct!

We need to go and win the game not just be in it!

Re: Trading #85
 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thou shalt not give up precious draft picks any longer. If anything, we trade Lloyd for the highest pick we can get out of him. Receiving corp is not elite, but then again I keep pointing out that Saunders never had an elite group at KC but created huge production. He could do a lot w/ ARE, Moss, Cooley, Caldwell and Portis/Betts out of the backfield once Gibbs is out of the way (no longer there to influence play-calling).

We need draft to address: right-tackle, cornerback (Springs probably gone), d-line, then maybe receiver [B]or running back [/B] (how's that for a little controversy).