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.

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 ...

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

[quote=Gmanc711;287997]If we do this, I'm done. I'll start spending my time concentrating on my actual life and getting a job.[/quote]

LMAO...LMAO

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

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

[quote=canthetuna;288142]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?[/quote]

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.

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.

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;288812]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

[quote=riggoraider;288813]You may be correct but how could you be so positive?[/quote]

1. JLC's blog said that it was Russell's agents who are trying to increase his value by starting a rumor that Snyder wants him. (Leonard Davis' agents did the same thing to Dallas)

2. Campbell has demonstrated that he is a NFL quarterback. Russell is an unknown commodity.

3. What do the Redskins have that another team would give them the #1 pick for (and the #1 pick would be the only way that they could get him)? They have one draft pick on the first day. Plus even my 3 week old knows that they need help on defense. Is Russell going to shut down the run?

4. 2007 is essentially Gibbs' last stand. There is no way that he is going to go out on the shoulders of a rookie QB that they would have give away the ranch to acquire.

5. After they dump Arch or Patten or both, they can't afford to pay a #1 pick.

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

Really? I also heard the Redskins are after Brady Quinn. They must value qb depth a hell of a lot more than a good d-line. [/sarcasm]

Re: Russell to the skins?
 

russell will not be a skin.campbell is the man nough said.