Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   NFL Draft Central (http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/)
-   -   Trading up to #2 (http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/5748-trading-up-to-2-a.html)

ST21 04-05-2005 03:35 PM

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?:coach:

TheMalcolmConnection 04-05-2005 03:37 PM

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.

Red Robert 04-05-2005 04:16 PM

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.

offiss 04-05-2005 04:46 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=Red Robert]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.[/QUOTE]


We already have 2 explosive return men in Moss and Brown, as well Gibbs does not like to use a star player on returns for fear of injury [ala D.Green] I am for taking a CB but I want to deal down and pick up a 2nd rounder as well and look for a WR with that pick, no way we deal up for anyone.

cpayne5 04-05-2005 04:55 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
I say trade down, collect picks, and make good, solid 'for the long term' selections.

Redskins_P 04-05-2005 05:09 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=cpayne5]I say trade down, collect picks, and make good, solid 'for the long term' selections.[/QUOTE]


Agreed, if we can't get Williams then trade down.

PSUskinsfan11 04-05-2005 05:18 PM

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

MTK 04-05-2005 05:57 PM

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.

sportscurmudgeon 04-05-2005 07:14 PM

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...

MTK 04-05-2005 07:46 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
Yeah there really is no clear cut #1 pick, not a good year to be a bad team!

Monksdown 04-05-2005 08:29 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

He was very adamant about it too Matty. Moving up in this draft has been addressed. And we are not doing it.

offiss 04-05-2005 08:45 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

Thank You!

SKINSnCANES 04-05-2005 09:17 PM

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.

KLHJ2 04-05-2005 09:30 PM

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.

wolfeskins 04-05-2005 11:28 PM

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.

BrudLee 04-06-2005 08:45 AM

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.

backrow 04-06-2005 11:04 AM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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 .............................

PSUSkinsFan21 04-06-2005 01:53 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
[QUOTE=backrow]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 .............................[/QUOTE]

I disagree on a few points. First, neither Moss nor Patten are #1 WRs, so the loss of Coles has not really been addressed unless we are satisfied going into the season with a host of #2 and #3 WRs.

Second, Walt Harris is not an adequate replacement for Smoot. He's fine as a Nickle CB, but he's certainly not a shut-down corner and I think one of the top three CBs in the draft would fill that void better.

Third, as for taking the best player available without exception, I don't think that's necessarily drafting with your head over your heart. If the BPA is a RB, then why draft a guy that won't see the playing field if you could have gotten a starting-caliber CB, WR, or DE that were just a player or two down the list who will play every down? I don't know of any team that would pick a first rounder based soley on BPA. Arguably the Eagles or Patriots could afford it because they are so deep at so many positions, but a main purpose of the draft is to fill needs. First rounders are expected to start, and they are paid a salary that represents that. No team is going to spend a few million on a first rounder that they don't actually need. All just my opinion.

I agree we may not get a suitor for trading down, and I agree we don't really need a MLB or TE. I also don't see us trading up.

TheMalcolmConnection 04-06-2005 03:02 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
I'm definitely content with the #9 position. However, if the players that most of us are partial to are gone, I DO hope we can find a suitor to trade down with.

itvnetop 04-07-2005 07:52 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
dallas may trade up to 2 to nab Williams... Keyshawn is causing contract drama in big D right now...

TheMalcolmConnection 04-07-2005 08:28 PM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
Fine by me if Dallas wants to grab him. It's another of my "hunches" but Williams really IS the young version of Keyshawn. I saw one clip especially of a CB who couldn't have been over 180 jam him to where he couldn't even get off the line.

itvnetop 04-08-2005 12:12 AM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
trust me bro... as a skins fan (and trojan alum), bmw is not someone you want to see lining up against us twice a year...

TheMalcolmConnection 04-08-2005 08:27 AM

Re: Trading up to #2
 
Unless Rolle is defending him. ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.04541 seconds with 8 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