Gardner to Vikes?

diehardskin2982

I think Gibbs's goal this offseason was to weed out the real players commited to the team from those commited to their own personal benefit. In the case of players like pierce or coles the goal for them seemed to be for the almighty dollar and their own personal stats, so i say good ridance to players like that. They may be good but they are not skins.

Trotter was to me a true eagle because he could have taken the big pay day in Kansas city but chose to stay an eagle for cheaper. We need players loyal to the frachise like that. Smoot is not getting the attention he thought he would get, so I do see him maybe coming back and he'll be better because he'll have a chip on his shoulder. Is he a true Redskin? that is left to be seen becasuse he still wants a big pay day. The last thing players want to do is upset fans, thats bad for business. So I don't even listen to what players may say in the media, like I want to come back and so on, becasue obviously their actions speak louder than words

__________________
Let's win games now...PLEASE

bigm29

its a lot easier to have loyal players when you make it to the super bowl

__________________
Hail Redskins!!!

Bozzy

yeah, exactly.

__________________
http://www.bozzysworld.com/

skinsguy

It's alot easier to make the Super Bowl with loyal players.

__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.

monk81

I like what Gibbs is doing fine so far......we upgraded at center with Rabach, we needed a replacement for Gardner at WR, we got Patten and Moss, if Coles had remained a happy camper we would have more cap room of course....but considering it all, if we re-sign Smoot and manage to get a DE thru the draft or Gardner trade.........I think the offseason was a success.......

__________________
"It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW

Mattyk

If Gardner to the Vikes means we have a better shot at Williams I'm all for it

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop

Gmanc711

Maybe we can trade Garnder for a contractual agreement that they wont take Williams or Edwards if they are there at #7. :headbange

__________________
#21

BrudLee

Why not Gardner and the 9th pick for the 7th? If he's worth no more than a third round pick, that's a steal for us.

__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

Daseal

Because we'd have to pay more to most likely the same player?

BrudLee

We'd pay more, but have Gardner's salary off the cap. We'd also have a better chance at the player we want, rather than the "best available" at a position.

__________________
There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

TheMalcolmConnection

So the Vikes might think that Gardner is their WR of the future? Tee hee. Hell, that's fine with me. You pick him and we'll take Williams.

__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

e16bball

If we are trading Gardner to the Vikes, I don't see any reason to make it the 9th and Gardner for the 7th, and this is why: If we trade them Gardner, they won't take a WR anyway. Thus, we gain nothing from moving up to 7, since the Cardinals assuredly won't take a WR. At 7, we would still be behind the Bears, Bucs, and Titans, all of whom may be threats to take a WR. We would be much better off taking a 3rd rounder from them for Gardner than moving up to number 7, if we did that trade.

I would still prefer a trade involving Gardner and the 9th going to Tampa Bay for the 5th. Even if we have to throw in another pick, it guarantees our guy.

TheMalcolmConnection

Exactly. So I'm guessing everyone is sold on Williams as our man? I'm liking Williamson as well and I think if we had to take him as a "last resort," I would be extremely satisfied with that kind of last resort.

__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.