KENDALL to the Redskins (confirmed)

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My major concern is that Bugel / Gibbs doesn't like Wade right now and wanted a plan b.

How about the fact that they really didn't seem to have a plan B to begin with?

[SkinsFanSince91]

Good pick up. I was eying this a while ago, and I was thinking that since he doesn't wanna be there, then what about with us?

He is a definite, starting upgrade at the LG position, and we got him for a 5th?

Is 50 cent in the Front Office? Where any weapons brandished? Who gives a fcuk, we got ourselves a guard boys!!!

[Coff]

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

How about the fact that they really didn't seem to have a plan B to begin with?

They always have a plan B, it just happens that we don't always like plan B.

It's not like we had a ton of options to bring in a stud Guard, and we weren't paying what Dockery got for Dockery or anyone else.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

Kendall is still talented, and will be for 2 years. We didn't pay him a ton of money at all for a guard, and it sures up a spot on our line that was previously a question mark. If you haven't noticed only about 5% agree with you here, but 100% of us would say not to "waste" draft picks, meaning this was no waste...epsecially cause it's a 5th rounder. I think you think too highly of 5th rounders, cause this is a steal for us.

[DGreene28]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

THe success rate of 5th round picks is not very high. Kendall is above average LG... STILL! This year and most likely next. That value far out-weighs a 5th round pick.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

How about the fact that they really didn't seem to have a plan B to begin with?

I think their Plan B reads like this: "Plan B: Come up with a Plan B."

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

I'm not ecstatic about the move, but I don't think it's a disaster. I think giving up a mid to late round pick for some much needed depth on the O-line is a decent exchange.

This league is built around getting to the Super Bowl THIS season. Very few teams seem worried about building long term. How many players stick with one team for their entire career anymore?

For better or for worse the NFL is about instant gratification. Win a Super Bowl and think about the aftermath later.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not like we had a ton of options to bring in a stud Guard, and we weren't paying what Dockery got for Dockery or anyone else.

I agree, and I'm glad we didn't break the bank on a guard but I just think it was dumb to just assume that Wade could take over the spot, or at least play it better than any of the castoffs that we have to back him up.

I think this Kendall move will offer the best solution to the problem, but I just wish we weren't dealing with this issue in mid-August.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

I hear what you're saying, Coff and I tend to lean toward your argument some. However, I don't think you can adequately or objectively, for that matter, look at the Kendall acquistion outside of Dockery's departure. Because ultimatetly that's who he's here to replace; Derrick Dockery.

I think if we look at this is as him replacing Pucillo or better than Wade or than this guy or that guy, then the trade looks a little diffferent. The fact that it seems that Wade hasn't worked himself into the line up all that well and we've only seen Pucillo one full game, makes the situation seem as though we've failed at plugging that position. But if we backed this trade up, say, two or three months ago, then it probably doesn't look so bad from a monetary or experience standpoint.

Ask yourself, if we signed this guy two weeks after Dockery left, would I feel the same?

[BDBohnzie]

This is not a disaster move. A disaster move would be to continue a charade where the left guard spot is left wide open to be plugged with veteran tackles.

And this Plan B is better than Mayor Quimby's...

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

So you'd rather move forward with the disaster that is our current LG situation?

That's the problem here. The Todd Wade experiment was clearly not panning out. He's banged up and hasn't given any indication that he'll be up to starter quality by the time week one arrives. Would you rather roll with Pucillo as your starting LG? If the goal is to win football games, I'd say that's a pretty bad idea.

Are we happy about giving up a draft pick to shore up LG? Of course not. But it's WAY better than the alternative, which is lose.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I agree, and I'm glad we didn't break the bank on a guard but I just think it was dumb to just assume that Wade could take over the spot, or at least play it better than any of the castoffs that we have to back him up.

I think this Kendall move will offer the best solution to the problem, but I just wish we weren't dealing with this issue in mid-August.

I agree...mid august is a bit troubling...but like I said, I think they just realized that Wade won't cut it. At least they recognized it sooner than later.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I hear what you're saying, Coff and I tend to lean toward your argument some. However, I don't think you can adequately or objectively, for that matter, look at the Kendall acquistion outside of Dockery's departure. Because ultimatetly that's who he's here to replace; Derrick Dockery.

I think if we look at this is as him replacing Pucillo or better than Wade or than this guy or that guy, then the trade looks a little diffferent. The fact that it seems that Wade hasn't worked himself into the line up all that well and we've only seen Pucillo one full game, makes the situation seem as though we've failed at plugging that position. But if we backed this trade up, say, two or three months ago, then it probably doesn't look so bad from a monetary or experience standpoint.

Ask yourself, if we signed this guy two weeks after Dockery left, would I feel the same?

While I do miss Dock, he was not worth that kind of money. He was good, but was a product of his fellow teammates and coaching. Kendall is a pretty good replacement, and for half the money! Kendall is just a very small step down due to his age. But he could be just what we need.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I agree...mid august is a bit troubling...but like I said, I think they just realized that Wade won't cut it. At least they recognized it sooner than later.

True, and I'm also glad that they realized it now and not some time in mid October after Campbell got sacked for the 40th time by a DT.