Redskins: 2012 Off-Season-Free Agency/Trades

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

I would make a offer to either one.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

NFL.com news: Super Bowls just aren't instantly won in free agency


Every Single Skins fan who wants us to get this guy and that guy and that guy in FA MUST READ this Article!!!!

And those that don't want free agents should pay attention to football. There is no problem with adding through free agency.. it is hard to build solely through the draft in today's game.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

For all intents and purposes the Browns are out...for now at least.

Based on... what the Rams want? What the Browns plan to do at the position otherwise? A little A a little B? Or something else?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Let me judge this sentence by sentence:

- I would like to think that but you'll find people on this board who still want to go out and get the big names

- I agree

- I won't freak out, but I don't think its the answer, and it can back fire and go under the 'dumb FA' signing column rather than the 'London Fletcher success' signing column

Big names aren't an issue either.. scheme fits and work ethic are... I.e. Jason Taylor was one of the best DEs but a terrible fit for what we do..

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Based on... what the Rams want? What the Browns plan to do at the position otherwise? A little A a little B? Or something else?

Honestly...based off a source that I don't usually rely on because he's not the most reliable. But he is a former Browns exec and does still have some connections there and he tells me they have told the Rams they will not trade the 2nd first round pick, and they're looking elsewhere for QB anyway.

[GTripp0012]

The Redskins would seem to have the market gaged correctly here. I wouldn't be shocked if they drop their offer to the Rams just before the league year starts because they know that they can't be topped.

I thought the Seahawks would be a darkhorse for the pick, but I totally forgot that the Rams would have no reason to deal RG3 to the Seahawks, a division rival. It's a really tiny market about the Browns, and the Rams need to keep the Redskins in it, or we're talking about the Dolphins and some way-down-the-board teams being the market for RG3.

You're not getting three first rounders out of that.

[GTripp0012]

I actually think the Redskins' willingness to trade a 2013 first rounder alone kicks out any team that isn't Miami, Denver, or Philadelphia out of this.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

And those that don't want free agents should pay attention to football. There is no problem with adding through free agency.. it is hard to build solely through the draft in today's game.

True, you go and sign a FA or two at the most. You don't go out and sign 3+ FA's and make them starters. Who was the last Super bowl team to do that?

[diehardskin2982]

Why would Philly give 2 first rounders for a back up to Vick? I think they are in it to drive up our cost.

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Redskins would seem to have the market gaged correctly here. I wouldn't be shocked if they drop their offer to the Rams just before the league year starts because they know that they can't be topped.

I thought the Seahawks would be a darkhorse for the pick, but I totally forgot that the Rams would have no reason to deal RG3 to the Seahawks, a division rival. It's a really tiny market about the Browns, and the Rams need to keep the Redskins in it, or we're talking about the Dolphins and some way-down-the-board teams being the market for RG3.

You're not getting three first rounders out of that.

They would be smart to sit and wait till draft day and see what other teams offer instead of jumping in and giving away the farm. I personally think the Browns won't give away 2 1st round picks.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Why would Philly give 2 first rounders for a back up to Vick? I think they are in it to drive up our cost.

A backup to Vick in 2012 sure, but that's not the reason they are after him.

[GTripp0012]

I want to lay out exactly why Philadelphia might get the itchin' for Griffin, and probably already put in their call to the Rams.

Right now, the Redskins have a relatively uncontested trade-in for the second pick. I think the Dolphins would be willing to top the Redskins offer for Griffin if they can't get Flynn or Manning, but unless sending Griffin to the AFC is enough of an incentive for the Rams to trade for the 8th pick instead of the 6th pick, the Redskins have the flexibility to top anything the Dolphins offer. If the Dolphins are willing to trade their first, second, and next year's first for Griffin, then yeah, the Redskins would have a tough decision to make: overpay for Griffin, or concede him to the Dolphins. They again, if the Rams think there are just four elite non-QB prospects, the Redskins might still have best offer.

But the one team that runs a system that fits Griffin even better than the Redskins might be the Eagles. He may not be worth more to them because they already have Vick, but they are only financially committed to Vick through the 2012 season. They can feasibly cut him loose after the season if they want to go with Griffin and need the cap room, making it more like a Matt Hasselbeck-Jake Locker type of scenario, something the Titans willingly entered into.

And the Eagles have two second round picks, and can easily afford to give up one of the two to justify a trade up from 15th to 2nd. With that said, if the Redskins wanted to do the Eli Manning deal, I doubt the Eagles would try to beat it. The 15th pick plus a mid second rounder is not quite as valuable to the Rams as the 6th overall pick. But what it could do is force the Redskins' hand on their decision to not trade that 39th overall pick. If Philadelphia were willing to trade both second rounders, Washington would need to offer their second rounder and third rounder to beat that offer. So Philly puts us in a world of hurt if they do that. Shanahan's in a no win situation: say no and he has to put a defense on the field that can defend RG3 WHILE rebuilding the offense, say yes and we're worse off as a team than if we said no.

And to be clear, I would not overpay for RG3 (read: give up the 39th pick) to keep him from the Dolphins. I would overpay for RG3 (and give up the 39th pick) to keep him from the Eagles. Because the Eagles aren't in a draft position to get Tannehill (who fits Philly's offense MUCH better than Washington's, even though he'll have to learn their terminology), preventing them from getting RG3 forces them to marry Vick for another season (2013), something I think they wouldn't do in a perfect world.

[T.O.Killa]

Anyone who thinks that the Redskins are going to get RG3 for two first round draft choices is sadly mistaken. There is no chance in hell that will happen. The Rams will keep the pick before that happens. Furthermore, the Redskins will give what ever it takes this year along with next years first to get RG3, if he is the guy they want. This all propaganda being put out to devalue the pick.

[GTripp0012]

But the Eagles and Dolphins might be the only two teams who can force the Redskins hand right now on RG3. And that means that the seat the Redskins have is pretty darn good.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Anyone who thinks that the Redskins are going to get RG3 for two first round draft choices is sadly mistaken. There is no chance in hell that will happen. The Rams will keep the pick before that happens. Furthermore, the Redskins will give what ever it takes this year along with next years first to get RG3, if he is the guy they want. This all propaganda being put out to devalue the pick.

You don't think the Rams would move to 6th overall from 2nd if they were picking up a first round pick in the process?

Would you not move from 6th to 12th overall if the Seahawks were going to give you their 2013 first rounder to make the move?