Boldin a Redskin?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by John Denny

Here's a scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet: we trade next year's first rounder to get into the second this year. maybe we score another pick but then again, maybe we don't.

Trade next year's 1st for this year's 2nd and what else? Trading a 1st for a 2nd straight up would just be dumb. Especially if we end up having a losing record this year and end up in the top half of the 2010 draft.

[John Denny]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Trade next year's 1st for this year's 2nd and what else? Trading a 1st for a 2nd straight up would just be dumb. Especially if we end up having a losing record this year and end up in the top half of the 2010 draft.

I'm not saying it's smart. I'm just saying I wouldn't put it past Cerrato.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by John Denny

I'm not saying it's smart. I'm just saying I wouldn't put it past Cerrato.

You mean you wouldn't put it past Snyder. I am currently convinced that Vinny Cerrato is Dan Snyder's hologram - a creation of the Tiny Meddler to impose his will undercover. It would explain those odd bug-eyes on Vinny.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Which brings us back to the point that we really shouldn't package multiple picks to move up and get anyone, Mack included. Any draft day trading for us should involve acquiring more picks, not shedding them. Unless we somehow think we're going to hit the June 1st lottery with FA. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me.

Well another way of looking at it would be, are we going to get any starters the caliber of Mack with the later picks? I'm all for getting more picks but I doubt we would get a starter in the later rounds. Mack would probably start. If not right away, then very soon. It's possible we could get another Horton, but I would'nt put him on the same level as Mack. As much as I would like depth, I'm more concerned about fielding a starting team that can move the ball.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Which brings us back to the point that we really shouldn't package multiple picks to move up and get anyone, Mack included. Any draft day trading for us should involve acquiring more picks, not shedding them. Unless we somehow think we're going to hit the June 1st lottery with FA. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me.

You make an excellent point, GMScud. It may be that, given our many needs, coming out of the draft with just two studs, however studly they may be, is a luxury that we cannot afford.

I am correct that the June 1st secondary free agent date has been eliminated from the NFL calendar? I could be wrong but it seems to me that I read it somewhere.

Oops - edit - I meant a question - Am I correct...

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You make an excellent point, GMScud. It may be that, given our many needs, coming out of the draft with just two studs, however studly they may be, is a luxury that we cannot afford.
I am correct that the June 1st secondary free agent date has been eliminated from the NFL calendar? I could be wrong but it seems to me that I read it somewhere.

I would be tickled to death to come out of this draft with 2 studs. Especially with one being on the o-line and one being a LB. After we draft, you may be too.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Well another way of looking at it would be, are we going to get any starters the caliber of Mack with the later picks? I'm all for getting more picks but I doubt we would get a starter in the later rounds. Mack would probably start. If not right away, then very soon. It's possible we could get another Horton, but I would'nt put him on the same level as Mack. As much as I would like depth, I'm more concerned about fielding a starting team that can move the ball.

I'm with you on the starting team argument. But if someone gets hurt, and you have no depth, then you wish you had had more picks. Plus who'd have thunk that Horton, nearly Mr. Irrelevant, would be such a great rookie starter? I know that it's rare to have such happen, though.

I suppose I'm not taking a side in this argument because I see the merits of both sides. It'd be great to have just a couple of real quality players. It'd be great to have many rookies in camp, too.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Well another way of looking at it would be, are we going to get any starters the caliber of Mack with the later picks? I'm all for getting more picks but I doubt we would get a starter in the later rounds. Mack would probably start. If not right away, then very soon. It's possible we could get another Horton, but I would'nt put him on the same level as Mack. As much as I would like depth, I'm more concerned about fielding a starting team that can move the ball.

No, but pre-draft, you can argue that about any 1st/2nd rounder as compared to later round players. I already made my argument with regard to the way the team currently feels about Rabach, and you even acknowledged that Mack may not even start right away for us. Then you say you're primarily concerned with fielding a starting team that can move the ball. Our coaches/FO feel that Rabach is entrenched at the center position, so drafting Mack seems really unlikely. And even if we did, he may not be an immediate starter.

Look, I understand what you're getting at, but given our needs at DE, OT, and LB, I think packaging what little picks we have and putting our eggs in the basket of one player who plays a position that isn't even in our top 3 need spots... well you see what I mean.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'm with you on the starting team argument. But if someone gets hurt, and you have no depth, then you wish you had had more picks. Plus who'd have thunk that Horton, nearly Mr. Irrelevant, would be such a great rookie starter? I know that it's rare to have such happen, though.

I suppose I'm not taking a side in this argument because I see the merits of both sides. It'd be great to have just a couple of real quality players. It'd be great to have many rookies in camp, too.

I can see both sides too. We could sure use some more picks. But if we were to trade a couple of picks for a higher pick, say a 3rd and 5th for a 2nd and were able to get Mack, I'd jump on it. We'd only be losing one pick and be getting an outstanding player as opposed to whoever's available in the 3rd and 5th. If we had'nt given away our 2nd pick for that AWESOME Jason Taylor deal, we'd be sitting pretty good and probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Lotus]

If we use ESPN's draft chart here, we see that Mack (or whoever else) would have to fall pretty far in the second round before we could put together a third and a fifth to get him.

Yeah, that 2nd pick for Jason Taylor was not the best trade. Neither was the 7th for Erasmus James, who was about to get cut anyway.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

No, but pre-draft, you can argue that about any 1st/2nd rounder as compared to later round players. I already made my argument with regard to the way the team currently feels about Rabach, and you even acknowledged that Mack may not even start right away for us. Then you say you're primarily concerned with fielding a starting team that can move the ball. Our coaches/FO feel that Rabach is entrenched at the center position, so drafting Mack seems really unlikely. And even if we did, he may not be an immediate starter.

Look, I understand what you're getting at, but given our needs at DE, OT, and LB, I think packaging what little picks we have and putting our eggs in the basket of one player who plays a position that isn't even in our top 3 need spots... well you see what I mean.

What I meant by that is he may sit the first few games but I think he would start by mid-season. Anyway I understand your point GMScud.

[Lotus]

I edited my earlier post because I meant to pose a question, this question: Is there still a June 1 milestone on the NFL calendar?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given what we have to work with, that would be a very good draft.

Of course, the problem there is the limited number of players which we would score. We would really not be adding any depth, a perennial Redskins problem. And we would still have OT issues. I'm not disagreeing with the draft strategy as much as I am lamenting the paltry number of picks which we have to work with.

Excellent point Lotus. Our biggest depth issues are @ OT and LB i think (along w/ center if we acknowledge Rabach as a liability. Seems like the FO is foregoing a high rated OT in this draft cuz none are likely to fall to us. Well, i've been saying it will be totally irresponsible for us to enter the season w/ our current set of OTs - we need to add a legit guy. I think the FO needs to bite the bullet and pay a guy like Levi Jones (likely to be cut after the draft) enough money to sign w/ us...let Jansen, Heyer, new guy compete for the starting job and keep the other two as backups knowing damn well there will be injuries regardless of the who the starter is. This is common sense IMHO...so I doubt it goes down this way.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I edited my earlier post because I meant to pose a question, this question: Is there still a June 1 milestone on the NFL calendar?

I'm drawing a blank because I thought I read about a change somewhere. Good question.

[The Goat]

No the June 1 designation was canceled guys...can't remember when exactly. Like i keep sayin we should see some nice talent on the market shortly after next weekend. I hope the FO's stinginess since the beginning of FA has been purposeful in that regard...